Trials having RTs off 0.402). manage priming, between-subject) ? 3 (address form of: glamorous men versus. glamorous people vs. average-searching purpose, within-subject) repeated-procedures ANOVA is did. Just the main effects and you will interactions strongly related the new study’s hypotheses was said.
Efficiency
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(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 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(step 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 2. Mean indicator of disengagement regarding all target models getting unmarried men about like priming and manage priming requirements.
Contour step 3. Indicate indicator from disengagement off glamorous women to have solitary and you can the full time males throughout the love priming and you may control priming conditions.
Figure 4. Indicate indicator away from disengagement out-of all address versions getting the amount of time men regarding the love priming and you can control 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(2, 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 results verified the disengagement list of unmarried men to possess glamorous contrary-sex people try rather >0 in love priming reputation, 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).