Page 37 - Demo

35How attractiveness affects implicit cognition 2Table 1. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 1.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.17 1.54 -2.26, 2.73Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 0.58 0.69 -0.52, 1.69Condition [attractive vs. intermediate] -1.88 0.71 -3.02, -0.75Condition [unattractive vs. intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 4.03 0.88 2.64, 5.45Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 12.36 1.27 10.50, 14.54sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05, 1.34sd[by-subject slope] Probe Location [interme,diately attractive]0.96 0.82 0.10, 2.62sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]1.81 1.05 0.26, 3.59sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 6.58 1.04 4.94, 8.25Nobs = 11437Nsubj = 150Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.Experiment 2MethodsParticipantsExperiment 2 included 150 new participants. Participants had normal orcorrected-to-normal vision, and could participate regardless of their sexualorientation. However, given the small number of non-heterosexual partici,pants (N = 10), they were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, thedataset for Experiment 2 included 140 participants (68 females, mean age =38.66 years old, SD = 11.64, ranging from 17 to 67 years old). Participantswere visitors at the Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands).The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration ofHelsinki and the study was reviewed and approved by the Psychology EthicsCommittee of Leiden University (CEP19-0612/343). Participants were notcompensated for their participation.Experimental designThe experiment held a randomized within-subjects design, where the fixedfactor comprised the location of the probe (behind symmetrical or asymmet,rical face) and the combination (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs.original, symmetrized vs. asymmetrized). The dependent variable was RTTable 1. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 1.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.17 1.54 -2.26, 2.73Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 0.58 0.69 -0.52, 1.69Condition [attractive vs. intermediate] -1.88 0.71 -3.02, -0.75Condition [unattractive vs. intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 4.03 0.88 2.64, 5.45Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 12.36 1.27 10.50, 14.54sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05, 1.34sd[by-subject slope] Probe Location [interme,diately attractive]0.96 0.82 0.10, 2.62sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]1.81 1.05 0.26, 3.59sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 6.58 1.04 4.94, 8.25Nobs = 11437Nsubj = 150Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.Experiment 2MethodsParticipantsExperiment 2 included 150 new participants. Participants had normal orcorrected-to-normal vision, and could participate regardless of their sexualorientation. However, given the small number of non-heterosexual partici,pants (N = 10), they were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, thedataset for Experiment 2 included 140 participants (68 females, mean age =38.66 years old, SD = 11.64, ranging from 17 to 67 years old). Participantswere visitors at the Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands).The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration ofHelsinki and the study was reviewed and approved by the Psychology EthicsCommittee of Leiden University (CEP19-0612/343). Participants were notcompensated for their participation.Experimental designThe experiment held a randomized within-subjects design, where the fixedfactor comprised the location of the probe (behind symmetrical or asymmet,rical face) and the combination (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs.original, symmetrized vs. asymmetrized). The dependent variable was RT(in ms).ApparatusThe task was performed on a touchscreen (Iiyama ProLite T1930SR-1, 1280× 1024 pixels) which was connected to a Dell desktop computer (modelOPTIPLEX 3020) and ran via E-prime (version 2.0; Psychology SoftwareTools). The touchscreen was located in a public, but quiet corner of thepark. To minimize potential distractors, we set up the touchscreen on atable adjacent to a wall. Participants sat at a distance of approximately 60cm from the touchscreen.StimuliWe selected faces from the Young Adult White Faces Dataset (DeBruine &Jones, 2017). This stimulus set contains manipulated and original portraitsof 20 young men and 20 young women with a neutral facial expression. Weused the 50% symmetric, 50% asymmetric, and the original portraits ofeach individual. This allowed us to test whether subtle differences in facialcharacteristics of the same individual modulated attention.ProcedureThe experiment involved a dot-probe paradigm, similar to Experiment1. Participants performed 60 trials, consisting of 20 trials of 3 dif,ferent combinations (i.e., symmetrical-original, asymmetrical-original,symmetrical-asymmetrical). Within each combination, the probe appeared10 times behind each category, and the location of the probe was balanced.Participants were only presented with pictures of opposite-sex individuals.The participants’ RT to the probe was the dependent variable for ouranalyses.Statistical AnalysesWe first excluded extremely fast and slow reactions times, following thesame method as described for Experiment 1. The lower and upper filterresulted in exclusion of 524 of 9000 trials (6.24%). We further excluded twosubjects, because the filtering criterion resulted in more than 25% of theirresponses being excluded. Therefore, the final dataset contained 7789 trialsof 138 participants (67 females).Our statistical methods were similar to those described for Experiment1, with a few exceptions. To test our hypothesis, we created a model thatused by-subject mean-centered RT as dependent variable and the interactionbetween Condition (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs. original,Table 1. