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 = https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/sacramento/ 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 of implicit theories from relationships on 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 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 two-ways telecommunications taken place ranging from position and intercourse, F(step 1, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Easy effects study indicated that this new control is actually tall to own male professionals, F(step one, 301) = eight.twenty-two, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, yet not girls players, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Among men participants, those who work in the growth standing forgave the partner’s hypothetical unfaithfulness to a heightened extent than simply performed those in the destiny status (pick Figure dos). This new control failed to apply at women participants’ infidelity forgiveness. Few other one or two- otherwise about three-ways relationships performance had been significant. Footnote 1
Examining dispositional accessory insecurity once the a good moderator
To evaluate H6, five hierarchical numerous regression analyses was conducted where in actuality the ECRS subscale scores was joined into the 1st step, the latest dummy coded experimental updates into next step, and the ECRS ? condition correspondence conditions into the next step. The new DIQ-Roentgen subscales was indeed provided just like the result parameters (shortly after centred to attenuate multicollinearity). Due to the fact an excellent Bonferroni modification was utilized to guard off type of I errors, a leader away from .01 (.05/4) was adopted. See Desk step 3 having correlations.
Senaste kommentarer