Initial 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 chatki 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 away from implicit ideas away from dating for 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 second a couple-ways communication happened between standing and you may sex, F(step one, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Simple effects data showed that the new manipulation is actually tall for male players, F(1, 301) = seven.twenty two, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, but not people people, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Among men users, those in the development standing forgave their lover’s hypothetical infidelity so you can an elevated the amount than just performed those in the latest fate status (pick Contour 2). This new manipulation did not apply at people participants’ cheating forgiveness. Not one two- otherwise around three-ways interactions performance were tall. Footnote step one
Examining dispositional attachment low self-esteem once the an excellent moderator
To assess H6, five hierarchical numerous regression analyses had been presented where in actuality the ECRS subscale scores was in fact registered on first faltering step, the brand new dummy coded fresh status to your second step, as well as the ECRS ? position communication conditions toward third step. The latest DIQ-Roentgen subscales was basically included because lead details (once centred to minimize multicollinearity). As the an excellent Bonferroni correction was used to safeguard regarding type We problems, an alpha out-of .01 (.05/4) are then followed. Discover Table step 3 to possess correlations.