Subsequent, a two (dating standing: unmarried boy vsmitted boy, between-subject) ? dos (priming updates: love priming against

Samples that have RTs of 0.402). handle priming, between-subject) ? step three (address types of: attractive men against. glamorous women versus. average-looking aim, within-subject) repeated-actions ANOVA was did. Just the fundamental consequences and relationships strongly related to the fresh new study’s hypotheses are reported.

Overall performance

Disengagement indices by target type, priming condition, and relationship status are presented in Table 1. The three-way interaction from the 2 ? 2 ? 3 mixed-model ANOVA was significant, F(2, 210) = 6.842, p = 0.001, partial ? 2 = 0.061. Additional simple-effects tests were performed to examine hypothesis 2 (compared to committed men in the control priming condition, committed men would reduce attention to attractive alternatives in the love priming condition), and hypothesis 3 (compared to single men in the control priming condition, single men would increase attention toward attractive women in the love priming condition), and hypothesis 4 (committed men would be less attentive than single men to attractive women in the love priming condition). For single men, compared to the baseline condition, love priming increased their attention only to attractive women, F(step 1, 105) = , p 2 = 0.127 (see Figure 2), while among committed men, no significant effect of priming was observed for attentional biases toward attractive women escort review Clovis CA, F(1, 105) = 0.000, p = 0.986; in addition, committed men were significantly less attentive than were single men to attractive women in the love priming condition, F(step one, 105) = , p 2 = 0.122 (see Figure 3). Those results support the hypothesis on single men, but partially on committed men. Hypothesis 5 was that compared to committed men in the control priming condition, committed men would not increase attention toward attractive rivals in the love priming condition. Consistent with the hypothesis, result showed no significant effect of priming for attentional biases toward attractive men among committed men, F(1, 105) = 0.002, p = 0.963 (see Figure 4). No other significant effect was observed under the baseline condition or love priming condition (all ps > 0.122).

Figure dos. Imply indicator of disengagement out-of all the target types for unmarried males on like priming and you may control priming conditions.

Profile step 3. Suggest indices off disengagement from glamorous female for single and you will the time males on love priming and you may manage priming standards.

Contour cuatro. Imply indices away from disengagement of all of the target designs to own the amount of time people throughout the love priming and handle priming conditions.

To explore whether the commitment and relationship length would affect the results, we conducted further analysis using only committed men’s data, specifically, a 2 (priming condition: love priming vs. control priming) ? 3 (target type: attractive male vs. attractive female vs. average-looking targets) repeated-measures ANOVA including logged relationship length, Companionate Love Scale score as covariates, the three-way interaction effect was not significant, F(2, 106) = 0.007, p = 0.993, no other significant effects were observed (all ps > 0.699), and the same 2 (priming condition) ? 3 (target type) repeated-measures ANOVA without logged relationship length and committed scores as covariates, the three-way interaction effect was also not significant, F(dos, 110) = 0.042, p = 0.958, no other significant effects were observed (all ps > 0.169). The results showed that those covariates would not affect the results in this study.

The outcomes confirmed that the disengagement list out-of single boys having glamorous opposite-gender persons are notably >0 underneath the like priming position, t

To test hypothesis 3 (compared to RTs toward neutral picture pairs, single men would disengage with greater difficulty from attractive women in the love priming condition), and hypothesis 1 (compared to RTs toward neutral picture pairs, committed men would show difficulty disengaging from attractive women in the control priming condition), we conducted the independent-samples t-test to compare disengagement indices with zero. (26) = 4.152, p 0.133).

Category
Tags

No responses yet

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.