Page 41 - Demo

39How attractiveness affects implicit cognition 2Table 2. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 2.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.44 2.15 -2.98, 3.93Condition [asymmetrized-original] 0.76 1.20 -1.19, 2.67Condition [symmetrized-original] -1.67 1.21 -3.62, 0.23Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.28 0.87 -1.10, 1.66Condition [asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] -0.79 1.21 -2.70, 1.17Condition [symmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.25 1.19 -1.65, 2.14Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 15.51 1.78 12.99, 18.63sd [intercept] Subject 0.59 0.53 0.06, 1.67sd[by-subject slope] Condition [asymmetrized,original]2.34 1.74 0.22, 5.60sd[by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]1.98 1.58 0.21, 5.16sd [by-subject slope] Condition[asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location[most symmetrical]2.26 1.75 0.23, 5.69sd [by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical]2.69 1.88 0.27, 6.12Nobs = 7789Nsubj = 138Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.ProcedureThe procedure and apparatus for Experiment 3 were similar to Experiment12. However, we used a modified Posner cueing task (Deaner et al., 2007;Posner, 1980) to test gaze following. Instead of showing 2 pictures on theside, one front-facing picture was presented in the middle of the screen for300ms. Hereafter, the same face was again presented in the middle of thescreen, but now looking either to the left side or the right side of the screenfor 300ms. After this, the location of the probe would either be congruent(same side as looking direction) or incongruent (opposite side of lookingdirection (Figure 5). Participants performed 60 trials in total.As in Experiment 1, participants validated all stimuli (both front-facingand side-facing) after the experiment in a randomized order by rating their2Due 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.Table 2. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 2.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.44 2.15 -2.98, 3.93Condition [asymmetrized-original] 0.76 1.20 -1.19, 2.67Condition [symmetrized-original] -1.67 1.21 -3.62, 0.23Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.28 0.87 -1.10, 1.66Condition [asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] -0.79 1.21 -2.70, 1.17Condition [symmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.25 1.19 -1.65, 2.14Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 15.51 1.78 12.99, 18.63sd [intercept] Subject 0.59 0.53 0.06, 1.67sd[by-subject slope] Condition [asymmetrized,original]2.34 1.74 0.22, 5.60sd[by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]1.98 1.58 0.21, 5.16sd [by-subject slope] Condition[asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location[most symmetrical]2.26 1.75 0.23, 5.69sd [by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical]2.69 1.88 0.27, 6.12Nobs = 7789Nsubj = 138Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.ProcedureThe procedure and apparatus for Experiment 3 were similar to Experiment12. However, we used a modified Posner cueing task (Deaner et al., 2007;Posner, 1980) to test gaze following. Instead of showing 2 pictures on theside, one front-facing picture was presented in the middle of the screen for300ms. Hereafter, the same face was again presented in the middle of thescreen, but now looking either to the left side or the right side of the screenfor 300ms. After this, the location of the probe would either be congruent(same side as looking direction) or incongruent (opposite side of lookingdirection (Figure 5). Participants performed 60 trials in total.As in Experiment 1, participants validated all stimuli (both front-facingand side-facing) after the experiment in a randomized order by rating their2Due 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.Table 2. Model output for the simple model of Experiment 2.Parameter Median estimate SD 89% CIIntercept 0.44 2.15 -2.98, 3.93Condition [asymmetrized-original] 0.76 1.20 -1.19, 2.67Condition [symmetrized-original] -1.67 1.21 -3.62, 0.23Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.28 0.87 -1.10, 1.66Condition [asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] -0.79 1.21 -2.70, 1.17Condition [symmetrized-original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical] 0.25 1.19 -1.65, 2.14Random Effectssd [intercept] Trial order 15.51 1.78 12.99, 18.63sd [intercept] Subject 0.59 0.53 0.06, 1.67sd[by-subject slope] Condition [asymmetrized,original]2.34 1.74 0.22, 5.60sd[by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]1.98 1.58 0.21, 5.16sd [by-subject slope] Condition[asymmetrized-original]:Probe Location[most symmetrical]2.26 1.75 0.23, 5.69sd [by-subject slope] Condition [symmetrized,original]:Probe Location [most symmetrical]2.69 1.88 0.27, 6.12Nobs = 7789Nsubj = 138Note: All categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded.ProcedureThe procedure and apparatus for Experiment 3 were similar to Experiment12. However, we used a modified Posner cueing task (Deaner et al., 2007;Posner, 1980) to test gaze following. Instead of showing 2 pictures on theside, one front-facing picture was presented in the middle of the screen for300ms. Hereafter, the same face was again presented in the middle of thescreen, but now looking either to the left side or the right side of the screenfor 300ms. After this, the location of the probe would either be congruent(same side as looking direction) or incongruent (opposite side of lookingdirection (Figure 5). Participants performed 60 trials in total.As in Experiment 1, participants validated all stimuli (both front-facingand side-facing) after the experiment in a randomized order by rating their2Due 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.attractiveness on a 7-point ordinal scale. Again, we used these scores todetermine whether the ratings of the participants aligned well with thepre-determined attractiveness categories (attractive, intermediate, unattractive). Subjects rated both the central-looking stimuli and the side-lookingstimuli. However, because central and side ratings correlated very strongly(rs = .82, 89% CI [.82, .83], pd = 1.00), we used only the central ratings forfurther validation.Figure 5. Schematic outline of a trial in the gaze cueing task. Stimulifrom Oslo Face Database by Leknes Affective Brain lab (https://sirileknes.com/oslo-face-database/). Copyright 2014 by Leknes Affective Brainlab. Adapted with permission. RT = reaction time.Statistical AnalysesWe first excluded extremely fast and slow reactions times, following the samemethod as described for Experiment 1. The lower and upper filter resultedin exclusion of 476 of 9000 trials (5.29%). The highest number of excludedtrials per participant was 10.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 interaction between Attractiveness Category (attractive, intermediate, unattractive stimulus) and Gaze Congruency (probe location congruent/incongruentwith gaze direction). Due to convergence problems, it was not possible toadd by-subject random slopes for the interaction to the model; therefore,the random effect structure consisted of only random intercepts per subjectand trial number.Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 39 08-04-2024 16:35