Need data analysis direction.

#1
I’m a grad student (clinical psychology) and research neophyte and need some direction. Once I gain statistical ground I would be more than happy to help others. Even though this is a mixed-methods study, I just need quantitative help. My focus is on perpetrators who harass the same victim over and over. Based on psychological theory, my premise is that the perpetrator’s rejected self-perception motivates the (negative) attraction to a specific victim with similar traits. For example, I don’t want to be seen as weak or sensitive so I am triggered by someone who appears weak or sensitive.

H1: The perpetrator’s self-perception (desired-, actual-, rejected-) is related to his or her victim-perception, each measured by an adjective checklist.

The adjective checklist instrument will be given four times to measures three aspects of self-perception (desired-, actual-, and rejected-self) AND the perpetrators victim-perception. The instrument provides a “total score” (based on the number of positive items selected) so the four total scores can be compared. So I guess my predictor variables are desired-, actual-, and rejected- self-perception and my criterion variable is the perpetrator’s victim-perception. (Question 1: Is that right?). I have been reading (and re-reading) on Pearson’s r to see if the total scores covary (right?) or a one-way ANOVA to test group differences. (Question 2: Would one of these make sense or something else? ). I would also like to look at the number of “item-level” agreements for between each self-perception administration and the victim-perception. For example, the adjectives that are the same on a participant’s rejected self-perception and his or her victim-perception. (Question 3: Would that be post hoc analysis that looks at item-level agreement or something else? How would I do that?)

I really want direction so I can start reading the right material instead of everything ever written. I haven't had my meeting with the stats professor yet and would like to get a handle on the analysis before that meeting in a few months.

Thanks so much for taking time to respond.