Read the research article added here and answer the questions:1. What type of variable is fertility status?A. Quasi-dependent variableB. Dependent variableC. Outcome variableD. Quasi-independent variableE. Independent variableF. Predictor variable2. What type of variable is sex of target face?A. Quasi-dependent variableB. Dependent variableC. Outcome variableD. Quasi-independent variableE. Independent variableF. Predictor variable3. What type of variable is attractiveness of target face?A. Quasi-dependent variableB. Dependent variableC. Outcome variableD. Quasi-independent variableE. Independent variableF. Predictor variable4. Looking at the relationship between fertility status, target sex, target attractiveness, and attention, what type of study is it (correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental)?A. Quasi-experimental and experimentalB. ExperimentalC. CorrelationalD. Quasi-experimental5. Can we technically conclude that fertility status affects attention?A. No, because women were not randomly assigned to fertility status and their fertility status was not manipulatedB. Yes, because women were randomly assigned to fertility status and their fertility status was manipulatedC. Yes, because women were randomly selected and their fertility status was manipulated 806102Attractive MaleAverage MaleAverage FemaleFig. 1. Mean time spent looking at each face type. Error bars represent 95% CI. The apparent main effect of fertility status is not statistically significantwithin average targets (F<3). As expected, high fertility womenpaid more attention to attractive male targets than did low fertilitywomen, F(1,88)- 10.28, p=002,-.105; fertility had no effecton attention to other face types (all Fs< 40, ps> 56). High fertilitywomen paid more attention to men than women, F(1,88)-4.15,p- .045,-045; this effect was not found in low fertility women.Both high and low fertility women paid more attention to attrac-tive than average men; this effect was larger for high fertility wo-men, (33.81)-2.367, p= .024. Additionally, high fertility womenpaid more attention to attractive males than attractive females,F(1,88)-4.22, p.043, 046.To test the effects of fertility on memory, we first dichotomizedparticipant responses into either "Did not see" or "Did see." Usingthese scores, we calculated d-prime (a measure of recognition sen-sitivity that controls for false alarms) for each face type (e.g, for all1.81.61.41.210.80.60.4U.S. Anderson et al. /Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 804-8080.2Attractive Female0Low FertilityHigh Fertilityattractive male faces). We then conducted a mixed ANOVA on thed-prime scores with fertility as a between-subjects factor and tar-get gender and attractiveness as within-subjects factors. Overall,attractive faces were remembered better than average,R1,88)-26.95, p<.001, n.234; see Fig. 2.The significant three-way interaction between target gender,target attractiveness, and fertility status found in the attentiondata was not replicated in the memory data, F(1,88)-80,p=373. However, the two-way interaction between target genderand target attractiveness was significant, F(1,88)-12.369,p=001, n.123: Attractive women were remembered signifi-cantly better than average women, F(1,88)-44.65, p<.001, butattractive men were remembered only marginally better thanaverage men, F1, 88)-2.80, p.095. Fertility status did not signif-icantly affect memory within any target type (ps>.17).Average MaleLow FertilityHigh Fertility|||Attractive MaleAttractive FemaleFig. 2. Memory accuracy for each face type. Error bars represent 95% CLAverage FemaleU.S. Anderson et al. /Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 804-808DiscussionUsing an eye tracking device, we found that ovulating womenpaid relatively more attention to the attractive male targets in ar-rays of varying faces. However, fertility status had no effect onattention to other face types, and did not produce an analogous ef-fect on memory.What function is served by fertility-enhanced attention toattractive men? Recall that ovulating women, in particular, per-ceive such men to be relatively more desirable (e.g. Haselton &Miller, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2003). This fertility-enhanced vi-sual attention may thus reflect a more thorough cognitive assess-ment of these men. However, fertility status did not enhancesubsequent recognition memory for these handsome men, mitigat-ing against this cognitive processing explanation. As we mentionedearlier, women face costs as well as benefits from liaisons withunfamiliar attractive men, and those costs may be enhanced duringovulation. Although it may be difficult to monitor initial visualattention to such men, there may be mechanisms in place for sup-pressing additional processing, especially when such men arestrangers (Kenrick et al., 2007). Alternatively, because eye contactserves to nonverbally signal romantic interest (Moore, 1985), per-haps the increased visual attention by highly fertile women re-flected not extended cognitive processing but rather a strategic(albeit(albeit nonconscious) inclination to communicate romantic interestto desirable men. That ovulating women exhibited especially en-hanced looking at, but not especially enhanced memory for, hand-some men, is consistent with that possibility. Future research mightprofitably