Initial Analyses

As additional manipulation checks, two ples t gay hookup San Jose 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 away from implicit concepts away from relationship towards 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).

Next a couple of-way interaction took place anywhere between reputation and you will sex, F(1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p dos = .02. Simple outcomes analysis showed that this new control was tall to possess men participants, F(step one, 301) = seven.twenty two, p = .008, ?p 2 = .02, yet not lady users, F(step one, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p dos = .00. Certainly one of men members, those in the development status forgave the lover’s hypothetical cheating so you’re able to an increased the quantity than just did those who work in the fresh fate position (come across Figure dos). Brand new control failed to apply at lady participants’ unfaithfulness forgiveness. Hardly any other two- or around three-means relations overall performance was indeed extreme. Footnote 1

Evaluating dispositional accessory insecurity just like the a good moderator

To evaluate H6, four hierarchical numerous regression analyses had been presented where in fact the ECRS subscale score have been entered into the 1st step, the dummy coded fresh condition on the next step, plus the ECRS ? reputation correspondence words with the third step. The newest DIQ-Roentgen subscales were provided because result variables (after centred to attenuate multicollinearity). Given that a great Bonferroni correction was used to guard out-of kind of We errors, a leader out of .01 (.05/4) is actually then followed. See Dining table step three to own correlations.