Model [OR (95% CI)] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Competence | Attractiveness | Full | |
Group (vs HC) | |||
FC | 0.85 (0.63–1.14) | 0.84 (0.63–1.12) | 0.84 (0.63–1.14) |
LOFC | 1.12 (0.85–1.46) | 1.09 (0.84–1.42) | 1.08 (0.82–1.43) |
Competence rating difference | 1.25 (1.16–1.34)*** | 1.16 (1.09–1.24)*** | |
FC × competence rating difference | 0.96 (0.85–1.08) | 0.99 (0.89–1.11) | |
LOFC × competence rating difference | 0.82 (0.74–0.92)** | 0.86 (0.77–0.96)** | |
Attractiveness rating difference | 1.32 (1.22–1.43)*** | 1.27 (1.18–1.37)*** | |
FC × attractiveness rating difference | 0.91 (0.80–1.02) | 0.91 (0.81–1.02) | |
LOFC × attractiveness rating difference | 0.95 (0.80–1.12) | 0.99 (0.83–1.17) | |
Constant | 0.90 (0.80–1.01)a | 0.92 (0.81–1.04) | 0.93 (0.82–1.06) |
Number of observations | 2 321 | 2 321 | 2 321 |
HCs were significantly more likely to choose the candidate they perceived as more competent or attractive, as indicated by ORs significantly >1 for “Competence rating difference” and “Attractiveness rating difference.” LOFC patients were significantly less likely than HCs to choose the candidate they perceived as more competent, as indicated by ORs <1 for “LOFC × competence rating difference.” LOFC patients were as likely as HCs to choose based on difference in perceived attractiveness, as indicated by ORs not different from 1 for “LOFC × attractiveness rating difference.” The pattern of the results is the same whether competence and attractiveness were entered in separate or the same regression models.
↵**p < 0.01,
↵***p < 0.001,
↵ap < 0.1.