explore these alternatives in more detail.' Research mea-suring both implicit and explicit memory, for example, may provideevidence for or against a suppression explanation of the decouplingof attention and memory. Moreover, if the extra attention truly servesa flirtation function, we might expect this attention to be focused onthe targets' eyes, whereas other functions would be supported by abroader visual scanning of the faces. Alternatively, if these effectsare linked to suppression effects, we might expect to see them morestrongly in women involved in highly committed relationships.Stronger effects for single (or less committed) individuals, in contrast,would support a flirtation explanation.This finding links to a broader set of findings indicating adap-tively tuned discrepancies between visual attention and memory(Ackerman et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010). For example, in con-trast to desirable targets such as attractive faces, which are lookedat but not remembered, people look away from physically threat-ening targets, such as outgroup males, but nonetheless rememberthem well later (Becker et al., 2010).The results for attractive females contrast with those for attrac-tive males. Replicating earlier findings (e.g. Maner et al., 2003).women, whether ovulating or not, showed initial attention to, aswell as good memory for, attractive female targets. This increasedattention to beautiful women makes sense to the extent thatattractive women can be viewed as threatening others' existingrelationships, given men's interest and attention to even unfamiliarattractive women (Li & Kenrick, 2006; Maner et al., 2003). Unlikethe possible costs associated with downstream cognitive process-ing of handsome men, then, no such costs are associated with pro-cessing other women.One might wonder whether the extra 1.8s of attention given to attractive males(compared to average) by ovulating women, divided among the eight attractive maleexemplars, is insufficient to increase memory. Other data from this study suggests,however, that this concern is unfounded. Ignoring ovulation condition, attractivefemales received only 1.48 s more attention than average females, yet they were stillremembered better, suggesting that relatively small increases in attention can havesignificant effects on memory-but not when ovulating women are attending toattractive men807More broadly, these findings lend further support to the grow-ing appreciation that perceptual and cognitive biases of variouskinds often serve functionally sensible aims (e.g., Kenrick, NeubergGriskevicius, Becker, & Schaller, 2010). Finally, it is useful to notethat ovulation status lies outside the theoretical architecture of tra-ditional social psychological theories of relationships. As such,these data combine with other findings demonstrating importanteffects of various hormones (e.g. Durante & Li, 2009; Miller &Maner, 2010; Roney & Simmons, 2008) to illustrate the value ofgenerating integrative, biosocial models of social cognition.AcknowledgmentThe contributions of Douglas Kenrick and Steven Neuberg weresupported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health(R01MH064734).ReferencesAckerman, J. M, Becker, D. V, Mortensen, C. R. Sasaki, T., Neuberg S. L. & Kenrick,D. T. (2009). A pox on the mind: Disjunction of attention and memory in theprocessing of physical disfigurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.45, 478-485 andBecker, D. V., Anderson, U. S, Neuberg, S. L, Maner, J. K, Shapiro, J. R. Ackerman, J.M, et al. (2010). More memory bang for the attentional buck: Self-protectiongoals enhance encoding efficiency for potentially threatening males. SocialPsychological and Personality Science, 1, 182-189.Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T. Guerin, S., & Maner, J. K. (2005). Concentrating onbeauty: Sexual selection and sociospatial memory. Personality & SocialPsychology Bulletin, 31,1643-1652.Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L, Blackwell, K. C. & Smith, D. M. (2007). Theconfounded nature of angry men and happy women Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 92, 179-190Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextualevolutionary analysis of human mating Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.Clark, R. D. & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.Durante, K. M. & L. N. P. (2009), Oestradiol and opportunistic mating in women.Biology Letters, 5, 179-182.Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women'spreferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society ofLondon B, 265, 727-733.Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R. & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations toovulation implications for sexual and social behavior. Current Directions inScience, 14, 312-316retocaT. (2005) Receptivity to sexual offers as function of sexsocioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the offer.Personal Relationships, 12, 373-386's fertility across the cycle increasesHaselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women's fertility across the cycleincreasesthe short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 50-73.Haselton, M. G, Mortezaie, M, Pillsworth, E. G, Bleske-Recheck, A. E, & Frederick, D.A. (2007). Ovulation and human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, womendress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 41-45.Kenrick, D. T., Delton, A. W, Robertson, T, Becker, D. V., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). Howthe mind warps: A social evolutionary perspective on cognitive processingdisjunctions. In J.P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. Von Hippel (Eds.), The evolutionof the social mind: Evolution and social cognition (pp. 49-68). New York:Psychology Press.Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L. Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V. & Schaller, M. (2010)Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior: The fundamental motivesframework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 63-67.Kenrick, D. T. Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and thestages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal ofPersonality, 58, 97-117.L, N. P. & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences forshort-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 90, 468-489.Maner, J. Kenrick, D. T, Becker, D. Delton, A, Hofer, B, Wilbur, C, et al. (2003).Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120.Maner, J. K. Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E, Hofer, B, Neuberg, S.L.et al. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can biasinterpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63-78.Miller, S. L. & Maner, J. K. (2010). Scent of a woman: Men's testosterone responsesto olfactory ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276-283.Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context andconsequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237-247. ELSEVIERARTICLE INFOJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 804-808ReportI only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory)to attractive menArticle history:Received 17 February 2010Revised 14 April 2010Available online 8 May 2010Contents lists available at ScienceDirectUriah S. Anderson, Elaine F. Perea*, D. Vaughn Becker, Joshua M. Ackerman, Jenessa R. Shapiro d.Steven L. Neuberg, Douglas T. KenrickKeywords:AttentionMemoryOvulationFertilityMenstrual cycleEvolutionary psychologyJournal of Experimental Social Psychology*Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, United StatesDepartment of Applied Psychology, Arizona State University at the Polytechnic Campus, Mesa, AZ 85212, United States"Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 100 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, United States*Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, United Statesjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jespdoi:10.1016/jesp.2010.04.015ABSTRACTA number of studies have found a disjunction between women's attention to, and memory for, handsomemen. Although women pay initial attention to handsome men, they do not remember those men later.The present study examines how ovulation might differentially affect these attentional and memory pro-cesses. We found that women near ovulation increased their visual attention to attractive men. However,this increased visual attention did not translate into better memory. Discussion focuses on possibleexplanations, in the context of an emerging body of findings on disjunctions between attention to, andmemory for, other people.© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.IntroductionOn entering a crowded room, to whom do we pay attention?Who do we later remember? A number of studies suggest that sim-ple social cognitive processes are often biased in functionally sen-sible ways (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2009; Becker, Kenrick, Neuberg.Blackwell, & Smith, 2007; Maner et al., 2005). Some of this researchsuggests sex differences in such processing. For instance, whereasmen pay attention to, selectively encode, and selectively rememberphysically attractive women, women attend to, but do not laterremember, handsome men (Becker, Kenrick, Guerin, & Maner,2005; Maner et al., 2003).These findings make sense in terms of typical male and femalemating strategies: whereas men are interested in, and relativelynonselective about, possible relationships with female strangers,women have generally higher standards for casual relationshipsand are less inclined to have such relationships with male strang-ers (e.g. Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Greitemeyer, 2005; Kenrick,Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Wiederman &Hurd, 1999). For women, the relative costs of casual relationshipsare higher than they are for men. In particular, a short-termCorresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, United States. Fax: +1 480 965 8544E-mail address: uriah.anderson@asu.edu (U.S. Anderson)0022-1031/5-see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.relationship could result in pregnancy, which brings necessarilyhigh costs for women, but not necessarily for men. Although thereis some value in noticing physically attractive male strangers,might not generally be a good use of cognitive resources for wo-men to extensively process such men in the absence of indicatorsof other desirable characteristics (Kenrick, Delton, Robertson, Beck-er, & Neuberg, 2007).There might, however, be an exception to the above generaliza-tions. Women adopt different