H1: In the stranger context, "opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion" emerge when performance is successful but dissipate when performance fails.H2: In the acquaintance context, this pattern reverses, emerging when performance fails and dissipating when performance is successful.Study 1:A three-factor ANOVA examined the interaction effects, revealing a significant three-way interaction among social distance, performance outcomes, and sex difference on social attractiveness [F(7, 404) = 25.701, p < 0.001, η² = 0.308]. Simple effects analyses showed: for strangers, opposite-sex individuals were rated as more attractive after successful performance than failure [F(1, 121) = 8.930, p = 0.003, η² = 0.069], while no significant difference in same-sex individuals [F(1, 72) = 1.594, p = 0.211, η² = 0.022].For acquaintances: Opposite-sex individuals were rated as more attractive after failed performance than success [F(1, 134) = 9.791, p = 0.002, η² = 0.068], with no significant difference for same-sex individuals [F(1, 78) = 0.004, p = 0.952, η² = 0.000]. These findings suggest that performance success enhances attraction toward opposite-sex strangers, whereas failure enhances attraction toward opposite-sex acquaintances.Study 2: A three-way mixed-design ANOVA revealed a significant interaction among social distance, performance outcomes, and task nature [F(3, 222) = 8.388, p < 0.001, η² = 0.102]. Simple effects analyses showed: For strangers, when performance was successful, compatible response latency was significantly lower than incompatible latency [F(1, 59) = 5.875, p = 0.018, η² = 0.091], indicating implicit opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion. When performance failed, the pattern reversed [F(1, 59) = 4.999, p = 0.005, η² = 0.128], showing implicit opposite-sex repulsion and same-sex attraction.For acquaintances: When performance was successful, implicit same-sex attraction and opposite-sex repulsion emerged [F(1, 43) = 6.637, p = 0.014, η² = 0.134]. When performance failed, the pattern reversed [F(1, 61) = 7.203, p = 0.009, η² = 0.106], indicating implicit opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion.

H1: In the stranger context, "opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion" emerge when performance is successful but dissipate when performance fails.H2: In the acquaintance context, this pattern reverses, emerging when performance fails and dissipating when performance is successful.Study 1:A three-factor ANOVA examined the interaction effects, revealing a significant three-way interaction among social distance, performance outcomes, and sex difference on social attractiveness [F(7, 404) = 25.701, p < 0.001, η² = 0.308]. Simple effects analyses showed: for strangers, opposite-sex individuals were rated as more attractive after successful performance than failure [F(1, 121) = 8.930, p = 0.003, η² = 0.069], while no significant difference in same-sex individuals [F(1, 72) = 1.594, p = 0.211, η² = 0.022].For acquaintances: Opposite-sex individuals were rated as more attractive after failed performance than success [F(1, 134) = 9.791, p = 0.002, η² = 0.068], with no significant difference for same-sex individuals [F(1, 78) = 0.004, p = 0.952, η² = 0.000]. These findings suggest that performance success enhances attraction toward opposite-sex strangers, whereas failure enhances attraction toward opposite-sex acquaintances.Study 2: A three-way mixed-design ANOVA revealed a significant interaction among social distance, performance outcomes, and task nature [F(3, 222) = 8.388, p < 0.001, η² = 0.102]. Simple effects analyses showed: For strangers, when performance was successful, compatible response latency was significantly lower than incompatible latency [F(1, 59) = 5.875, p = 0.018, η² = 0.091], indicating implicit opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion. When performance failed, the pattern reversed [F(1, 59) = 4.999, p = 0.005, η² = 0.128], showing implicit opposite-sex repulsion and same-sex attraction.For acquaintances: When performance was successful, implicit same-sex attraction and opposite-sex repulsion emerged [F(1, 43) = 6.637, p = 0.014, η² = 0.134]. When performance failed, the pattern reversed [F(1, 61) = 7.203, p = 0.009, η² = 0.106], indicating implicit opposite-sex attraction and same-sex repulsion.

