Personal Range
The Bogardus Public Range Size (1933) is a single-goods investigations out of individual’s determination to participate societal associations from different quantities of intimacy that have members of chose public groups. The current analysis utilized it scale to choose need public distance out-of people who was monogamous, unlock, swingers, or polyamorous, to your dating orientations displayed when you look at the a random buy. Professionals was offered a definition of for each matchmaking orientation and was indeed asked about the latest the amount which they is happy to take on such as for instance one into the a level you to varied by level of intimacy away from social contact. Instance, if the a beneficial monogamous new member are at random assigned to end up being asked about a great polyamorous person, they’d earliest learn one polyamorous matchmaking are the ones within the and that lovers are allowed to seek out sexual affairs since an excellent few otherwise separately that will encompass mental closeness with folks outside new dyad. People were then asked, “from what the total amount would you become willing to take on a single who is from inside the a beneficial polyamorous relationships just like the a great …” Response choices incorporated: (a) romantic cousin of the matrimony, (b) personal individual pal, (c) a neighbors on the same street, (d) a co-staff member in identical job, (e) a citizen in my nation, (f) a non-citizen visitor during my nation, otherwise (g) create ban away from admission toward my personal country, which have higher score exhibiting deeper desired societal distance.
Promiscuity
Particularly, players was in fact questioned, 
“Generally, just how promiscuous do you believe anyone during the (often monogamous, open, moving, and you can polyamorous) dating is actually?” Members responded to activities playing with a seven-section Likert-instance level ranging from 1 (“definitely not”) to 7 (“extremely”), with highest scores indicating better understood promiscuity. The order in which each relationship orientation are presented was randomly tasked.
STI Recommendations
As there isn’t a verified level which is commonly used to evaluate thinking regarding STI’s, a one-item level was utilized to assess thinking in regards to the probability of STIs for every single matchmaking direction. Especially, people was asked, “Overall, how likely do you think individuals during the (possibly monogamous, discover, moving, and polyamorous) matchmaking should be provides an enthusiastic STI?” Users answered playing with good eight-area Likert-such as for example level between 1 (“not really”) to eight (“extremely”), that have highest results appearing better perceived STI exposure. The transaction in which per matchmaking orientation is actually showed try at random assigned.
Analytical Strategy
To reproduce previous conclusions claimed because of the Conley et al. (2013), i began because of the conducting a combined 2 in this-victims (target’s relationships orientation: monogamous otherwise CNM) ? 2 between-victims (participants’ self-known matchmaking direction: monogamous or CNM) research away from difference (ANCOVA), with societal point product reviews helping while the founded changeable, with spiritual and you may political affiliation because the covariates. Shortly after determining the consequences out of CNM on aggregate level, we reviewed if societal distance ratings differed as the a purpose of participants’ particular CNM relationship positioning (analysis Theory 1). Specifically, i used a combined cuatro contained in this- (target’s dating orientation: monogamous, polyamorous, discover dating, swinging relationships) ? cuatro between-subject (participants’ mind-identified relationship orientation: monogamous, polyamorous, open matchmaking, moving relationships) ANCOVA which have personal distance recommendations serving once the mainly based variable, and you may used analyses which have and versus religious and you may governmental affiliation just like the covariates.
Next, to assess whether CNM individuals rated their own relationship orientation with comparable social distance to monogamists, we conducted within-subject pair-wise comparisons of ratings across the targets’ relationship orientations within participants’ own relationship orientation for CNM participants only, specifically focusing on the comparisons between CNM participants’ ratings for monogamy and their group-affiliated ratings (testing Hypothesis 2). For example, to assess polyamorous ratings, we selected cases from polyamorous individuals only and compared their social distance ratings for polyamorous individuals to their ratings for monogamous individuals. We then did the same for open and swinging relationships. To control for the experiment-wise error rate in hypothesis testing associated with conducting a large number of statistical tests (Kirk, 1982), the criteria for statistical significance for our pre-registered hypotheses was corrected by using the Bonferroni method; dividing ? = 0.05 by the number of pair-wise tests (0.05/3 = 0.017). Therefore, the p-value used across these analyses was set at p < 0.017 level rather than the typical p < 0.05 level.