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 1.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.17 1.54 -2.26, 2.73Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 0.58 0.69 -0.52, 1.69Condition [attractive vs. intermediate] -1.88 0.71 -3.02, -0.75Condition [unattractive vs. intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 4.03 0.88 2.64, 5.45Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 12.36 1.27 10.50, 14.54sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05, 1.34sd[by-subject slope] Probe Location [interme,diately attractive]0.96 0.82 0.10, 2.62sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]1.81 1.05 0.26, 3.59sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 6.58 1.04 4.94, 8.25Nobs = 11437Nsubj = 150Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.Experiment 2MethodsParticipantsExperiment 2 included 150 new participants. Participants had normal orcorrected-to-normal vision, and could participate regardless of their sexualorientation. However, given the small number of non-heterosexual partici,pants (N = 10), they were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, thedataset for Experiment 2 included 140 participants (68 females, mean age =38.66 years old, SD = 11.64, ranging from 17 to 67 years old). Participantswere visitors at the Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands).The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration ofHelsinki and the study was reviewed and approved by the Psychology EthicsCommittee of Leiden University (CEP19-0612/343). Participants were notcompensated for their participation.Experimental designThe experiment held a randomized within-subjects design, where the fixedfactor comprised the location of the probe (behind symmetrical or asymmet,rical face) and the combination (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs.original, symmetrized vs. asymmetrized). The dependent variable was RTTable 1. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 1.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.17 1.54 -2.26, 2.73Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 0.58 0.69 -0.52, 1.69Condition [attractive vs. intermediate] -1.88 0.71 -3.02, -0.75Condition [unattractive vs. intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 4.03 0.88 2.64, 5.45Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 12.36 1.27 10.50, 14.54sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05, 1.34sd[by-subject slope] Probe Location [interme,diately attractive]0.96 0.82 0.10, 2.62sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]1.81 1.05 0.26, 3.59sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 6.58 1.04 4.94, 8.25Nobs = 11437Nsubj = 150Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.Experiment 2MethodsParticipantsExperiment 2 included 150 new participants. Participants had normal orcorrected-to-normal vision, and could participate regardless of their sexualorientation. However, given the small number of non-heterosexual partici,pants (N = 10), they were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, thedataset for Experiment 2 included 140 participants (68 females, mean age =38.66 years old, SD = 11.64, ranging from 17 to 67 years old). Participantswere visitors at the Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands).The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration ofHelsinki and the study was reviewed and approved by the Psychology EthicsCommittee of Leiden University (CEP19-0612/343). Participants were notcompensated for their participation.Experimental designThe experiment held a randomized within-subjects design, where the fixedfactor comprised the location of the probe (behind symmetrical or asymmet,rical face) and the combination (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs.original, symmetrized vs. asymmetrized). The dependent variable was RTTable 1. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 1.