Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Sharon Shaojung Wang

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note. PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; RS = relationship satisfaction, AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; Sk = shared knowledge. Correlation coefficient between two constructs. °SE between two constructs. ‘Confidence interval. eh < 001.

Table 2 Note. PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; RS = relationship satisfaction, AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; Sk = shared knowledge. Correlation coefficient between two constructs. °SE between two constructs. ‘Confidence interval. eh < 001.

Related Figures (12)

Note. PA/SKU/FWC is the average of its corresponding variables in all conditions of response style. PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness. Table 2. Experimental Design and Estimated Means of Model 0.0.
Note. PA/SKU/FWC is the average of its corresponding variables in all conditions of response style. PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness. Table 2. Experimental Design and Estimated Means of Model 0.0.
compare with a more constrained model. 1 The results showed a significant change in favor of Model 1.0 which is a saturated model (df= 0), rejecting the null hypothesis (Table 4). A series of between- group comparisons to test the difference avoid familywise error—the probability t between means in each group were also conducted. To hat any one of a set of comparisons or significance tests is a Type I error—a Bonferroni post hoc test was employed (p < .05/3 = .0017). The results showed that the perception of all three dimensions of intimacy experience in the positive situation were higher than in the negative situation (Tab e 5), supporting Hypothesis 1. Se eee as so gees Sl Eo a ee a ieee ee A ees ee ee | ae iN ue | eieuee. sleees aoe
compare with a more constrained model. 1 The results showed a significant change in favor of Model 1.0 which is a saturated model (df= 0), rejecting the null hypothesis (Table 4). A series of between- group comparisons to test the difference avoid familywise error—the probability t between means in each group were also conducted. To hat any one of a set of comparisons or significance tests is a Type I error—a Bonferroni post hoc test was employed (p < .05/3 = .0017). The results showed that the perception of all three dimensions of intimacy experience in the positive situation were higher than in the negative situation (Tab e 5), supporting Hypothesis 1. Se eee as so gees Sl Eo a ee a ieee ee A ees ee ee | ae iN ue | eieuee. sleees aoe
Table 4. Fit Indices for Invariance Tests: Situation Valence on Intimate Experience.
Table 4. Fit Indices for Invariance Tests: Situation Valence on Intimate Experience.
Figure 3. Structure Model (Model 1.0). Note. *p < .05. **p < 01. ***p < .001.
Figure 3. Structure Model (Model 1.0). Note. *p < .05. **p < 01. ***p < .001.
Table 5. Estimated Means of Model |.0 and 2.0 Derived From Multigroup SEM.
Table 5. Estimated Means of Model |.0 and 2.0 Derived From Multigroup SEM.
Note. T = text; S = sticker; T&S = text & sticker; PA = positive affect; S€U = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; SEM = structural equation modeling.
Note. T = text; S = sticker; T&S = text & sticker; PA = positive affect; S€U = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; SEM = structural equation modeling.
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFl = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker—Lewis index; CFl = comparative fit index; Cl = confidence interval; GFI = of-fit index. Table 6. Fit Indices for Invariance Tests: Response Type on Intimate Experience.
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFl = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker—Lewis index; CFl = comparative fit index; Cl = confidence interval; GFI = of-fit index. Table 6. Fit Indices for Invariance Tests: Response Type on Intimate Experience.
Figure 5. Structure Model (Models 3.0 and 4. 0). Note. *p < .05. **p < OI. ***p < .001.
Figure 5. Structure Model (Models 3.0 and 4. 0). Note. *p < .05. **p < OI. ***p < .001.
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFl = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker—Lewis index; CFl = comparative fit index; Cl = confidence interval; GFl = goodness- of-fit index.
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFl = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker—Lewis index; CFl = comparative fit index; Cl = confidence interval; GFl = goodness- of-fit index.
Note. T = text; S = sticker; T&S = text & sticker; PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; SEM = structural equation modeling. Table 8. Estimated Means of Model 3.0 Derived From Multigroup SEM.
Note. T = text; S = sticker; T&S = text & sticker; PA = positive affect; SKU = shared knowledge and understanding; FWC = feelings of warmth and closeness; SEM = structural equation modeling. Table 8. Estimated Means of Model 3.0 Derived From Multigroup SEM.
Related topics:
Mobile apps
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved