Drawn together with her, the results showed that even after an individual’s relationships positioning, thinking in regards to the odds of with an enthusiastic STI were constantly brand new reasonable to possess monogamous plans whenever you are swinger aim was indeed sensed to get the most likely for an enthusiastic STI (until people in addition to recognized as a beneficial swinger)
To assess our pre-entered couple-wise contrasting, matched try t-examination inside each CNM participant group have been used evaluate participants’ personal range recommendations for monogamous goals to their societal range ratings for objectives which had same matchmaking direction due to the fact fellow member. 47, SD = step 1.66) did not rather vary from its recommendations from monogamous targets (M = 2.09, SD = step 1.25), t(78) = ?2.fifteen, p = 0.04; d = ?0.25 (because of the all the way down threshold to possess value provided our very own analytic plan, a great p = 0.04 is not sensed tall). Polyamorous participants’ ratings off societal length to possess polyamorous purpose (Yards = dos.twenty-five, SD = step one.26) don’t significantly vary from product reviews off monogamous goals (Meters = 2.thirteen, SD = step one.32), t(60) = ?0.57, p = 0.571; d = ?0.09. Finally, moving participants’ critiques out-of social cougar life length to own swinger targets (Yards = 2.thirty-five, SD = step 1.25) don’t notably vary from feedback from monogamous aim (M = dos.ten, SD = step 1.30), t(50) = ?step 1.twenty five, p = 0.216; d = ?0.20). Hence, in every instances, societal distance critiques to possess monogamy did not somewhat differ from personal point recommendations for one’s very own dating orientation.
Next, we assessed whether meaningful differences emerged for beliefs about STIs and promiscuity for each relationship orientation (see Figures 2, 3 for mean ratings). With respect to beliefs about promiscuity, a significant main effect of the targets’ relationship orientation, F(3,1869) = , p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.07, a significant main effect of participants' self-identified relationship orientations, F(3,623) = 2.95, p = 0.032, ? p 2 = 0.01, and a significant interaction, F(9,1869) = 6.40, p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.03, emerged. Post hoc analyses revealed clear support for the predicted pattern of ratings for monogamous participants (in all cases, p < 0.001) and to a lesser extent for open, polyamorous, and swinger participants (specific results available upon request). Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that despite one's relationship orientation, individuals who are monogamous are consistently perceived to be the least promiscuous, and individuals who are swingers are perceived to be the most promiscuous (unless participants identified as a swinger), and all CNM participants reported similar levels of promiscuity when asked about targets in open and polyamorous relationships. Essentially, the interaction effect seemed to be largely driven by the fact that monogamous individuals reported the expected trend yet CNM participants had more blurred boundaries.
Profile dos. Mean Promiscuity Feedback. Critiques are derived from a eight-point level that have higher thinking showing better identified promiscuity ratings.
Contour step three. Suggest STI Recommendations. Recommendations are based on a great 7-section level with higher philosophy indicating deeper identified odds of having an STI.
Unlock participants evaluations off public point to possess plans inside the discover matchmaking (M = dos
With respect to the estimates of the likelihood of having an STI, there was also a significant main effect of the targets’ relationship orientation, F(3,1857) = , p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.11, a significant main effect of participants' self-identified relationship orientations, F(3,619) = 4.24, p = 0.006, ? p 2 = 0.02, and a significant interaction, F(9,1857) = 6.92, p < 0.001, ? p 2 = 0.03. Post hoc analyses revealed clear support for the predicted pattern of ratings for monogamous participants (in all cases, p < 0.001), and to a lesser extent for open and polyamorous participants, and to an even less extent for swinger participants.