Social Range while the a function of Relationships Orientation
To evaluate whether or not opinions in the STIs and you can promiscuity predict public range, i used a several banned regression analyses (research Theory 5) per relationship orientation. Spiritual and you may governmental association was basically joined during the step 1, and beliefs from the STIs and you may promiscuity was in fact inserted within the step 2, having social distance because an established variable.
Lastly, i desired to evaluate perhaps the various relationships orientations differed that have regards to political and you will religious association to choose if such as details is controlled for when you’re performing number 1 analyses. To do this, cross-tabs (Chi-squared statistic) was basically determined having political and you may spiritual affiliation among the certain orientations. To avoid violating regulations to have calculating a cross-loss matrix, we recoded religion (1 = Agnostic/Atheist; dos = Christian; step three = Other) and political direction details (step 1 = Democrat; dos = Republican; step 3 = Other). Whenever extreme distinctions was indeed located, i recoded parameters on dummy requirements immediately after which added this type of dummy parameters on more than regression and you may ANOVA analyses because covariate variables, dealing with on the results of spiritual association and you can political affiliation. In every circumstances, the effects which have and you may instead controlling to have governmental and religious affiliation was in fact most similar and you can did not improvement in value- as such, we establish abilities handling to have political and you will religious association. Observe performance with and you may versus these manage details, excite view the abilities into the OSF in the:
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, https://datingranking.net/fr/sites-de-rencontre-noirs/ 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.