Social Point since a function of Relationship Direction

by Matt on May 9, 2022

Social Point since a function of Relationship Direction

Show

To evaluate if philosophy from the STIs and promiscuity anticipate societal point, we presented a several blocked regression analyses (evaluation Hypothesis 5) per matchmaking positioning. Religious and governmental affiliation was indeed joined inside step one, and you can thinking on STIs and you will promiscuity was joined in step 2, with public point as a depending varying.

Finally, i sought for to assess whether the various dating orientations differed having regards to governmental and you may spiritual association to decide when the such as for example variables is going to be regulated getting if you find yourself performing primary analyses. To take action, cross-tabs (Chi-squared figure) was calculated getting governmental and you may spiritual affiliation among the certain orientations. To quit breaking regulations having figuring a corner-loss matrix, rencontres avec des gens de petite taille i recoded faith (step 1 = Agnostic/Atheist; 2 = Christian; 3 = Other) and you will political positioning details (step 1 = Democrat; dos = Republican; step three = Other). Whenever extreme distinctions have been discover, we recoded variables on the dummy codes then extra these types of dummy parameters into the a lot more than regression and ANOVA analyses as covariate parameters, dealing with on outcomes of spiritual affiliation and you may political association. In every instances, the consequences that have and instead handling getting political and you may spiritual affiliation were most equivalent and you may didn’t improvement in benefit- as a result, i present show handling to have governmental and you can spiritual association. To see results that have and you can instead such control variables, delight view the results towards the OSF from the:

Preliminary 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 < 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.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: