2. disclosure table: Effects evaluating Cycle Shift Prediction and Context Moderation Prediction P-curve 2a. Included studies Quoted text from original paper Original Quoted text from original paper with indicating prediction of interest Study design Results paper statistical results to researchers short-term mating “With attractiveness as the dependent variable, a predicted Conception fertility Risk X SP-DIC Composite (continuous) x interaction emerged, = 2.58, t(7677) composite = 2.58, = .010 t(7677) p = .010; as expected, this p predicting interaction was not significant when the basis of the theory that “On attraction long-term mating attractiveness was these behavioral displays partly the dependent variable, = reflect (and signal) broadly t(7677) (p. 206) Gangestad, defined condition (see Thornhill n.s.” Simpson, & Gangestad, 1999a), we fertility Cousins, predicted that during fertile (continuous) x days, women would prefer the social presence x t(7672) = 2.10, = p & displays in short-term mates relationship context analyses “Additional follow-up .036a more than in long-term mates, (short-term vs. revealed that, entered independently, (2004) but during nonfertile days, this long-term) both Social Presence and Direct difference between mating predicting attraction Intrasexual Competitiveness contexts would not fertility interacted with conception risk and occur.” (p. 204) mating context to predict (continuous) x direct intrasexual attractiveness ratings, t(7672) = 2.10 and 2.21, respectively, p = .036 and competitiveness x = 2.21, = t(7672) p relationship context (p. 206) .027a .027 (Table 1).” (short-term vs. long-term) predicting attraction
2. P-curve disclosure table: Effects evaluating Cycle Shift Prediction and Context Moderation Prediction 2a. Included studies Original paper Quoted text from original paper indicating prediction of interest to researchers Study design Quoted text from original paper with statistical results Results Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, & (2004) “On the basis of the theory that these behavioral displays partly reflect (and signal) broadly defined condition (see Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999a), we predicted that during fertile days, women would prefer the displays in short-term mates more than in long-term mates, but during nonfertile days, this difference between mating contexts would not occur.” (p. 204) fertility (continuous) x composite predicting attraction “With short-term mating attractiveness as the dependent variable, a predicted Conception Risk X SP-DIC Composite interaction emerged, t(7677) = 2.58, p = .010; as expected, this interaction was not significant when long-term mating attractiveness was the dependent variable, t(7677) = n.s.” (p. 206) t(7677) = 2.58, p = .010 fertility (continuous) x social presence x relationship context (short-term vs. long-term) predicting attraction “Additional follow-up analyses revealed that, entered independently, both Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness interacted with conception risk and mating context to predict attractiveness ratings, t(7672) = 2.10 and 2.21, respectively, p = .036 and .027 (Table 1).” (p. 206) t(7672) = 2.10, p = .036a fertility (continuous) x direct intrasexual competitiveness x relationship context (short-term vs. long-term) predicting attraction t(7672) = 2.21, p = .027a
supplement%20Gildersleeve%20et%20al.%20reply%20in%20pb%202014%20final.docx