After that, a 2 (matchmaking standing: unmarried guy vsmitted guy, between-subject) ? 2 (priming updates: like priming versus
Examples having RTs away from 0.402). manage priming, between-subject) ? step three (address kind of: glamorous men against. attractive female versus. average-searching targets, within-subject) repeated-strategies ANOVA is did. Only the chief effects and you will relationships connected to brand new study's hypotheses try reported.
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 ЕЎpanД›lЕЎtina datovГЎnГ lokalit 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, F(step one, 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).