Page 72 - Demo

70Chapter 3whether such designs more closely resemble short-term or long-term matechoice contexts. However, it should be noted that almost all of our participants (except for 2) reported that they were interested in pursuing a longterm relationship and, in line with other speed-date events (Asendorpf etal., 2011; Luo & Zhang, 2009), still seemed to value physical attractiveness,although this is often specifically mentioned as a criterium for short-termmates (N. P. Li et al., 2013). Furthermore, previous work has shown thatlong-term partner ratings and physical attractiveness ratings highly correlate (Roth, Samara, & Kret, 2021a; Bressan, 2021; Wu, Chen, & Yu, 2022).In addition, it remains to be established whether there are specific contextsthat emphasize long-term over short-term mate-choice considerations. Infact, a large-scale study showed no evidence that different initial meetingcontexts (e.g., bars, church, online) influence divorce rates (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, Gonzaga, Ogburn, & VanderWeele, 2013). In a speed-date context,it has been shown that first impressions, which are asserted by some to reflectshort-term mate choice processes, still predict long-term romantic interest(Baxter et al., 2022). In conclusion, our findings cannot be interpreted as theproduct of uniquely long- or short-term mate choice processes. Instead, ourfindings would be best interpreted in the context of a close-relationships tradition (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014) that considers short-termand long-term contexts as closely related.Finally, we attempted to disentangle the effects of attractiveness anddate outcome on immediate and voluntary attention by means of Bayesianmodel comparisons (PSIS-LOO-CV,(Vehtari et al., 2017)). For immediateattention, these comparisons suggest that pre-date ratings of attractivenessare more predictive of reaction times than date outcome or post-date attractiveness, even though the differences were not robust. Thus, we cannotdraw strict conclusions regarding the relative influence of attractiveness anddate outcome on immediate attention. For voluntary attention, on the otherhand, we found robust evidence in favor of the model that includes pre-dateattractiveness ratings over the models that include date outcome and postdate attractiveness rating, respectively. This suggests that voluntary attention is specifically driven by physical attractiveness ratings, which is in linewith previous work (Leder et al., 2016; Mitrovic et al., 2018, 2016). Consequently, the robust effect of date outcome on voluntary attention might havebeen the result of strong intercorrelation between attractiveness ratings anddate outcome, as has been reported in many studies (Roth, Samara, & Kret,2021a; Luo & Zhang, 2009). To address this limitation, we suggest that future studies could employ a pre-post-design, where participants engage inattention tasks before and after a speed-date session to study specifically howthe experiences gained during the speed-dates alter attentional processes.In conclusion, we investigated how attractiveness and date outcome wereassociated with immediate and voluntary attention in non-committed youngadults. In line with previous studies, we found substantial inter-individualdifferences in attractiveness preferences. Furthermore, we found that immediate attention was modulated by attractiveness for men, but not forwomen, while no consistent relationship between immediate attention anddate outcome was found. With regard to voluntary attention, we found thatboth men and women looked longer at pictures of people that they foundattractive and that they wanted to date again. However, attractiveness ratings were more predictive of voluntary attention than date outcome. Ourresults therefore suggests that especially voluntary attention can provideinformation about individual preferences and possibly also mate choice ofpeople who are motivated to find a partner.whether such designs more closely resemble short-term or long-term matechoice contexts. However, it should be noted that almost all of our participants (except for 2) reported that they were interested in pursuing a longterm relationship and, in line with other speed-date events (Asendorpf etal., 2011; Luo & Zhang, 2009), still seemed to value physical attractiveness,although this is often specifically mentioned as a criterium for short-termmates (N. P. Li et al., 2013). Furthermore, previous work has shown thatlong-term partner ratings and physical attractiveness ratings highly correlate (Roth, Samara, & Kret, 2021a; Bressan, 2021; Wu, Chen, & Yu, 2022).In addition, it remains to be established whether there are specific contextsthat emphasize long-term over short-term mate-choice considerations. Infact, a large-scale study showed no evidence that different initial meetingcontexts (e.g., bars, church, online) influence divorce rates (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, Gonzaga, Ogburn, & VanderWeele, 2013). In a speed-date context,it has been shown that first impressions, which are asserted by some to reflectshort-term mate choice processes, still predict long-term romantic interest(Baxter et al., 2022). In conclusion, our findings cannot be interpreted as theproduct of uniquely long- or short-term mate choice processes. Instead, ourfindings would be best interpreted in the context of a close-relationships tradition (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014) that considers short-termand long-term contexts as closely related.Finally, we attempted to disentangle the effects of attractiveness anddate outcome on immediate and voluntary attention by means of Bayesianmodel comparisons (PSIS-LOO-CV, Vehtari et al., 2017). For immediateattention, these comparisons suggest that pre-date ratings of attractivenessare more predictive of reaction times than date outcome or post-date attractiveness, even though the differences were not robust. Thus, we cannotdraw strict conclusions regarding the relative influence of attractiveness anddate outcome on immediate attention. For voluntary attention, on the otherhand, we found robust evidence in favor of the model that includes pre-dateattractiveness ratings over the models that include date outcome and postdate attractiveness rating, respectively. This suggests that voluntary attention is specifically driven by physical attractiveness ratings, which is in linewith previous work (Leder et al., 2016; Mitrovic et al., 2018, 2016). Consequently, the robust effect of date outcome on voluntary attention might havebeen the result of strong intercorrelation between attractiveness ratings anddate outcome, as has been reported in many studies (Roth, Samara, & Kret,2021a; Luo & Zhang, 2009). To address this limitation, we suggest that future studies could employ a pre-post-design, where participants engage inattention tasks before and after a speed-date session to study specifically howthe experiences gained during the speed-dates alter attentional processes.In conclusion, we investigated how attractiveness and date outcome wereassociated with immediate and voluntary attention in non-committed youngadults. In line with previous studies, we found substantial inter-individualIliana Samara 17x24.indd 70 08-04-2024 16:35