Personal Point as the a function of Relationships Orientation

To assess whether thinking in the STIs and promiscuity anticipate public distance, we conducted a four prohibited regression analyses (review Theory 5) per dating orientation. Religious and you may political affiliation was basically inserted from inside the 1, and you will beliefs on STIs and you can bbpeoplemeet ekÅŸi promiscuity was indeed entered for the step two, with social distance due to the fact a dependent varying.

Efficiency

Lastly, we looked for to assess if the certain relationship orientations differed having regards to governmental and you will spiritual association to determine in the event that instance details can be controlled to possess when you’re carrying out number one analyses. To do so, cross-tabs (Chi-squared fact) was in fact calculated for political and you will religious affiliation among various orientations. To get rid of violating laws and regulations to own calculating a mix-tab matrix, i recoded faith (step 1 = Agnostic/Atheist; 2 = Christian; step three = Other) and governmental positioning variables (step one = Democrat; dos = Republican; 3 = Other). When high variations was indeed discover, i recoded variables to your dummy codes and additional these dummy parameters into over regression and you may ANOVA analyses since covariate variables, managing to the effects of religious affiliation and you can governmental affiliation. In all instances, the results which have and you can rather than controlling to own governmental and you will spiritual affiliation was indeed very equivalent and didn’t improvement in relevance- therefore, i expose overall performance managing for political and you will spiritual association. Observe show which have and you can without these control details, please look at the overall performance towards the OSF at:

Preliminary Research

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.