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 out of implicit theories away from relationship for 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 few-ways telecommunications taken place ranging from reputation and you will intercourse, F(1, 301) = 5.60, p = .02, ?p 2 = .02. Effortless consequences data revealed that the new manipulation is actually high having men users, F(step one, 301) = 7.22, p = .008, ?p dos = .02, not females users, F(step online hookup Saint John 1, 301) = 0.05, p = .82, ?p dos = .00. Certainly one of men participants, those who work in the growth updates forgave their lover’s hypothetical infidelity to help you an increased the quantity than simply did those in the brand new destiny status (find Profile 2). The manipulation don’t affect people participants’ unfaithfulness forgiveness. Not one a couple of- otherwise three-way connections abilities was extreme. Footnote step one

Assessing dispositional connection low self-esteem due to the fact a moderator

To evaluate H6, five hierarchical several regression analyses was held where the ECRS subscale score were inserted into the first faltering step, brand new dummy coded experimental condition towards second step, and also the ECRS ? condition interaction conditions for the third step. The fresh new DIQ-Roentgen subscales was in fact provided once the lead variables (after centred to attenuate multicollinearity). Given that a Bonferroni modification was used to safeguard out of sorts of I mistakes, an alpha from .01 (.05/4) try adopted. Look for Desk 3 to possess correlations.