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 outcome of implicit theories away from dating towards 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).
Next a couple of-means telecommunications occurred between position and you will gender, F(step 1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Effortless effects analysis indicated that the brand new manipulation is extreme getting male users, F(1, 301) = seven.22, p = .008, ?p 2 = .02, yet not lady players, F(step 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p dos = .00. Certainly men users, those in the organization position forgave its partner’s hypothetical infidelity to help you an elevated extent than just performed those in the destiny updates (select Shape 2). Brand new manipulation failed to connect with girls participants’ cheating forgiveness. Few other several- otherwise three-means connections performance was indeed extreme. Footnote step one
Assessing dispositional accessory insecurity as the a beneficial moderator
To evaluate H6 examine the link, five hierarchical several regression analyses was indeed presented where the ECRS subscale ratings was indeed joined into initial step, the new dummy coded experimental updates towards second step, in addition to ECRS ? position interaction terms and conditions into the third step. The DIQ-R subscales were included once the outcome parameters (after centred to attenuate multicollinearity). Because the a good Bonferroni correction was used to protect off method of We mistakes, a leader away from .01 (.05/4) is adopted. Get a hold of Dining table 3 to possess correlations.