Degree of Love
Across the different conditions (targets A, B, and C), the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in perceived feelings of love [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.944]. 53 ± 0.48) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.52 ± 0.54) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.754], and the degree of love toward B was significantly higher than that of target C (1.66 ± 0.45) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.944].
Additionally, across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in participants’ PLS scores of the three targets [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.886]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the degree of passionate love toward target A ( ± ) was significantly higher than that of target B ( ± ) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.510], and the degree of passionate love toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C ( ± ) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.900].
Level of Hate
Across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in the degree of hate after the negative event manipulation [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.798]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the degree of hate toward target A (5.25 ± 0.57) was significantly higher than that of target B (4.84 ± 0.55) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.375], and the degree of hate toward target B was significantly higher than that of target C (3.02 ± 0.98) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.789].
Across the different targets, the results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences of the overall PLS scores after the negative event manipulation [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.845]. Further analyses of the simple main effects showed that the PLS score for target A ( ± ) was significantly higher than that of target B ( ± ) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.521], and the score for target B was significantly higher than that of target C ( ± ) [F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.852].
The 3 (targets: A, B, C) ? 2 (time: before vs. after) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target ? time interaction [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.152] on PLS scores. Further simple main effect analyses revealed that after the negative event manipulation, participants' love scores for target A was significantly lower than before the manipulation [A-Before: ± , A-After: ± ; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.560]. Similarly, participants' love scores for target B [B-Before: ± , B-After: ± ; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.540] and target C were also significantly lower than before the manipulation [C-Before: ± , C-After: ± ; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.324].
Love loveagain and you can Hate
The 3 (targets: A, B, C) ? 2 (affect: love vs. hate) two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant target ? affect interaction [F(2,116) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.622]. Further simple effect analyses found that participants' love of target A was significantly higher than that of hate, even if they were betrayed by target A [A-Love: 5.53 ± 0.48, A-Hate: 5.25 ± 0.57; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.236]. Conversely, participants' love for target B was significantly lower than that of hate [B-Love: 4.52 ± 0.54, B-Hate: 4.84 ± 0.55; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.202]. Similarly, participants' love for target C was also significantly lower than that of hate [C-Love: 1.66 ± 0.45, C-Hate: 3.02 ± 0.98; F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, ? 2 = 0.640] (Figure 3).