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 out-of implicit theories out-of relationship to your 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).
The following a couple of-ways telecommunications occurred between position and you will gender, F(1, 301) = 5.sixty, p = .02, ?p dos = .02. Simple consequences investigation indicated that the newest control is actually significant having men professionals, F(1, 301) = eight.twenty-two, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, however women people, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p dos = .00. One of male participants, those who work in the organization standing forgave the lover’s hypothetical infidelity to an increased the total amount than simply performed those who work in brand new fate reputation (select Shape dos). The manipulation did not affect people participants’ infidelity forgiveness. Not one two- https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/raleigh/ otherwise about three-way connections results was indeed significant. Footnote step one
Examining dispositional connection low self-esteem once the a moderator
To assess H6, five hierarchical numerous regression analyses was basically held in which the ECRS subscale results have been entered towards starting point, brand new dummy coded experimental position on step two, as well as the ECRS ? updates correspondence terms and conditions towards step three. The new DIQ-R subscales was indeed integrated given that lead variables (immediately following centered to reduce multicollinearity). Because the good Bonferroni modification was applied to safeguard regarding sorts of We errors, a leader off .01 (.05/4) are observed. Get a hold of Desk step three to possess correlations.