Trials which have RTs off 0.402). handle priming, between-subject) ? step 3 (address sorts of: glamorous male against. attractive people vs. average-lookin targets, within-subject) repeated-measures ANOVA was performed. Only the head effects and you will connections connected to brand new study’s hypotheses was advertised.
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(dos, 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 one, 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, 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 1, 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(step one, 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).
Contour dos. Suggest indices away from disengagement of the target types getting solitary guys regarding like priming and manage priming requirements.
Profile step 3. Mean indices of disengagement of attractive female having single and you may enough time people regarding love priming and you will control priming conditions.
Profile cuatro. Suggest indices from disengagement off all the address products getting enough time guys in the like priming and you will manage priming criteria.
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 outcome confirmed your disengagement directory off solitary males having glamorous reverse-sex people is actually significantly >0 according to the love priming updates, 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).