First 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 from implicit ideas out-of matchmaking into the infidelity 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-means communications took place between updates and you can intercourse, F(1, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Simple outcomes investigation indicated that the latest manipulation try extreme having male users, F(step 1, 301) = eight.twenty two, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, however female users, F(1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p 2 = .00. Among male users, those in the organization position forgave the lover’s hypothetical unfaithfulness so you can an elevated the amount than just performed those who work in the fresh future reputation (find Contour dos). The fresh new manipulation did not apply to females participants’ unfaithfulness forgiveness. Hardly any other two- or about three-method relationships show had been significant. Footnote step 1
Assessing dispositional accessory low self-esteem while the a beneficial moderator
To evaluate H6, four hierarchical several regression analyses was hookup ads posting sites Reno in fact conducted in which the ECRS subscale score had been inserted on the first rung on the ladder, brand new dummy coded fresh status toward second step, as well as the ECRS ? condition correspondence words into the step three. New DIQ-Roentgen subscales were incorporated due to the fact outcome variables (immediately following centered to attenuate multicollinearity). As a great Bonferroni modification was utilized to guard away from sort of I errors, an alpha off .01 (.05/4) is then followed. Find Table 3 having correlations.