| Literature DB >> 26309232 |
Yidan Ma1, Guang Zhao2, Shen Tu3, Yong Zheng1.
Abstract
A long-term romantic relationship can offer many benefits to committed individuals. Thus, humans possess relationship maintenance mechanisms to protect against threats from those who serve as attractive alternatives or intrasexual rivals. Many studies have indicated that romantic love can act as a commitment device to activate these mechanisms. To examine the attentional bias associated with relationship maintenance among 108 college students (49 single and 59 committed females) in China, we used a semantic priming procedure to activate mental representations associated with romantic love and then asked participants to complete a dot-probe task for the purpose of making a distinction between the engage and disengage components of attention. No significant engaging effects toward attractive faces were observed among committed females, but the following significant disengaging effects were found: when primed with romantic love, single females showed increased attention toward and difficulty in disengaging from attractive male faces, whereas females already in a committed relationship did not alter their attention, remaining as inattentive to attractive alternatives as they were in the baseline condition. In addition, committed females responded to love priming by exhibiting difficulty in disengaging from attractive rivals. The present findings provide evidence in the Chinese cultural context for the existence of early-stage attentional processes in the domain of relationship maintenance that committed Chinese females protected an ongoing relationship by not only being inattentive to attractive males who could serve as attractive alternatives, but also being more attentive to attractive females who could be potential rivals when mental representations associated with romantic love were primed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26309232 PMCID: PMC4550349 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Comparison of methods and findings used by Maner, Rouby, and Gonzaga (2008) and those used in the current study.
| Maner, Rouby, and Gonzaga (2008) | The current study | |
|---|---|---|
| Participants | Committed males and females from a Western culture | Different: Single and committed females from an Eastern culture |
| Same: Nothing | ||
| Priming procedure | Scenario priming—participants wrote a brief essay about a time they experienced strong feelings of romantic love for their current partner | Same: Love priming |
| Different: Semantic priming—each love word was displayed to participants for 500 ms | ||
| Stimuli materials | Attractive males, Attractive females, Average males, Average females | Same: Same facial types |
| Different: Each facial stimulus was presented with a neutral stimulus, including attractive male-N pairs, attractive female-N pairs, average male-N pairs, average female-N pairs, and N-N pairs | ||
| Experimental paradigm | Visual cuing task to assess biases in attentional disengagement (modified dot-probe task) | Same: Dot-probe task |
| Different: Modified dot-probe task to assess the engage and disengage components of attention | ||
| Attention component | Engagement was not examined | Same: Engaging attention with the target face |
| Different: Measured by RTs for congruence trials compared to RTs for N-N trials. Engaging index = RTN–N − RTcongruence | ||
| Disengagement was measured by RTs for incongruence trials | Same: Attention shift away from the location of the target face to a different location | |
| Different: Measured by RTs for incongruence trials compared to RTs for N-N trials. Disengaging index = RTincongruence − RTN–N | ||
| Findings | Attentional disengagement: Committed participants in the love-priming condition were significantly less attentive than committed participants in the control condition were to attractive opposite-sex targets | Same: Committed females in the love-priming condition were inattentive to attractive opposite-sex targets. |
| Different: Committed females in the love-priming condition did not alter their attention, remaining as inattentive to attractive alternatives as they were in the baseline condition. They were significantly less attentive than single females were to attractive opposite-sex targets in the love-priming condition. | ||
| Different: Committed females in the love-priming condition increased attention toward and difficulty in disengaging from attractive same-sex targets. |
N, neutral picture; RTs, reaction times.
Fig 1Example of the dot-probe paradigm procedure.
This example shows a congruent trial of the attractive female-neutral picture pair in the love-priming condition.
Summary of RT data for single and committed participants in the love-priming and control conditions.
| Target type | RT type | Love-priming condition | Control condition | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single ( | Committed ( | Single ( | Committed ( | ||
|
| 584 (61) | 557 (81) | 540 (58) | 562 (60) | |
|
| Congruent RT | 578 (62) | 558 (82) | 539 (59) | 563 (61) |
| Engagement | 6 (29) | -2 (17) | 2 (21) | -1 (13) | |
|
| Congruent RT | 582 (61) | 562 (87) | 538 (64) | 561 (61) |
| Engagement | 2 (21) | -6 (17) | 2 (23) | 1 (18) | |
|
| Congruent RT | 586 (63) | 556 (84) | 537 (63) | 560 (58) |
| Engagement | -2 (23) | 1 (13) | 3 (19) | 3 (15) | |
|
| Congruent RT | 580 (56) | 557 (81) | 538 (58) | 564 (64) |
| Engagement | 5 (24) | -1 (15) | 2 (21) | -2 (21) | |
|
| Incongruent RT | 599 (72) | 554 (77) | 539 (61) | 560 (56) |
| Disengagement | 14 (21) | -2 (11) | -1 (19) | -1 (18) | |
|
| Incongruent RT | 582 (59) | 554 (76) | 541 (61) | 563 (65) |
| Disengagement | -3 (20) | -3 (20) | 1 (23) | 1 (19) | |
|
| Incongruent RT | 578 (57) | 567 (94) | 537 (58) | 557 (55) |
| Disengagement | -6 (24) | 10 (19) | -4 (16) | -5 (20) | |
|
| Incongruent RT | 582 (46) | 559 (86) | 541 (60) | 559 (60) |
| Disengagement | -2 (27) | 2 (22) | 1 (15) | -3 (17) | |
RT, reaction time; N, neutral picture.
aAll types of RT data are reported in ms; standard deviations are shown in parentheses.
Fig 2Mean disengaging index in relation to attractive opposite-sex targets.
Note. Error bars show 1 SEM.
Fig 3Mean disengaging index in relation to attractive same-sex targets.
Note. Error bars show 1 SEM.