Page 114 - Demo

Chapter 5112separately. For women, we found an ICC(1, A) of 0.25 (95% CI [0.14; 0.41]), while for men, we found an ICC(1, A) of 0.50 (95% CI [0.39; 0.64]). These results suggest that women had substantially lower agreement than men.Correlations between attractiveness ratings and date outcomeWe found that pre-date attractiveness rating, post-date attractiveness rating, and date outcome all showed a strong correlation. First, a point-biserial correlation indicated that pre-date attractiveness rating and date outcome were correlated (r = 0.44, 89% CrI [0.36; 0.50], pd+ = 1.00). Second, we found that post-date attractiveness showed an even stronger correlation with date outcome (r = 0.67, 89% CrI [0.62; 0.71], pd+ = 1.00). Third, a Spearman correlation showed that predate and post-date attractiveness were correlated (r = 0.57, 89% CrI [0.51; 0.62], pd+ = 1.00).Immediate attention (dot-probe)Pre-date attractiveness ratingsWe first examined the association between Pre-date attractiveness ratingand Reaction time using a Bayesian mixed model with Gaussian distribution (Supplementary Table 1; see Appendix G for model stability checks). We found a robust overall effect of Pre-date attractiveness rating of distractor picture on Reaction time (b= 1.46 [0.53], 89% CrI [0.60; 2.29], pd+ = 1.00), with participants responding slower by 1.46 ms to the probe when there is an increase of 1 in attractiveness ratings of the distractor picture. There was no robust interaction with Gender (bwomen-men = − 0.83 [1.06], 89% CrI [ − 2.49; 0.88], pd-= 0.79). However, after visually inspecting the results, we wanted to explore whether the positive effect of Pre-date attractiveness rating of distractor picture on Reaction Time was robust within each level of Gender. We found that the effect was indeed robust for men (bmen = 1.87 [0.65], 89% CrI [0.80; 2.88], pd+ = 1.00), but not for women (bwomen = 1.04 [0.83], 89% CrI [ − 0.33; 2.34], pd+ = 0.89). Thus, men responded slower to the probe by 1.87 ms when the attractiveness rating of the distractor picture was increased by 1, while no robust effect was found for women (Figure 1 top panel).Furthermore, we found a robust overall effect of Pre-date attractiveness rating of probe picture on Reaction time (b= − 1.11 [0.55], 89% CrI [− 1.97; − 0.24], pd-= 0.98), whereby participants responded faster by 1.11 ms when the attractiveness rating for the probe picture was increased by 1. In this case, however, the effect was modulated by Gender (bwomen-men = 2.83 [1.06], 89% CrI [1.12; 4.51], pd+ = 1.00).Tom Roth.indd 112 08-01-2024 10:41