Table 3.

Experiment 1: Summary of findings from analyses with appeal scores based on McDougall and Reppa’s (2008) ratings and on participants’ own ratings. Effect sizes are only provided for significant effects

	McDougall and Reppa (2008) normative ratings of appeal				Participants’ own ratings of appeal
Target present	df	F	p	ηp2	df	F	p	ηp2
RT analyses
Set size	3,117	82.96	<.001	.68	3,96	36.16	<.001	.53
Complexity	1,39	119.26	<.001	.75	1,32	34.28	<.001	.52
Appeal	1,39	40.34	<.001	.51	2,64	13.33	<.001	.29
Complexity × Appeal	1,39	4.75	.03	.11	2,64	0.55	.58	-
Set Size × Complexity	3,117	5.38	.003	.12	3,96	6.82	<.001	.18
Set Size × Appeal	3,117	0.63	.59	-	3,96	0.50	.81	-
Set Size × Complexity × Appeal	3,117	0.31	.81	-	6,192	0.26	.95	-
Slopes analyses
Complexity	1,39	15.49	<.001	.28	1,39	27.23	<.001	.41
Appeal	1,39	1.79	.19	-	1,39	0.06	.94	-
Complexity × Appeal	1,39	0.09	.76	-	1,39	0.31	.74	-
Target absent	df	F	p	ηp2	df	F	p	ηp2
RT analyses
Set size	3,117	152.50	<.001	.80	3,99	125.91	<.001	.79
Complexity	1,39	21.79	<.001	.36	1,33	10.41	<.001	.24
Appeal	1,39	10.01	.003	.20	2,66	9.48	<.01	.23
Complexity × Appeal	1,39	8.97	.005	.19	2,66	0.02	.98	-
Set Size × Complexity	3,117	7.75	.001	.17	3,99	4.72	<.01	.12
Set Size × Appeal	3,117	1.46	.34	-	6,198	1.07	.38	-
Set Size × Complexity × Appeal	3,117	3.06	.03	.07	6,198	0.85	.53	-
Slopes analyses
Complexity	1,39	13.84	<.001	.26	1,39	9.39	.004	.19
Appeal	1,39	2.53	.12	-	2,78	0.94	.39	-
Complexity × Appeal	1,39	6.32	.02	.14	2,78	2.14	.15	-