For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 184) = , p 001, R 2 = 0.33. They were slower to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = 0.04, 95% CI (0.02, 0.05), SE = 0.01, p The fresh confidence menstruation having heterosexual men’s TFFs on the cisgender people, feminine trans those with boobs, and you can female trans individuals rather than chest overlapped a lot more, showing that every women photos had a tendency to simply take the early attract For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 68) = 5.70, p = 0.002, R 2 = 0.20. Gay men were quicker to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, ? 0.02), SE = 0.01, p = 0.002. There was suggestive evidence that gay men were slower to fixate on feminine trans individuals than on cisgender men, b = 0.04, 95% CI ( There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFF for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p Full fixation cycle For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 184) = , p For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 68) = , p There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFD for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p

For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 184) = , p 001, R 2 = 0.33. They were slower to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = 0.04, 95% CI (0.02, 0.05), SE = 0.01, p The fresh confidence menstruation having heterosexual men’s TFFs on the cisgender people, feminine trans those with boobs, and you can female trans individuals rather than chest overlapped a lot more, showing that every women photos had a tendency to simply take the early attract For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 68) = 5.70, p = 0.002, R 2 = 0.20. Gay men were quicker to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, ? 0.02), SE = 0.01, p = 0.002. There was suggestive evidence that gay men were slower to fixate on feminine trans individuals than on cisgender men, b = 0.04, 95% CI ( There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFF for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p Full fixation cycle For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 184) = , p For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 68) = , p There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFD for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p

001, R 2 = 0.33. They were slower to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = 0.04, 95% CI (0.02, 0.05), SE = 0.01, p < 0.001. However, they were quicker to fixate on feminine trans individuals than on cisgender men, b = ? 0.09, 95% CI (? 0.11, ? 0.06), SE = 0.01, p < 0.001. Their TFFs were similar for feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, < 0.01), SE = 0.02, p = 0.058.

The fresh confidence menstruation having heterosexual men’s TFFs on the cisgender people, feminine trans those with boobs, and you can female trans individuals rather than chest overlapped a lot more, showing that every women photos had a tendency to simply take the early attract

For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 68) = 5.70, p = 0.002, R 2 = 0.20. Gay men were quicker to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, ? 0.02), SE = 0.01, p = 0.002. There was suggestive evidence that gay men were slower to fixate on feminine trans individuals than on cisgender men, b = 0.04, 95% CI (< 0.01, 0.08), SE = 0.02, p = 0.026. Gay men's TFFs were similar for feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.11, 0.03), SE = 0.03, p = 0.247.

There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFF for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.54, and gay men, F(4, 85) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.58. Heterosexual men and gay men were slower to fixate on images of bonobos than all other stimuli (all p values < 0.001).

Full fixation cycle

For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 184) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.65. Heterosexual men fixated on individuals with penises for less time than they fixated on cisgender women, b = ? 0.27, 95% CI (? 0.30, ? 0.24), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. They fixated on feminine trans individuals longer than they fixated on cisgender men, b = 0.15, 95% CI (0.10, 0.19), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. Additionally, they fixated on feminine trans individuals with breasts longer than they fixated on feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = 0.12, 95% CI (0.04, 0.19), SE = 0.04, p = 0.003.

For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 68) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.70. Gay men fixated on individuals with penises longer than they fixated on cisgender women, b = 0.16, 95% CI (0.11, 0.21), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. They fixated on feminine trans individuals for less time than they fixated on cisgender men, b = ? 0.36, 95% CI (? 0.43, ? 0.30), SE = 0.03, p < 0.001. Additionally, they fixated on feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts for a similar length of time, b = ? 0.10, 95% CI (? 0.21, 0.02), SE = 0.06, p = 0.114.

There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFD for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.62, and gay men, F(4, 85) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.74. Heterosexual men fixated on images of bonobos and cisgender men for a similar length of time, p = 0.946. They fixated on bonobos for less time than all other image categories (all p values < 0.001). Gay men fixated on images of bonobos for less time than all other image categories (all p-values < 0.001).

Popular posts

error: Content is protected !!