Public Length since a purpose of Matchmaking Orientation

Results

To evaluate if or not opinions on STIs and promiscuity assume societal point, i conducted a four banned regression analyses (testing Theory 5) for every relationship direction. Religious and you will political association were entered inside the 1, and opinions regarding the STIs and you may promiscuity was in fact entered in 2, that have social point just like the a depending variable.

Lastly, i sought to evaluate if the certain matchmaking orientations differed with terms of political and you can religious affiliation to determine in the event that such as for example variables would be controlled having whenever you are conducting no. 1 analyses. To achieve this, cross-tabs (Chi-squared fact) was indeed determined to have political and https://www.datingranking.net/fr/rencontres-russe/ you may spiritual affiliation among the many individuals orientations. To get rid of breaking guidelines to own calculating a combination-case matrix, i recoded religion (1 = Agnostic/Atheist; 2 = Christian; step three = Other) and you may political orientation parameters (1 = Democrat; 2 = Republican; step three = Other). Whenever significant variations have been found, we recoded variables to the dummy requirements and then extra these types of dummy details into the a lot more than regression and you may ANOVA analyses while the covariate parameters, dealing with for the aftereffects of spiritual affiliation and you may political affiliation. In all times, the results that have and you will without managing getting governmental and you may religious affiliation was basically extremely comparable and you will didn’t change in benefits- as such, we present efficiency controlling having political and spiritual affiliation. To see show with and you may versus this type of manage variables, excite look at the show with the OSF within:

First Data

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 .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.