Original 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 from implicit ideas away from relationships towards the 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 fitness singles seznamka 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 several-means interaction took place ranging from status and you can intercourse, F(step 1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p dos = .02. Easy consequences investigation showed that the fresh new manipulation are significant to possess men people, F(1, 301) = eight.22, p = .008, ?p 2 = .02, however women members, F(step one, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Among male members, those who work in the growth reputation forgave the partner’s hypothetical unfaithfulness so you can an increased the amount than did those who work in the fresh new fate status (come across Contour 2). The latest manipulation didn’t affect females participants’ cheating forgiveness. Not any other one or two- or three-method interactions abilities have been high. Footnote step 1
Evaluating dispositional accessory insecurity since the an excellent moderator
To evaluate H6, five hierarchical several regression analyses was held the spot where the ECRS subscale score have been entered for the starting point, the fresh new dummy coded fresh status to the next step, and ECRS ? status telecommunications words with the step three. The new DIQ-R subscales have been integrated as outcome parameters (immediately after centred to reduce multicollinearity). Due to the fact a Bonferroni modification was utilized to safeguard from type of I errors, an alpha away from .01 (.05/4) was used. Find Dining table step three to have correlations.