Page 99 - Demo

97Underlying factors of the sexual overperception bias 5partner would be interested in another date with them (Prochazkova et al.,2022). Interestingly, participants responded in a manner similar to their ownemotional state: participants who were interested in their partner tendedto indicate that their partner was also interested in them. This pattern,which we will refer to as the projection mechanism, has been suggested todrive the sexual overperception bias (Shotland & Craig, 1988) and has beensupported by an emerging body of literature (Henningsen & Henningsen,2010; Koenig et al., 2007; A. J. Lee et al., 2020). Crucially, men tend to havegreater levels of sexual interest in a given partner than women (Henningsen,Henningsen, & Valde, 2006; Todd et al., 2007), which fits with the observedsex differences in sexual overperception. Nevertheless, despite the findingssupporting the projection mechanism underlying the sexual overperceptionbias, it remains unclear whether men tend to project their own interest ontoa given partner more than women (A. J. Lee et al., 2020; Roth, Samara, &Kret, 2021b).Attraction does not emerge in a vacuum. Individual differences, suchas sexual desire, and self-rated attractiveness, likely shape how the overper,ception bias arises during an interaction (e.g., Howell et al., 2012; Lemay& Wolf, 2016; Perilloux et al., 2012; A. J. Lee et al., 2020). The sexualoverperception bias has been linked to men’s higher sex drive (Baumeister,Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Maner et al., 2005); suggesting arousal acts as acue signaling that a mating opportunity should not be lost (Koenig et al.,2007). Indeed, emotional states have a significant impact on decision making(Damasio, 1996). Sexual arousal has been shown to increase the likelihoodof risky sexual practices, likely indicating that inhibition is lowered duringstates of arousal (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006; Skakoon-Sparling, Cramer,& Shuper, 2016; Skakoon-Sparling & Cramer, 2021). Another likely factorin the sexual overperception bias is self-rated attractiveness. Specifically,people with higher self-rated attractiveness are more likely to report thata given partner is interested in them (Kohl & Robertson, 2014; Lemay &Wolf, 2016). This bias could be due to expectancies that self-rated attrac,tiveness should match with others’ perception (Murray, Holmes, & Grif,fin, 2000). Crucially, men rate themselves as more attractive than women(Hayes, Crocker, & Kowalski, 1999), which might explain the sexual overper,ception bias. Thus, these findings suggest that sexual desire and self-ratedattractiveness are likely to influence the sexual overperception bias.Speed-dating paradigms have been widely used to test sex differences inmate-choice (e.g., A. J. Lee et al., 2020; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005). Speed,dating studies allow for the time- and cost-efficient investigation of the firstmoments of interaction (Finkel & Eastwick, 2008), as they create a spacein which multiple people can have a brief date with multiple partners. Fur,thermore, speed-dates thus allow for the control of individual characteristics(e.g., mean attractiveness over many people, not a single data point). Im,portantly, speed-dating contexts create an ecologically valid setting to studysexual and romantic interactions, while maintaining a relatively controlledlab setting (Finkel, Eastwick, & Matthews, 2007; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b).In an exploratory study, we employed a naturalistic speed-datingparadigm to investigate the effects of sex, own interest, sexual desire, andself-rated attractiveness on accuracy in detecting attraction. Based onprevious evidence, we would expect that men exhibit lower attraction detection accuracy than women and that projection of own interest decreasesattraction detection accuracy. Furthermore, we explored whether self-ratedattractiveness and sexual desire scores influenced accuracy in detectingattraction.MethodsA total of 80 participants were recruited for a speed-dating event, 10 ofwhich did not attend the experimental session. Furthermore, three participants (2 men) dropped out before the speed-dating started; resulting ina final sample of N = 67 (35 women; women: Mage = 22.03, SD = 2.26;men: Mage = 22.61, SD = 1.75). In total, 277 dates took place. All participants provided informed consent as according to the declaration of Helsinki.Participants were not compensated for their participation but received acomplementary ticket to Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, the Netherlands). The procedure and methods were approved by the Leiden UniversityEthics Committee (CEP: 2020-02-20-M.E. Kret-V1-2169).ProcedureParticipants first filled in questionnaires regarding demographic information;the 7-level Kinsey scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948); self-rated attractiveness (7-point scale); and the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI, Elaut etal., 2010, see Supplementary Material of Chapter 3 for Methods). Next, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks (see Supplemental Materialfor full methods; pre-registered using the AsPredicted database [Referencenumber #36,394]). Following completion of the tasks, participants went on10 speed-dates (cf. Perilloux et al., 2012; A. J. Lee et al., 2020). Men andwomen sat at opposite sides of a table in a 2 × 2 fashion. Barriers wereused to block the view of the opposite-sex participants. At the start of eachdate, participants were instructed to turn the barriers perpendicularly toseparate each couple. Next, a bell rang, indicating the start of the date.After 5 minutes, the participants were asked to turn the barriers in a parallel fashion and indicate a) how attractive they found their partner (7-pointscale); b) how attractive they considered them as a long-term mate (7-pointscale); c) whether they would be interested in going on another date withthem (yes/no); d) whether their partner would like to go on another datewith them (yes/no); and e) whether they knew each other (yes/no). Thesexual and romantic interactions, while maintaining a relatively controlledlab setting (Finkel et al., 2007; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b).In an exploratory study, we employed a naturalistic speed-datingparadigm to investigate the effects of sex, own interest, sexual desire, andself-rated attractiveness on accuracy in detecting attraction. Based onprevious evidence, we would expect that men exhibit lower attraction detection accuracy than women and that projection of own interest decreasesattraction detection accuracy. Furthermore, we explored whether self-ratedattractiveness and sexual desire scores influenced accuracy in detectingattraction.MethodsA total of 80 participants were recruited for a speed-dating event, 10 ofwhich did not attend the experimental session. Furthermore, three participants (2 men) dropped out before the speed-dating started; resulting ina final sample of N = 67 (35 women; women: Mage = 22.03, SD = 2.26;men: Mage = 22.61, SD = 1.75). In total, 277 dates took place. All participants provided informed consent as according to the declaration of Helsinki.Participants were not compensated for their participation but received acomplementary ticket to Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, the Netherlands). The procedure and methods were approved by the Leiden UniversityEthics Committee (CEP: 2020-02-20-M.E. Kret-V1-2169).ProcedureParticipants first filled in questionnaires regarding demographic information; the 7-level Kinsey scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948); self-ratedattractiveness (7-point scale); and the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI, Elautet al., 2010). Next, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks(see Supplementary Material of Chapter 3 for an overview of all tasks used;pre-registered using the AsPredicted database [Reference number #36,394]).Following completion of the tasks, participants went on 10 speed-dates (cf.Perilloux et al., 2012; A. J. Lee et al., 2020). Men and women sat at opposite sides of a table in a 2 ⇥ 2 fashion. Barriers were used to block theview of the opposite-sex participants. At the start of each date, participantswere instructed to turn the barriers perpendicularly to separate each couple.Next, a bell rang, indicating the start of the date. After 5 minutes, the participants were asked to turn the barriers in a parallel fashion and indicatea) how attractive they found their partner (7-point scale); b) how attractivethey considered them as a long-term mate (7-point scale); c) whether theywould be interested in going on another date with them (yes/no); d) whethertheir partner would like to go on another date with them (yes/no); and e)whether they knew each other (yes/no). The choice of asking participantsIliana Samara 17x24.indd 97 08-04-2024 16:36