mating strategies under different cir-cumstances (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000;Haselton & Miller, 2006), and an emerging literature reveals thathormonal fluctuations near ovulation alter women's mating prefer-ences and behaviors in important ways. Compared to other pointsin their menstrual cycle, women near ovulation dress moreattractively and provocatively (Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth,Bleske-Recheck, & Frederick, 2007). Ovulating women are moreattracted to men showing high levels of masculinity (e.g.Penton-Voak et al., 2003) and signs of creativity (Haselton & Miller,2006). They also prefer the scent of symmetrical men (Gangestad &Thornhill, 1998). Most critically, women in the most fertile part oftheir cycle are more interested in extra-pair sexual relations,particularly with men more attractive than their long-termpartners (Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006).Why would women, even those with partners, be especiallyinterested in attractive men during ovulation? Symmetry, highU.S. Anderson et al./Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 804-808masculinity, and creative displays, much like colorful and symmet-rical displays in peacocks, appear to reflect the possession of genet-ic traits well-suited to survival (Haselton & Miller, 2006). Whenchoosing a mate, then, females may face trade-offs between mateswho will stay around and provide resources versus those who, be-cause of their attractiveness, may have more opportunities to stray.A casual liaison with an attractive man is thus a double-edgedsword: although it is a means of acquiring beneficial genes for off-spring, it risks the loss of a (less attractive but more committed)partner willing to provide resources. One strategy for balancingthis trade-off is to engage in temporally limited and concealed ex-tra-pair liaisons with highly attractive males during the period ofmaximal fertility (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005;Haselton & Miller, 2006). Of course, none of this is presumed tobe consciously mediated, and cyclic effects are not found for wo-men on hormonal birth control (which changes normal hormonalpatterns).Despite evidence of ovulatory shifts in overt behavior and ex-pressed preferences, few researchers have explored how ovulationaffects early-stage cognitive processing. During ovulation, it mightbe expected that women pay increased attention to handsomemen. Given that highly fertile women are more attracted to, andmore interested in mating with, highly attractive men, we pre-dicted that women near ovulation would spend more time attend-ing to attractive men than those in less fertile periods.Will this extra attention for attractive men translate into bettermemory? The default assumption would be that increased visualattention to any target will increase memory for that target. Giventhat highly fertile women are more interested in short-term sexualencounters with men of high genetic quality, they may be expectedto spend extra cognitive resources subsequently processing thefaces of attractive men to more carefully evaluate cues linked togenetic quality (eg, facial masculinity, symmetry). In a similarvein, they may expend extra cognitive resources assessing thefaces of attractive men for cues suggestive of additional desirablecharacteristics (e.g. resources, dependability, trustworthiness)-characteristics suggesting that the man also possesses long-termrelationship potential. In both cases, such enhanced processingshould lead to enhanced memory.On the other hand, it is not always the case that increased visualattention translates into increased memory. For example Rock andGutman (1981) had participants look at sets of two overlappingfigures while searching for a particular feature. While the task re-quired that participants look at both figures, they later showedpoor memory for the figure that lacked the target feature. In an-other study, participants playing a computerized version of thematching game Concentration were asked to match pairs of facesin a matrix after having the opportunity to look at all faces beforethey were masked. Female participants gave evidence of havinginitially attended to the handsome faces, as judged by performanceon the first trial. However, unlike performance for attractive femalefaces, which remained efficient throughout the game, efficiency formatching attractive male faces decreased over trials (Becker et al.,2005).In the case of ovulating women, there are several reasons whyenhanced looking might not translate into enhanced memory. Be-cause of the costs associated with liaisons with unfamiliar men, forexample, there could be some suppression of deeper subsequentcognitive processing. Alternatively, increased visual attention toattractive men could serve functions that are not fundamentallyabout cognitive processing and thus would not translate into in-creased memory. For example, visual attention is a tactic used bywomen to communicate interest and encourage men to approach(Moore, 1985). If increased looking serves a non-cognitive function,we would not expect it to contribute to increased memory. In thepresent study, we measured effects of fertility on visual attention805to faces varying on attractiveness and gender using an eye trackingdevice, and also tested women's memory for those