**Hypotheses** **Hypothesis 1: Directional Bias, Tracking Accuracy, and Assumed Similarity in Sexual Advance Perceptions** H1a (directional bias): We predict that no significant directional bias will emerge. H1b (tracking accuracy): We predict that perceivers will accurately track their partner’s sexual advance behaviours (i.e. demonstrate a positive truth force). H1c (assumed similarity): We predict that partners will assume similarity in their judgments of each other’s sexual advance behaviours (i.e., demonstrate a positive bias force). **Hypothesis 2: Moderation of Directional Bias, Tracking Accuracy, and Assumed Similarity by Gender** H2a (males): We predict that males will demonstrate no directional bias, significant positive tracking accuracy, and significant positive assumed similarity. H2b (females): We predict that females will demonstrate positive directional bias (i.e. overestimate the extent to which their partner enacts each behaviour in an attempt to gain sex), significant positive tracking accuracy, and significant positive assumed similarity. **Hypothesis 3: Moderation of Directional Bias by Average Sexual Initiation and Rejection Behaviours** H3a: We predict that partner sexual initiation attempts will moderate directional bias, such that greater perceptions of and actual partner initiation attempts will be associated with perceiver’s overestimation (positive directional bias) of their partner’s sexual advance behaviours. H3b: We predict that partner sexual rejection will moderate bias, such that greater perceptions of and actual partner sexual rejection will be associated with perceiver’s underestimation (negative directional bias) of their partner’s sexual advance behaviours. **Hypothesis 4: Association Between Gender and Sexual Initiation and Rejection Behaviours** H4a: We predict that, on average, women will perceive a greater number of sexual initiations from their partner than men, whereas men will perceive a greater number of sexual rejections from their partner than women. In addition, results will trend in the direction of men reporting initiating more often than women, and women reporting rejecting more than men. H4b: We predict that, although gender and sexual initiation and rejection behaviours are associated with each other, when both of these factors are included in the truth and bias model the effects of both of these factors will remain significant (i.e. neither of these factors will fully account for the effects of the other). **Hypothesis 5: Moderation of Directional Bias and Tracking Accuracy by Adult Attachment** H5a: We predict that partner’s level of attachment anxiety will interact with perceiver’s tracking accuracy, such that perceiver’s with a more anxious partner will display more tracking accuracy (positive truth force) than those with a less anxious partner. That is, significant tracking accuracy will be displayed in both cases, however the effect will be stronger for those with a more anxious partner. H5b: We predict that partner’s level of attachment avoidance will be associated with directional bias, such that those with a more avoidant partner will display negative directional bias (i.e. underestimate their partner’s sexual advance behaviours). H5c: We predict that perceiver’s and partner’s level of attachment avoidance and anxiety will interact to create differences in directional bias. In particular, we expect that when the perceiver’s anxiety is high and their partner’s avoidance is high, the perceiver will display negative directional bias (i.e. underestimation). However, when perceiver’s avoidance is high and their partner’s anxiety is high, the perceiver will display positive directional bias (i.e. overestimation). **Hypothesis 6: Implications of Directional Bias, Tracking Accuracy, and Assumed Similarity on Relationship Outcomes** H6a (actors’ outcomes): Positive directional bias will be associated with greater actor sexual satisfaction. No other significant effects on actors’ outcomes are expected. H6b (partners’ outcomes): Negative directional bias will be associated with greater partner sexual satisfaction and love. Tracking accuracy will be associated with greater partner love. **Exploratory analyses** We anticipate similar results to the exploratory dataset with regards to the effects of the interaction of perceiver and partner anxiety on directional bias, although we make no claims as tothe anticipated strength of said effect. That is, we anticipate that results will trend in the direction of high anxiety perceivers with more anxious (vs. less anxious) partners displaying positive directional bias (i.e. overestimating), and more (vs. less) anxious perceivers with low anxiety partners displaying negative directional bias (i.e. underestimating). **Peripheral analyses** Other significant results were found in the exploratory analyses, and although they are not included in our main hypotheses for the