Page 91 - Demo

89Replication of Maner et al. (2005)4Table 5. Overview of the ordinal cumulative multilevel model predicting anger ratings as a function of Target Gender, TargetSkin Color, and Condition.Predictors Median OR 95% HDI pd dIntercept[1] 0.31[0.04] 0.24–0.40 100% 0.65[0.07]Intercept[2] 0.83[0.10] 0.64–1.06 93% 0.11[0.07]Intercept[3] 1.54[0.19] 1.19–1.98 100% 0.24[0.07]Intercept[4] 2.66[0.35] 2.08–3.46 100% 0.54[0.07]Intercept[5] 4.58[0.62] 3.49–5.99 100% 0.84[0.08]Intercept[6] 9.32[1.39] 6.96–12.55 100% 1.23[0.08]Intercept[7] 25.03[4.60] 17.64–36.60 100% 1.78[0.10]Intercept[8] 61.09[14.90] 38.47–101.49 100% 2.27[0.14]Condition[Control] 1.30[0.15] 1.02–1.63 98% 0.14[0.06]Skin Color[Black] 0.92[0.05] 0.83–1.00 92% 0.05[0.03]Target Gender[Female] 0.81[0.05] 0.73–0.91 100% 0.11[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] 1.01 [0.06] 1.11–1.14 58% 0.01[0.03]Condition[Control] × Target Gender[Female] 0.99 [0.06] 0.89–1.12 57% 0.01[0.03]Skin Color [Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.28 [0.07] 1.14–1.43 100% 0.14[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.05[0.06] 0.93–1.17 79% 0.03[0.03]Random EffectsSD(Participant) 0.83Table 5. Overview of the ordinal cumulative multilevel model predicting anger ratings as a function of Target Gender, TargetSkin Color, and Condition.Predictors Median OR 95% HDI pd dIntercept[1] 0.31[0.04] 0.24–0.40 100% 0.65[0.07]Intercept[2] 0.83[0.10] 0.64–1.06 93% 0.11[0.07]Intercept[3] 1.54[0.19] 1.19–1.98 100% 0.24[0.07]Intercept[4] 2.66[0.35] 2.08–3.46 100% 0.54[0.07]Intercept[5] 4.58[0.62] 3.49–5.99 100% 0.84[0.08]Intercept[6] 9.32[1.39] 6.96–12.55 100% 1.23[0.08]Intercept[7] 25.03[4.60] 17.64–36.60 100% 1.78[0.10]Intercept[8] 61.09[14.90] 38.47–101.49 100% 2.27[0.14]Condition[Control] 1.30[0.15] 1.02–1.63 98% 0.14[0.06]Skin Color[Black] 0.92[0.05] 0.83–1.00 92% 0.05[0.03]Target Gender[Female] 0.81[0.05] 0.73–0.91 100% 0.11[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] 1.01 [0.06] 1.11–1.14 58% 0.01[0.03]Condition[Control] × Target Gender[Female] 0.99 [0.06] 0.89–1.12 57% 0.01[0.03]Skin Color [Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.28 [0.07] 1.14–1.43 100% 0.14[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.05[0.06] 0.93–1.17 79% 0.03[0.03]Random EffectsSD(Participant) 0.83Table 5. Overview of the ordinal cumulative multilevel model predicting anger ratings as a function of Target Gender, TargetSkin Color, and Condition.Predictors Median OR 95% HDI pd dIntercept[1] 0.31[0.04] 0.24–0.40 100% 0.65[0.07]Intercept[2] 0.83[0.10] 0.64–1.06 93% 0.11[0.07]Intercept[3] 1.54[0.19] 1.19–1.98 100% 0.24[0.07]Intercept[4] 2.66[0.35] 2.08–3.46 100% 0.54[0.07]Intercept[5] 4.58[0.62] 3.49–5.99 100% 0.84[0.08]Intercept[6] 9.32[1.39] 6.96–12.55 100% 1.23[0.08]Intercept[7] 25.03[4.60] 17.64–36.60 100% 1.78[0.10]Intercept[8] 61.09[14.90] 38.47–101.49 100% 2.27[0.14]Condition[Control] 1.30[0.15] 1.02–1.63 98% 0.14[0.06]Skin Color[Black] 0.92[0.05] 0.83–1.00 92% 0.05[0.03]Target Gender[Female] 0.81[0.05] 0.73–0.91 100% 0.11[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] 1.01 [0.06] 1.11–1.14 58% 0.01[0.03]Condition[Control] × Target Gender[Female] 0.99 [0.06] 0.89–1.12 57% 0.01[0.03]Skin Color [Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.28 [0.07] 1.14–1.43 100% 0.14[0.03]Condition[Control] × Skin Color[Black] × Target Gender[Female] 1.05[0.06] 0.93–1.17 79% 0.03[0.03]Random EffectsSD(Participant) 0.83as more sexually aroused than medium attractive female targets independent of whether they watched the video with the White or Black femaleprotagonist or the control video. Furthermore, contrary to Maner et al.(2005) we found that participants rated White men as angrier than Blackmen, White women, and Black women independent of whether they watchedthe fearful video or the control video. Below, we discuss these findings indetail.The finding that men rated highly attractive White women as more sexually aroused is partly in line with Maner et al. (2005). However, in contrastwith Maner et al. (2005), we did not find an effect of the video conditionon the sexual arousal target ratings. Given that male participants in thecontrol group also rated highly attractive White women as more sexuallyaroused than all other targets but rated themselves as less romanticallyaroused than participants in the other two conditions who watched sexuallyarousing videos, suggests that this response is not influenced by emotionalstate induced by the videos. Rather, this pattern likely emerged due to atransient arousal state induced by the highly attractive White female targets. This behavioral pattern, termed the sexual overperception bias, is wellknown (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Haselton, 2003; La France et al., 2009), and previous work has suggested that men are more likely to overinterpret attractionwhen they are interested in their partner compared to when they are not(Samara et al., 2021). Furthermore, contrary to our expectations we didnot find support for the notion that men’s rating of only highly attractiveWhite women was due to a recency effect (Baddeley & Hitch, 1993; Broadbent & Broadbent, 1981) as the video clips used in the original study werewith a White protagonist. Participants who watched the sexually arousingvideo clip with the Black female protagonist rated highly attractive Whitewomen as more sexually aroused than all other female targets, indicatingthat this effect is likely not due to priming. In conclusion, here we supportprevious findings by demonstrating that men overperceive attraction whenconfronted with highly attractive White women, and furthermore show thatmen’s prior emotional state does not influence the sexual overperceptionbias.In contrast to the findings of Maner et al. (2005), we found that participants rated White men as angrier than Black men, White women, andBlack women in both the fear and control video condition. This findinggoes against previous studies demonstrating that White participants rateBlack target faces as more threatening than White target faces (Kenrick etal., 2010; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003). The discrepancy between ourfindings and the findings of Maner et al. (2005) could be due to the factthat we selected target stimuli from a standardized database (i.e., the CFD;D. S. Ma et al., 2015) and controlled for age and attractiveness, whereasthe stimuli in Maner et al. (2005) were not standardized. Minor differencesin appearance can influence emotional perception, for example, how red aIliana Samara 17x24.indd 89 08-04-2024 16:36