Page 113 - Demo

Individual attractiveness preferences predict attention1115After running the models, we used the emmeans-package (Lenth, 2022) to integrate the different model components, and provide estimates based on the posterior predictive distribution. Using these values, we calculated multiple quantitative measures to describe the effects (see Statistical analyses; Dotprobe). It is important to note, though, that the predictions are on the response scale (probability). This complicates interpretation for the continuous variables, because the slope on the response scale is not constant but is shallower or steeper depending on the value of the continuous variable. In the text we report the effect size measures for when the continuous variable of interest is set at 0, but in the Supplementary Material we provide similar measures for other values of the continuous variable of interest.Model comparisonsFor both the dot-probe and eye-tracking analyses, we additionally created a complete cases dataset in which we included only those cases for which we had pre-date attractiveness ratings, post-date attractiveness ratings, and date outcomes. Using these two datasets, we again ran the analyses described above (with pre-date attractiveness, post-date attractiveness, or date outcome as predictor, respectively). Hereafter, we used leave-one-out cross validation (PSIS-LOO-CV: Vehtari et al., 2017) to calculate the expected log predictive density (elpdLOO), which quantifies predictive accuracy for each model. Then, we calculated the difference in elpdLOO (ΔelpdLOO) between all three models. If ΔelpdLOOof two models is at least two SEs, this suggests that the models substantially differ in predictive performance (Johnson et al., 2022). Therefore, we report both the ΔelpdLOO and the SE of the difference. In total, the immediate attention dataset consisted of 3198 trials of 55 participants, while the voluntary attention dataset consisted of 1009 trials of 35 participants.ResultsInter-rater agreement on attractivenessWhen examining the inter-rater agreement on pre-date attractiveness ratings, we found an ICC(1, A) of 0.42 (95% CI [0.32; 0.52]). This result suggests that participants differed in their attractiveness preferences independent of gender. Furthermore, we explored the inter-rater agreement for men and women Tom Roth.indd 111 08-01-2024 10:41