Dining table step 1 portrays the descriptive analytics out-of teachers’ answers on the four questions in the vignette task: Threshold out of student’s behavior, Attribution off low control, Limits function (vs. support), and you may Relational capital. For every single teacher and every concern, the common Effect each condition try computed. Organized within-subject contrasts for the frequent measures ANOVAs towards the teachers’ Response had been conducted, for every single concern independently, to investigate differences between the positive matchmaking and Bad matchmaking rather than both control requirements (Unfamiliar and you may Faraway relationship) (get a hold of Dining table 2 ).
Regarding analysis like the Faraway relationship manage position, the within-subject contrasts of Negative and positive relationship standing as compared to the newest Distant relationship manage reputation revealed a serious perception toward Bad relationships status (F(step one,51) = 6.99, p = .01; d = 0.35), yet not to the Positive relationships condition (F(step 1,51) = 0.95, p = .33) towards the basic matter from the Threshold out of student’s behavior. Concerning your next matter from the Attribution out-of reduced control, zero high within-topic contrasts of your Confident (F(1,51) = 0.02, p = .88) and Negative (F(1,51) = 0.53, p = .47) dating requirements compared to the Faraway relationship control condition were found. But in addition for the next question regarding Restrictions setting (vs. support), zero high in this-subject contrasts of your Self-confident (F(step 1 
Concerning the studies for instance the Unfamiliar handle position, the interior-topic contrasts of one’s Positive and negative relationships standing versus the brand new Unfamiliar handle status revealed a serious impact to the Negative matchmaking updates (F(1,52) = 5.96, p = .02; d = 0.31), yet not on Positive relationships position (F(1,52) = 0.55, p = .46) getting Tolerance from student’s choices. Since the found in the brand new investigations on the Distant relationship control reputation, teachers’ responses was indeed significantly all the way down with the endurance about Bad dating symptom in review with the Not familiar manage position. Regarding the 2nd question from the Attribution out of low handle, no tall inside-subject contrasts of your Self-confident (F(1,52) = 0.10, p = .75) and you may Negative (F(step 1,52) = 0.90, p = .35) dating conditions compared to the Not familiar handle position were located. Also for the next question throughout the Constraints means (against. support), no extreme inside-topic contrasts of one’s Positive (F(1,52) = 0.01, p = .94) and you may Bad (F(step 1,52) = 1.16, p = .29) dating requirements compared to Not familiar manage condition were located. Eventually, on next concern on the Relational resource, no high inside-topic contrasts of Confident (F(step 1,52) = 0.twenty two, p = .64) and you will Bad (F(1,52) = 0.23, p = .64) relationships conditions than the Unknown control status was basically located.
Post-fresh interviews
The conclusions on p < .05 significance level remained the same when we excluded the nine teachers who indicated some suspicion about the intention of the study from the analyses. These results without the nine suspicious teachers can be found in Appendix 3.
Dialogue
The present day studies put an alternative lookup approach to browse the teachers’ rational representations away from dyadic relationship. Contained in this analysis, affective priming was used to test new hypothesis you to definitely teachers’ mental representations from dyadic matchmaking change the affective and you can intellectual information handling of one’s professor. A couple priming studies was indeed presented which produced blended help because of it theoretical suggestion.