Forgiveness away from sexual/specific behaviors

In block 1 of the first regression (predicting DIQ-R sexual/explicit scores), the ECRS scores predicted a significant amount of the variance, R 2 = .30, F(2, 303) = , p < .001. However, only attachment avoidance uniquely accounted for a significant amount of the variance (sr 2 = .08, ? = 0.28, p < .001). Although the experimental manipulation did not result in a significant R 2 change, R 2 change = .00, F change(1, 302) = 1.32, p = .25, the interaction terms in block 3 accounted for a significant amount of additional variance, R 2 change = .14, F change(2, 300) = , p < .001. Attachment avoidance (sr 2 = .12, ? = 0.28, p < .001), attachment anxiety (sr 2 =.03, ? = 0.29, p = .001), the interaction between attachment avoidance and the experimental manipulation (sr 2 =.06, ? = -0.39, p < .001), and the interaction between attachment anxiety and the experimental manipulation (sr 2 = .04, ? = -0.34, p < .001) uniquely accounted for a significant amount of the variance in forgiveness of sexual/explicit behaviours.

A simple slopes analysis was conducted in which the relationship between attachment avoidance and forgiveness of sexual/explicit infidelity was assessed separately for those in the destiny and the growth condition. The results indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between attachment avoidance and sexual/explicit infidelity forgiveness among those in the destiny condition (? = 0.99, 95% CI [0.75, 1.23], p < .001) but not those in the growth condition (? = 0.01, 95% CI [?0.20, 0.23], p = .90). See Figure 3. A similar simple slopes analysis was conducted using attachment anxiety and revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between attachment anxiety and sexual/explicit forgiveness among those in the destiny condition (? = 0.74, 95% CI [0.52, 0.97], p < .001) but not the growth condition (? = ?0.20, 95% CI [?0.42, 0.01], p = .07). See Figure 4.

Fig. cuatro. Dating ranging from accessory anxiety and you can forgiveness regarding intimate/specific unfaithfulness for those about destiny additionally https://datingranking.net/cs/black-singles-recenze/ the growth updates.

Forgiveness off technical/online behaviors

For the second regression (predicting DIQ-R technology/online scores), the ECRS scores predicted a significant amount of the variance, R 2 = .05, F(2, 303) = 8.06, p < .001. Again, attachment avoidance uniquely accounted for a significant amount of the variance (sr 2 = .04, ? = 0.20, p < .001). Although the experimental manipulation did not result in a significant R 2 change, R 2 change = .00, F change(1, 30) = 0.05, p = .83, the inclusion of the interaction terms did account for significant amount of additional variance, R 2 change = .13, F change(2, 300) = , p < .001. Attachment avoidance (sr 2 = .09, ? = 0.48, p < .001), attachment anxiety (sr 2 = .03, ? = 0.28, p = .001), the interaction between attachment avoidance and the experimental manipulation (sr 2 = .06, ? = ?0.39, p < .001), and the interaction between attachment anxiety and the experimental manipulation (sr 2 = .04, ? = ?0.31, p < .001) were all significant.

The follow-up simple slopes analysis indicated that the relationship between attachment avoidance and technology/online infidelity forgiveness was a significant negative relationship for those in the growth condition (? = 0.81, 95% CI [0.58, 1.04], p < .001) but not for those in the destiny condition (? = -0.08, 95% CI [?0.28, 0.13], p = .45). See Figure 5. As for the relationship between attachment anxiety and technology/online infidelity forgiveness, the simple slopes analysis indicated that it was a significant positive relationship for those in the destiny condition (? = 0.54, 95% CI [0.33, 0.75], p < .001) but not in the growth condition (? = ?0.17, 95% CI [?0.36, 0.01], p = .06). See Figure 6.