001, R 2 = 0.33. They were slower to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = 0.04, www.datingranking.net/local-hookup/orlando 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.
Brand new trust durations to possess heterosexual men’s room TFFs towards the cisgender girls, feminine trans people with tits, and you can female trans individuals versus chest overlapped considerably, appearing that most women pictures had a tendency to capture the very early appeal
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).
Complete obsession 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).