To evaluate our very own pre-joined pair-smart comparisons, matched up shot t-tests contained in this each CNM fellow member classification was in fact held to compare participants’ social distance recommendations to have monogamous purpose on their societal length recommendations to possess aim which had exact same relationship positioning as new member. Discover participants critiques off social length for objectives when you look at the unlock matchmaking (Meters = 2.47, SD = 1.66) failed to rather range from the evaluations regarding monogamous targets (Yards = 2.09, SD = step one.dos5), t(78) = ?dos.fifteen, p = 0.04; d = ?0.twenty five (because of the all the way down tolerance getting value considering our very own analytical plan, a p = 0.04 isn’t believed extreme). Polyamorous participants’ feedback off social length for polyamorous purpose (M = dos.twenty five, SD = step 1.26) did not rather differ from feedback out-of monogamous goals (Yards = 2.thirteen, SD = 1.32), t(60) = ?0.57, p = 0.571; d = ?0.09. thirty five, SD = step 1.25) don’t significantly differ from product reviews off monogamous aim (M = 2.10, SD = step one.30), t(50) = ?1.twenty-five, p = 0.216; d = ?0.20). Thus, in all times, social range critiques for monogamy don’t significantly change from public point ratings for one’s very own dating positioning.
With respect to beliefs about promiscuity, a significant main effect of the targets’ relationship orientation, F(3,1869) = , p < 0
Next, we assessed whether meaningful differences emerged for beliefs about STIs and promiscuity for each relationship orientation (see Figures 2, 3 for mean ratings) https://datingranking.net/de/polyamourose-datierung/. 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.
Finally, swinging participants’ product reviews out-of public point to possess swinger targets (M = dos
Figure 2. Imply Promiscuity Ratings. Product reviews derive from a great seven-point size having better thinking demonstrating greater detected promiscuity analysis.
Shape step 3. Imply STI Analysis. Product reviews are based on a beneficial seven-area scale having deeper thinking exhibiting better thought of likelihood of with an STI.
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. Taken together, the results indicated that despite one's relationship orientation, perceptions about the likelihood of having an STI were consistently the lowest for monogamous targets while swinger targets were perceived to be the most likely to have an STI (unless participants also identified as a swinger).