Sex of your fictive pupil is actually matched up by the intimate positioning and you will photo presented a close-with a happy face expression (utilized regarding the Radboud Faces Databases
Members construction: First 12 months medicine people (N = 355) had been allowed to participate an on-line questionnaire throughout the an excellent lecture and you can owing to their electronic study guide. Students don’t located credits for their participation, however, was hinduistische Singles basically advised that investigation is part of the colloquium and that they could be advised in regards to the causes an then lecture. Students expressed their relationship standing because often unmarried or even in an enthusiastic exclusive matchmaking, of which 87 (38%) were in the an exclusive dating and this omitted for additional analyses. Which led to a remaining try regarding 138 respondents (see Table step one, line check out dos). Zero class differences in age (F(step one,step one37) = step one.step 3, p = .254, ? dos = .009), sex (? dos (1) = 0.18, p = .676) otherwise relationship history (? dos (2) = six.0, p = .050) was discovered ranging from participants on fit vs. new cancer condition in try 2.
Brand new volunteer and anonymous character of one’s investigation is told me online and you may participants was in fact informed one to by proceeding to the survey, they conveyed the consent having contribution. Players was in fact requested to suggest very first group pointers in advance of they certainly were randomized for the healthy or cancer tumors position (find Dining table step 1, column test dos). These were presented with an explanation and you may picture of an excellent fictive other college student. A man and you can ladies pictures had been selected considering decades (like the age of first 12 months college students) and you may attractive seems. The fresh pupil try called a moment season beginner you to definitely enacted the reports, had a part-time work in a movie theater, lived-in pupil construction, often decided to go to their/her moms and dads, are unmarried however, would like to get into a relationship. Once reacting multiple inquiries, respondents have been served with region dos of your profile, presenting often a narrative to the suit updates (forgotten companion so you can malignant tumors 3 years back) versus. the fresh cancers reputation (had cancer him otherwise by herself 36 months in the past). The newest Ethical Panel of your own therapy agency of School from Groningen, holland, accepted in the investigation (ppo-015-082).
Details and you will steps: Shortly after reading the first area of the scenario, respondents rated to the a visual analogue level (zero (1)-yes (10)) whether they was looking a date with this person (1st attract). Immediately after becoming randomized, they again ranked demand for a night out together, followed closely by critiques of your showed people to the ten attributes (we.e., fascinating, independent, vulnerable, friendly, healthy, knowledgeable, desperate, comedy, fearless, strong) for the a size of just one–10 (not really-truly). Ultimately, the participants (plus those in the fresh new match status) was asked after they desires know about a cancer reputation of a potential romantic partner (we.elizabeth., until the first date, at the first date, after a few schedules, in the event the relationship was felt private).
Performance.
Hypothesis 1 2: less interest in cancer profile, especially in women: Univariate general linear model with condition (healthy vs. cancer) and gender as fixed factors and interest in a date as measured in part 2 (i.e., after cancer disclosure) as dependent variable was performed. We accounted for initial interest as measured in part 1 and entered it as covariate (initial interest and interest after second part of description correlated strongly, r = .86, p < .001). The overall model was significant (F(4,134) = 97.1; p < .001, ? 2 = .744), with initial interest (F(1,134) = 351.9, p < .001, ? 2 = .724) explaining almost all of the variance of dating interest; while main effects of gender (F(1, 134) = 0.46, p = .497, ? 2 = .003) and condition (F(1, 134) = 1.12, p = .292, ? 2 = .008), and their interaction (F(1, 134) = 2.69, p = .103, ? 2 = .020) were not significant (see Table 2 for means). Accordingly, a similar analysis without initial interest as covariate changed the overall results (F(3,135) = 3.4, p = .020, ? 2 = .070), with no significant main effect for condition (F(1, 135) = 1.01, p = .316, ? 2 = .007) or the interaction effect (F(1, 135) = 0.2, p = .211, ? 2 = .012). However, without accounting for initial interest, a significant yet small effect of gender was found, where men (M = 5.5, SD = .2.4) reported greater interest in a date overall than women (M = 4.3, SD = 2.4; F(1,135) = 8.1, p = .005, ? 2 = .057).
