Preliminary 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 result of implicit ideas from dating on unfaithfulness 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).
Another a couple-way communication happened anywhere between condition and you can intercourse, F(1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p dos = .02. Effortless outcomes studies revealed that new manipulation is tall to possess men members, F(step one, 301) = seven.22, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, however people users, F(1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. One of male users, those who work in the organization status forgave their lover’s hypothetical cheating so you can an increased the amount than simply performed those who work in brand new destiny condition (look for Shape dos). The brand new manipulation don’t affect female participants’ infidelity forgiveness. Few other one or two- https://datingranking.net/cs/charmdate-recenze/ otherwise about three-method relationships results had been significant. Footnote step 1
Determining dispositional attachment insecurity as a great moderator
To evaluate H6, five hierarchical several regression analyses was basically held where the ECRS subscale scores was joined towards first step, the latest dummy coded fresh status into the next step, plus the ECRS ? updates communication terms to the step three. The DIQ-R subscales was indeed integrated once the outcome details (just after centred to minimize multicollinearity). Because a beneficial Bonferroni correction was applied to safeguard regarding types of I mistakes, an alpha from .01 (.05/4) are observed. Pick Dining table step 3 to have correlations.
Leave a Reply