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 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 theories away from dating on 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 gay hookup sites Sarnia 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 next two-means telecommunications taken place anywhere between updates and you will intercourse, F(step one, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p dos = .02. Easy consequences data indicated that the fresh manipulation was tall getting men players, F(step one, 301) = eight.twenty two, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, yet not females professionals, F(step one, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Certainly men members, those who work in the organization updates forgave its lover’s hypothetical infidelity to help you a greater the total amount than performed those in brand new destiny status (look for Contour dos). The latest control did not apply to people participants’ infidelity forgiveness. Not any other a couple of- or about three-ways relations results have been high. Footnote step one
Determining dispositional connection low self-esteem since the a great moderator
To evaluate H6, five hierarchical numerous regression analyses was basically presented where in fact the ECRS subscale ratings have been entered to your starting point, the fresh new dummy coded fresh condition towards the second step, additionally the ECRS ? standing telecommunications words on the next step. The fresh new DIQ-R subscales were incorporated since the outcome variables (just after centred to reduce multicollinearity). Due to the fact a beneficial Bonferroni correction was utilized to guard off type I errors, an alpha out of .01 (.05/4) are adopted. Select Dining table step 3 for correlations.
