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 end result out of implicit theories off dating with 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).
Another a couple of-way correspondence best hookup apps Toledo taken place between condition and you may intercourse, F(1, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Simple effects investigation indicated that this new manipulation was extreme to own men professionals, F(step one, 301) = 7.22, p = .008, ?p 2 = .02, although not girls people, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Certainly male users, those in the growth status forgave the partner’s hypothetical infidelity to an elevated the total amount than performed those who work in the fresh new future standing (pick Profile dos). New manipulation failed to affect lady participants’ infidelity forgiveness. Few other one or two- or about three-means affairs results had been significant. Footnote step one
Determining dispositional attachment insecurity since an effective moderator
To evaluate H6, five hierarchical multiple regression analyses have been conducted where in fact the ECRS subscale results have been joined on first faltering step, new dummy coded fresh status into step two, and the ECRS ? standing telecommunications conditions to your step three. The brand new DIQ-R subscales was indeed included because lead parameters (after centered to attenuate multicollinearity). Just like the a Bonferroni correction was used to safeguard regarding variety of I mistakes, an alpha off .01 (.05/4) is used. Find Dining table step 3 having correlations.