Table 1.
Sample characteristics.
Table 2.
Descriptive results for body image-related variables.
Fig 1.
Results for the percentage of attractiveness ratings for all regions of interest (ROIs).
Allocation on the basis of weight status (normal weight (NW) vs. overweight (OW)), gender (female: italics vs. male: bold) and attractiveness (attractive/ unattractive).
Fig 2.
Percentage of dwell time for one’s own body (mean, standard deviation) for attractive, unattractive and neutral ROIs.
Displayed are p-values of between-subjects analysis, following significant multivariate analysis (group F (2, 50) = 12.96; p < .001, η2 = .341; gender F (2, 50) = 5.77, p = .006, η2 = .187; interaction F (2, 50) = 3.11, p = .053, η2 = .111; covariate age F (2, 50) = 0.66, p = .422, η2 = .013).
Fig 3.
Percentage of dwell time for the control body (mean, standard deviation) for attractive, unattractive and neutral ROIs.
Displayed are p-values of between-subjects analysis, following significant multivariate analysis (group F (2, 50) = 20.27, p < .001, η2 = .448), gender (F (2, 50) = 0.18, p = .837, η2 = .007), interaction (F 2, 50) = 1.21, p = .306, η2 = .046), covariate age F (2, 50) = 2.03, p = .142, η2 = .075).
Table 3.
Logistic regression for the prediction of a positive attentional bias.