Users and you can methods.

We recruited 280 participants (48.2% women, 0.7% unknown; ages 30–49, M = , SD = 4.46) through Prolific Academic's online platform. The invitation targeted users of White/Caucasian ethnicity, and between the ages of 30–49, so that they would match the age and ethnicity of the fictitious dating candidates. The computer program randomly assigned the participants to either one of three groups: explicit (n = 94), covert (n = 90), and naive (n = 96). A sensitivity analysis showed that, with this sample size, we obtained a power of 0.90 to detect a small-sized effect (? 2 _p = 0.021) in the differences between groups.

Procedure and design.

The new experimental design is showed for the Dining table step charmdate 1. As with the earlier tests, users filled a great dummy identity sample throughout the Phase 0, and so they was in fact met with pictures from (fictitious) people throughout the Phase 1. This time, forty photos off prospective dating applicants (women or men, according to preference that members indicated in the beginning of your own experiment) were found. Per image try demonstrated for starters next. In group explicit and group naive, most of the forty photos was indeed fillers at this point. In-group stealth, simply 20 pictures were fillers, due to the fact almost every other 20 trials contains five address images one to was indeed pre-established five times each, to make her or him research common. Because stealth algorithm utilized in Experiment 2 so you can cause an effective familiarity used four reps and you may failed to work well, we now used five reps per address image, following guidance off Rhodes, Halberstadt and you can Brajkovich .