Eş seçimi bağlamında kıskançlık ve zihinselleştirmenin etkileşimi

Mate choice is a multifaceted decision mediated by mentalization and jeal- ousy, etc. Jealousy is conceptualized to alter attentional bias toward con- textual cues and recalibrate partners' valued traits. This thesis examined whether a jealousy induction, compared to a control group, alters perspec- tive taking, jealousy state, attentional bias, and preferred traits ranking. 48 participants completed: a dot-probe (image/words), MJS (Multidimensional Jealousy Scale), DMASC-MC (Double Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition — Multiple Choice), a 12-item trait ranking, and the Draw E task. Drawing E was modeled using logistic regression. By filtering out in- valid/missing data, the analytic numbers were: MJS and trait-rating n=48 (Control=24, Experimental=24), DMASC-MC n=46 (Control=23, Experi- mental=23), and dot-probe n=45 (Control=21, Experimental=24). Results and discussion: for both Dot-Probe and DMASC-MC: baselines controlled, groups did not differ at post, rather pre-test covariations were highly predictive: Dot-probe: F (1,42) =0.21, p=.652; covariation F (1,42) =19.25, p<.001. Baseline total RTs were comparable (0.776 vs. 0.832 s); DMASC-MC: using ANCOVAs, (post Group + pre), no sig. between- groups posttest (Cognitive: F (1,43) = 0.05, p=.819; Count "N-Correct": F (1,43) = 0.56, p=.460); covariate F (1,43) = 20.97, p<.001). MJS: no discernible between group changes (Total t(46)=-1.05, p=.300, g=-0.30; Be- havioral t(46)=-0.28, p=.784, g=-0.08; Cognitive t (46) = -1.89, p=.065, g=-0.54; Emotional t(46)=-0.08, p=.939, g =-0.02; ). Trait-rating: Trait, Session, and Trait×Session, were significant (Trait: F (3.46,159.16) =155.59, p<.001, ω2≈.67; by Session (F (1,46) =145.94, p<.001, ω2≈.19); with change over Session varying by Trait (F (2.50,114.77) =162.81, p<.001, ω2≈.47)); Group showed no effects. Logistic regression: Age was a positive predictor of self-oriented E. Also, in our logistic modeling, the direction of writing, age, sex and their interaction improved the fitness of the prediction of self- oriented (∆χ2(4)=12.30, p=.015 (McFadden R2=.27; Nagelkerke R2≈.37; Tjur R2≈.33)). The priming manipulation did not yield condition-specific re- sults on the battery tests, suggesting more intense/prolonged manipulations. Nevertheless, the significant logistic results of age underpin a trajectory of intrapersonal differences in perspective-taking, offering further studies.