First Analyses
As additional manipulation checks, two ples t tests were conducted to examine differences in ITRS scores. The results confirmed that participants assigned to the growth condition reported stronger growth beliefs (M = 5.87, SD = 0.74) than did those in the destiny condition (M = 5.52, SD = 1.01), t(302) = 3.61, p < .001, d = 0.40. Participants assigned to the destiny condition also reported stronger destiny beliefs (M = 4.75, SD = 1.12) than did those in the growth condition (M = 3.92, SD = 1.18), t(302) = 6.22, p < .001, d = 0.72.
The effect off implicit concepts of relationships with the cheating forgiveness
To examine whether the type of behaviour (H1), the sex of the forgiver (H2), and the manipulation of ITRs affected infidelity forgiveness (H5), a 2 (experimental condition; growth/destiny) ? 2 (sex of forgiver) ? 4 (type of behaviour) mixed-design ANOVA was conducted. A significant main effect of type of behaviour emerged, F(1.73, ) = , p < .001, ?p 2 = .75. Consistent with Study 1 (and H1), multiple comparisons indicated that all subscales were significantly different from one another (ps < .001; See Table 1). Consistent with Study 1 (partially consistent with H2), a significant main effect of sex of forgiver also emerged, F(1, 232) = , p < .001, ?p 2 = .09, in which male participants forgave to a greater extent (M = 4.41, SD = 1.15) than did female participants (M = 3.73, SD = 1.00).
As expected (H5), the results also indicated that there was a significant main effect of experimental condition, F(1, 232) = , p < .001, ?p 2 = .06; those in the growth condition forgave their partner's hypothetical infidelity to a greater extent (M = 4.33, SD = 1.12) than did those in the destiny condition (M = 3.80, SD = 1.02). Interestingly, this main effect was qualified by two significant two-way interactions. The first significant interaction occurred between condition and type of behaviour, F(1.58, ) = , p < .001, ?p 2 = .03. Simple effects analysis revealed that the effect of the experimental condition was only significant for the emotional/affectionate behaviours, F(1, 316) = , p = .002, ?p 2 = .03, and the solitary behaviours, F(1, 316) = , p = .001, ?p 2 = 0.04. When forgiving a partner's hypothetical emotional/affectionate and solitary behaviours, those receiving the growth manipulation forgave to a greater extent than those receiving the destiny manipulation (see Figure 1).
The following two-method telecommunications happened anywhere between position and intercourse, F(1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Easy outcomes analysis revealed that the newest manipulation try high to have men people, F(step one, 301) = 7.twenty two, p = .008, ?p 2 = .02, but not girls people, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. One of male people, those in the growth status forgave the partner’s hypothetical cheating to a heightened the amount than simply performed those who work in the fresh new future standing (get a hold of Shape dos). The fresh new control did not apply at girls participants’ unfaithfulness forgiveness. No other two- or about three-means connections overall performance was indeed high. Footnote step one
Examining dispositional connection Vancouver local hookup free low self-esteem as an excellent moderator
To assess H6, four hierarchical several regression analyses were presented the spot where the ECRS subscale score was entered on first faltering step, the new dummy coded experimental reputation into the step two, and also the ECRS ? status correspondence terminology towards the next step. Brand new DIQ-Roentgen subscales was basically included once the lead parameters (immediately after centred to reduce multicollinearity). Since a beneficial Bonferroni correction was applied to guard off variety of We mistakes, a leader out of .01 (.05/4) try observed. Pick Table step 3 to own correlations.