This dataset supports the research titled "The Allocation of Limited Life Resources: Effects of Mortality Awareness and Hedonic/Eudaimonic Orientation on Cognitive Effort". The studies examine how mortality awareness influences cognitive effort allocation and whether subjective time perception and motivational value orientations shape this effect. The core hypotheses were that (1) mortality awareness would increase cognitive effort via compressed subjective time perception (Study 1), and (2) hedonic and eudaimonic orientations would moderate this relationship, enhancing or reducing cognitive effort depending on motivational focus (Study 2). The dataset contains raw behavioral and questionnaire data from two laboratory experiments, including condition assignments (mortality vs. toothache salience; hedonic vs. eudaimonic orientation), measures of subjective time perception assessed through a line-marking task, and C-EEfRT behavioral records indicating effort choices. Data were collected from undergraduate participants through manipulation writing tasks, orientation priming materials, time perception assessment, and repeated effort decision trials. Results reflected that mortality awareness shortened perceived time and increased high-effort choices in Study 1, while in Study 2, mortality awareness increased effort under eudaimonic activation but decreased effort under hedonic activation. These findings provide evidence for an effort cost–benefit decision mechanism influenced by existential awareness and motivational orientation. The dataset can facilitate replication, secondary analysis, and extended modeling of cognitive effort allocation under mortality cues. All data are anonymized, clearly labeled, and can be interpreted using variable notes and task indicators included with the files.

This dataset supports the research titled "The Allocation of Limited Life Resources: Effects of Mortality Awareness and Hedonic/Eudaimonic Orientation on Cognitive Effort". The studies examine how mortality awareness influences cognitive effort allocation and whether subjective time perception and motivational value orientations shape this effect. The core hypotheses were that (1) mortality awareness would increase cognitive effort via compressed subjective time perception (Study 1), and (2) hedonic and eudaimonic orientations would moderate this relationship, enhancing or reducing cognitive effort depending on motivational focus (Study 2). The dataset contains raw behavioral and questionnaire data from two laboratory experiments, including condition assignments (mortality vs. toothache salience; hedonic vs. eudaimonic orientation), measures of subjective time perception assessed through a line-marking task, and C-EEfRT behavioral records indicating effort choices. Data were collected from undergraduate participants through manipulation writing tasks, orientation priming materials, time perception assessment, and repeated effort decision trials. Results reflected that mortality awareness shortened perceived time and increased high-effort choices in Study 1, while in Study 2, mortality awareness increased effort under eudaimonic activation but decreased effort under hedonic activation. These findings provide evidence for an effort cost–benefit decision mechanism influenced by existential awareness and motivational orientation. The dataset can facilitate replication, secondary analysis, and extended modeling of cognitive effort allocation under mortality cues. All data are anonymized, clearly labeled, and can be interpreted using variable notes and task indicators included with the files.

Hypothesis 1: The activation of mortality awareness diminishes time perception, thereby enhancing cognitive effort. Awareness of mortality affects the allocation of cognitive effort resources via the intermediary function of time perception. Hypothesis 2: Happiness orientation moderates the impact of mortality awareness on cognitive effort. Mortality awareness stimulates cognitive effort when a eudaimonic orientation is activated. In contrast, mortality awareness reduces cognitive effort when a hedonic orientation is activated.Result: 1.time perception fully mediates the relationship between mortality awareness and cognitive effort;(DATA1) 2.The results indicated that after controlling for the effect of gender, the interaction between mortality salience and happiness orientation significantly influenced cognitive effort [F(1, 147) = 9.393, p = 0.003, η² = 0.062]. Further simple effects analysis showed the following: under the hedonic orientation activation, the mortality salience group scored significantly lower in cognitive effort compared to the toothache salience group [F(1, 73) = 4.904, p = 0.030, η² = 0.065]; under the eudaimonic orientation activation, the mortality salience group scored significantly higher in cognitive effort compared to the toothache salience group [F(1, 73) = 4.483, p = 0.038, η² = 0.059]. (DATA2)

Hypothesis 1: The activation of mortality awareness diminishes time perception, thereby enhancing cognitive effort. Awareness of mortality affects the allocation of cognitive effort resources via the intermediary function of time perception. Hypothesis 2: Happiness orientation moderates the impact of mortality awareness on cognitive effort. Mortality awareness stimulates cognitive effort when a eudaimonic orientation is activated. In contrast, mortality awareness reduces cognitive effort when a hedonic orientation is activated.Result: 1.time perception fully mediates the relationship between mortality awareness and cognitive effort;(DATA1) 2.The results indicated that after controlling for the effect of gender, the interaction between mortality salience and happiness orientation significantly influenced cognitive effort [F(1, 147) = 9.393, p = 0.003, η² = 0.062]. Further simple effects analysis showed the following: under the hedonic orientation activation, the mortality salience group scored significantly lower in cognitive effort compared to the toothache salience group [F(1, 73) = 4.904, p = 0.030, η² = 0.065]; under the eudaimonic orientation activation, the mortality salience group scored significantly higher in cognitive effort compared to the toothache salience group [F(1, 73) = 4.483, p = 0.038, η² = 0.059]. (DATA2)