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.17 1.54 -2.26, 2.73Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 0.58 0.69 -0.52, 1.69Condition [attractive vs. intermediate] -1.88 0.71 -3.02, -0.75Condition [unattractive vs. intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 4.03 0.88 2.64, 5.45Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 12.36 1.27 10.50, 14.54sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05, 1.34sd[by-subject slope] Probe Location [interme,diately attractive]0.96 0.82 0.10, 2.62sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]1.81 1.05 0.26, 3.59sd[by-subject slope] Condition [attractive vs.intermediate]:Probe Location [intermediately attractive] 6.58 1.04 4.94, 8.25Nobs = 11437Nsubj = 150Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.Experiment 2MethodsParticipantsExperiment 2 included 150 new participants. Participants had normal orcorrected-to-normal vision, and could participate regardless of their sexualorientation. However, given the small number of non-heterosexual partici,pants (N = 10), they were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, thedataset for Experiment 2 included 140 participants (68 females, mean age =38.66 years old, SD = 11.64, ranging from 17 to 67 years old). Participantswere visitors at the Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands).The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration ofHelsinki and the study was reviewed and approved by the Psychology EthicsCommittee of Leiden University (CEP19-0612/343). Participants were notcompensated for their participation.Experimental designThe experiment held a randomized within-subjects design, where the fixedfactor comprised the location of the probe (behind symmetrical or asymmet,rical face) and the combination (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs.original, symmetrized vs. asymmetrized). The dependent variable was RT(in ms).ApparatusThe task was performed on a touchscreen (Iiyama ProLite T1930SR-1, 1280× 1024 pixels) which was connected to a Dell desktop computer (modelOPTIPLEX 3020) and ran via E-prime (version 2.0; Psychology SoftwareTools). The touchscreen was located in a public, but quiet corner of thepark. To minimize potential distractors, we set up the touchscreen on atable adjacent to a wall. Participants sat at a distance of approximately 60cm from the touchscreen.StimuliWe selected faces from the Young Adult White Faces Dataset (DeBruine &Jones, 2017). This stimulus set contains manipulated and original portraitsof 20 young men and 20 young women with a neutral facial expression. Weused the 50% symmetric, 50% asymmetric, and the original portraits ofeach individual. This allowed us to test whether subtle differences in facialcharacteristics of the same individual modulated attention.ProcedureThe experiment involved a dot-probe paradigm, similar to Experiment1. Participants performed 60 trials, consisting of 20 trials of 3 different combinations (i.e., symmetrical-original, asymmetrical-original,symmetrical-asymmetrical). Within each combination, the probe appeared10 times behind each category, and the location of the probe was balanced.Participants were only presented with pictures of opposite-sex individuals.The participants’ RT to the probe was the dependent variable for ouranalyses.Statistical AnalysesWe first excluded extremely fast and slow reactions times, following thesame method as described for Experiment 1. The lower and upper filterresulted in exclusion of 524 of 9000 trials (6.24%). We further excluded twosubjects, because the filtering criterion resulted in more than 25% of theirresponses being excluded. Therefore, the final dataset contained 7789 trialsof 138 participants (67 females).Our statistical methods were similar to those described for Experiment1, with a few exceptions. To test our hypothesis, we created a model thatused by-subject mean-centered RT as dependent variable and the interactionbetween Condition (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs. original,(in ms).ApparatusThe task was performed on a touchscreen (Iiyama ProLite T1930SR-1, 1280× 1024 pixels) which was connected to a Dell desktop computer (modelOPTIPLEX 3020) and ran via E-prime (version 2.0; Psychology SoftwareTools). The touchscreen was located in a public, but quiet corner of thepark. To minimize potential distractors, we set up the touchscreen on atable adjacent to a wall. Participants sat at a distance of approximately 60cm from the touchscreen.StimuliWe selected faces from the Young Adult White Faces Dataset (DeBruine &Jones, 2017). This stimulus set contains manipulated and original portraitsof 20 young men and 20 young women with a neutral facial expression. Weused the 50% symmetric, 50% asymmetric, and the original portraits ofeach individual. This allowed us to test whether subtle differences in facialcharacteristics of the same individual modulated attention.ProcedureThe experiment involved a dot-probe paradigm, similar to Experiment1. Participants performed 60 trials, consisting of 20 trials of 3 dif,ferent combinations (i.e., symmetrical-original, asymmetrical-original,symmetrical-asymmetrical). Within each combination, the probe appeared10 times behind each category, and the location of the probe was balanced.Participants were only presented with pictures of opposite-sex individuals.The participants’ RT to the probe was the dependent variable for ouranalyses.Statistical AnalysesWe first excluded extremely fast and slow reactions times, following thesame method as described for Experiment 1. The lower and upper filterresulted in exclusion of 524 of 9000 trials (6.24%). We further excluded twosubjects, because the filtering criterion resulted in more than 25% of theirresponses being excluded. Therefore, the final dataset contained 7789 trialsof 138 participants (67 females).Our statistical methods were similar to those described for Experiment1, with a few exceptions. To test our hypothesis, we created a model thatused by-subject mean-centered RT as dependent variable and the interactionbetween Condition (symmetrized vs. original, asymmetrized vs. original,Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 35 08-04-2024 16:35