confirmatory analyses, we would expect similar results in these cases as well. For example, age was found to be associated with directional bias, such that greater age was associated with negative directional bias. We would expect this effect to occur again, but it is not part of our main focus for the confirmatory analyses. In addition, effectsof actor and partner self-esteem, sexual frequency, and null effects of relationship length were found that are anticipated to be replicated. **Data Analytic Plan** The following analyses will be run using Dataset B. To examine whether perceptions of apartner’s sexual advances are biased and accurate, we will use West and Kenny’s (2011) T&B model of judgment. In this model, the person making judgments of their partner’s advances is termed the perceiver; and the perceiver’s judgments are compared with their partner’s actual sexual advance ratings. Data will have a nested structure, with perceivers and partners ratings of sexual advances across the 29 items (Level 1) nested within dyad (Level 2). First, the associations across the perceivers’ judgments of their partner’s advances and the partners’ actual reported advances (the Level 1 repeated measures variables) will be examined to test the degree to which judgments of the partner’s sexual advances were accurate and biased. The perceiver’s judgments of their partner’s sexual advances (the outcome variable) will be centered on the partner’s actual advance rating by subtracting the grand mean of all the partners’ advance ratings (i.e., mean across dyads) from the perceivers’ judgments for each behaviour. This centering strategy means that the intercept represents the difference between the mean of the partner’s actual advance rating and the mean of the perceivers’ judgments of that advance rating. The average of this coefficient across perceivers tests directional bias. A negative average intercept will indicate a general tendency for perceivers to underestimate their partners’ sexual advances, whereas a positive average intercept will indicate that perceivers generally overestimate partners’ advances. The effect (slope) of the partner’s actual advance ratings on the perceiver’s judgments of those ratings reflects tracking accuracy, and the effect (slope) of the perceiver’s own advance ratings on their judgments of their partner’s advances reflects assumed similarity. A positive slope will indicate greater tracking accuracy or assumed similarity, respectively. The same bias and accuracy model described above will be conducted with the addition of the following variables as moderators, with a new model run for each moderator: attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, gender, and average frequency of sexual initiation and rejection. A main effect of the moderator indicates directional bias, and the interaction of the moderator and the truth and bias forces indicate the extent to which the moderator is associated with more or less accuracy and assumed similarity, respectively. In these analyses, the Level 1 intercept (directional bias) and slopes (tracking accuracy and assumed similarity, respectively) are treated as dependent variables predicted by individual differences in the moderator modeled at Level 2. We will also examine gender differences in initiation and rejection behaviours and perceptions, taking into account the dyadic nature of the data through multilevel modeling. To assess the relationship consequences of accurate and biased sexual advance knowledge, we will use multilevel polynomial regression with response surface analyses. The relationship consequences we will examine are relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual frequency, and love. These analyses will allow us to test how tracking accuracy and directional bias are associated with each of the relationship consequences. **Additional Analyses** Reviewers have requested additional analyses examining whether accuracy and bias are associated with the partner enacting more direct (vs. indirect) behaviours. Our original plan (see Sample A Data Analytic Plan) was to run an exploratory factor analysis to see if the behaviours naturally group towards direct/indirect behaviours, and to run a confirmatory factor analysis with Sample B if natural grouping emerged. However, after further consideration we did not believe that we would have sufficient statistical power to make meaningful conclusions for these types of analyses. Instead, we used average ratings of each behaviour on their directness obtained from a sample (N = 11) of research assistants and graduate students as a moderator of accuracy and bias. We did not find evidence that directness was associated with either directional bias (*b* = -.004, *t*(1640.62) = -.19, *p* = .85) or tracking accuracy (*b* = .02, *t*(3065.87) = 1.47, *p* = .14). We will now rerun these analyses with Sample B in an attempt to replicate their results.