Social Range since the a function of Relationship Positioning

Social Range since the a function of Relationship Positioning

To evaluate whether or not philosophy from the STIs and you will promiscuity assume public length, i used a several blocked regression analyses (investigations Theory 5) luxy ekÅŸi per dating orientation. Religious and you will governmental affiliation was in fact inserted into the 1, and you can opinions from the STIs and you can promiscuity was entered within the 2, having societal length once the a dependent variable.


Lastly, i wanted to evaluate whether the some dating orientations differed which have terms of political and you may religious association to determine if eg variables would be controlled to have if you are conducting first analyses. To achieve this, cross-tabs (Chi-squared statistic) was basically computed getting political and you can religious affiliation among the many individuals orientations. To end breaking regulations getting calculating a corner-tab matrix, i recoded religion (step 1 = Agnostic/Atheist; 2 = Christian; 3 = Other) and you will political orientation variables (1 = Democrat; dos = Republican; 3 = Other). When significant distinctions had been discover, i recoded variables to your dummy codes then added this type of dummy variables with the significantly more than regression and you can ANOVA analyses once the covariate variables, handling for the outcomes of religious association and you can political affiliation. In most times, the results having and instead of managing to possess governmental and you may spiritual association were really comparable and you may don’t change in benefit- as such, i introduce overall performance controlling to have governmental and you will spiritual affiliation. To see overall performance with and instead of such manage details, please view the show on OSF in the:

Preliminary Study

Bivariate correlations between social distance, promiscuity, and STI ratings are in Table 2. The social distance ratings and promiscuity ratings were significantly correlated for targets in open (r = 0.13, p = 0.001) and polyamorous (r = 0.22, p < 0.001) relationships. Social distance ratings and promiscuity ratings were not significantly correlated when participants were asked about monogamous relationships (r = 0.07, ns) and swinging relationships (r = 0.08, ns). The social distance ratings and STI ratings were significantly correlated for targets in open (r = 0.19, p < 0.001), polyamorous (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), and swinging (r = 0.27, p < 0.001) relationships. The social distance and STI ratings were not significantly correlated when participants were asked about monogamous relationship (r = 0.07, ns). The correlation between target promiscuity and STI ratings were significant for all four relationship orientations: monogamous (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), open (r = 0.45, p < 0.001), polyamorous (r = 0.59, p < 0.001), and swinging (r = 0.51, p < 0.001).

Chi-squared analyses of religious and political affiliation revealed that political affiliation [? 2 (6) = , p < 0.001] but not religious affiliation (p > .05) differed as a function of relationship orientation. Post hoc tests show that the proportion of individuals who identified as Republican was significantly different (p < 0.05) between monogamous (%) and polyamorous (%) participants.

Consistent with previous research, on an aggregate level, consensually non-monogamous (CNM) orientations were rated significantly less favorably (M = 3.03, SD = 1.61) than monogamous relationships (M = 2.04, SD = 1.42), F(1,629) = , p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.11, and this was true for both CNM participants (monogamous: M = 2.10, SD = 1.28; CNM: M = 2.48, SD = 1.28) and monogamous participants (monogamous: M = 2.01, SD = 1.48; CNM: M = 3.27, SD = 1.68), F(1,629) = 9.83, p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.015. Additionally, a significant interaction between social distance ratings and one's own relationship orientation emerged, F(1,629) = , p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.05, such that monogamous participants rated CNM targets significantly worse than CNM participants.

Additionally, as outlined in our pre-registered predictions, the effect emerged even when we separated the CNM relationship orientations of participants’ (assessed polyamory, open, and swinging as their own groups; see Figure 1). More specifically, there was a significant main effect of the targets’ relationship orientation on reported social distance, [F(3,1857) = , p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.04]. Post hoc tests revealed that social distance was lowest for monogamous targets (M = 2.08, SE = 0.08) and greatest for swinger targets (M = 2.79, SE = 0.10). The social distance rating for monogamous targets was significantly different from open, polyamorists, and swinger targets (all p < 0.001). The social distance ratings for targets in open relationships was significantly different from targets in polyamorous and swingers targets (ps < 0.001). The difference in social distance ratings between polyamorous targets (M = 2.76, SE = 0.10) and swinger targets was non-significant (p = 0.826). There was also a significant main effect of participants' self-identified relationship orientations, [F(3,619) = 7.74, p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.04], such that social distance ratings were significantly different from each other based on one's relationship orientation. Monogamous participants reported the greatest overall social distance (M = 2.96, SE = 0.07) and swinger participants reported the lowest overall social distance (M = 2.22, SE = 0.19). Furthermore, monogamous participants' social distance ratings significantly differed from ratings of participants in open relationships (p = 0.011), polyamorous relationships (p = 0.001) and swinging relationships (p = 0.001). Finally, and most importantly, there was a significant interaction between participants' relationship orientation and targets' relationship orientation on social distance ratings [F(9,1857) = 7.93, p < 0.001; ? p 2 = 0.04]. The interaction was largely due to the greater social distance difference reported for monogamous participants in their rating of monogamous (M = 2.01, SE = 0.07) compared to swinger (M = 3.33, SE = 0.08) targets, in comparison to swinger participants who reported less difference in social distance between monogamous (M = 2.10, SE = 0.20) and swinger (M = 2.35, SE = 0.24) targets.


อีเมลของคุณจะไม่แสดงให้คนอื่นเห็น ช่องข้อมูลจำเป็นถูกทำเครื่องหมาย *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

เราใช้คุกกี้เพื่อพัฒนาประสิทธิภาพ และประสบการณ์ที่ดีในการใช้เว็บไซต์ของคุณ คุณสามารถศึกษารายละเอียดได้ที่ นโยบายความเป็นส่วนตัว และสามารถจัดการความเป็นส่วนตัวเองได้ของคุณได้เองโดยคลิกที่ ตั้งค่า


คุณสามารถเลือกการตั้งค่าคุกกี้โดยเปิด/ปิด คุกกี้ในแต่ละประเภทได้ตามความต้องการ ยกเว้น คุกกี้ที่จำเป็น

  • เปิดใช้งานตลอด