faces.MethodOne hundred twelve females in an Introductory Psychologycourse participated in exchange for partial fulfillment of courserequirements. Prescreening questionnaires excluded those usinghormonal birth control or indicating highly irregular cycle length.Equipment malfunctions and calibration difficulties rendered eyetracking data from 22 participants unusable, leaving a final sampleof 90 participants. These participants were classified as high fertil-ity (N-24) or low fertility (N-66) based on information they pro-vided about their menstrual cycle (see below).To minimize the possibility that participants would consciouslytry to control eye movements, they were told the study investi-gated visual and auditory perception using a portable electroen-cephalograph; the apparent electroencephalograph was actually aheadband containing magnetic sensors that allowed the AppliedScience Laboratories Series 5000 eye tracker to reduce eye-captureloss. After calibrating the eye tracking software, participantsviewed a slide show consisting of four slides. Each slide containedeight faces (two exemplars each of the factorial combination ofmale/female and attractive/average) in a roughly circular array.These faces were neutrally-expressive, White young adults, andwere pre-rated for physical attractiveness for an earlier study.More detailed information can be found in Maner et al. (2003).Each slide appeared for 10s with a 2 s break between slides.Participants next completed the memory test. The memory testconsisted of the 32 faces from the slide show and 32 distracterfaces also varying on gender and attractiveness. Participants indi-cated whether they had seen each face on a six-point scale rangingfrom "Definitely did not see" to "Definitely did see."At the end of the study, participants provided information abouttheir menstrual cycle length and regularity and were asked to emailresearchers the date of their next menses onset. To determine fer-tility phase, we employed the reverse-cycle day method (cf. Hasel-ton & Miller, 2006). The 5 days prior to ovulation and the day ofovulation itself (ie, reverse count days 15-20) are considered highfertility days, while the remaining days are considered low fertility.We based our fertility calculation on the most recent cycle informa-tion available. For 50 participants, this information came from therequested follow-up email. The other 40 participants did not con-tact us at the start of their next menses, so we used the informationthey provided during the experimental session. Although the re-verse-cycle day method is less precise than hormonal methods ofmeasuring fertility, women in the high fertility group will be, onaverage, more fertile than those in the low fertility group. Any er-rors in categorization worked against our hypotheses.ResultsTo test the effects of fertility on attention to faces, we conducteda mixed ANOVA on the total attention to each face type with fertil-ity as a between-subjects factor and target gender and attractive-ness as within-subjects factors. Overall, there was a main effectof target attractiveness, F(1, 88)-44.21, p<.001, -33, such thatparticipants paid more attention to attractive targets (M-7.90seconds, SD-2.05) than average targets (M-6.28 seconds,SD 1.92).This attractiveness main effect was qualified, however, by athree-way interaction of target gender, target attractiveness, andfertility, F1, 88)-4.98, p.028, 054; see Fig. 1. The two-way interaction between fertility and target gender was significantwithin attractive targets, F1, 88)-6.15, p.015, n.065, but not

This study looks at how ovulation affects women's attention to attractive males and their…

Read the research article added here and answer the questions: 1. What type of variable is fertility status? A. Quasi-dependent variable B. Dependent variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-independent variable E. Independent variable F. Predictor variable 2. What type of variable is sex of target face? A. Quasi-dependent variable B. Dependent variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-independent variable E. Independent variable F. Predictor variable 3. What type of variable is attractiveness of target face? A. Quasi-dependent variable B. Dependent variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-independent variable E. Independent variable F. Predictor variable 4. Looking at the relationship between fertility status, target sex, target attractiveness, and attention, what type of study is it (correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental)? A. Quasi-experimental and experimental B. Experimental C. Correlational D. Quasi-experimental 5. Can we technically conclude that fertility status affects attention? A. No, because women were not randomly assigned to fertility status and their fertility status was not manipulated B. Yes, because women were randomly assigned to fertility status and their fertility status was manipulated C. Yes, because women were randomly selected and their fertility status was manipulated

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)

5th Edition

ISBN:9780134477961

Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Publisher:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Chapter1: The Science Of Psychology

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1TY

See similar textbooks