Search

An online survey was completed by a convenience sample of 495 students to assess attitude toward polyamorous targets as an outgroup using 0–100 feeling thermometers. Also assessed was the likelihood of dating a polyamorous partner. These two measures were only weakly related for women participants but modestly related for men participants. Overall, feeling thermometer averages were favorable (66%) but dating likelihood was very low, with 89% rating dating a polyamorous partner as unlikely. Women were slightly more favorable toward polyamorous targets than were men but target gender showed no effect (i.e., ratings of polyamorous men were the same as those of polyamorous women). However, men were slightly more willing to date a polyamorous partner than were women. In terms of personality and individual difference variables as predictors of attitudes, authoritarianism, erotophobia–erotophilia, and participant sexual orientation accounted for a quarter of the variance in feeling thermometer ratings of polyamorous targets. Specifically, those who had lower authoritarianism, were more comfortable with sexuality, and were sexual minority in orientation were likely to rate the polyamorous targets the most favorably. Individual difference variables did not predict willingness to date a polyamorous partner consistently across gender and sexual orientation participant subgroups; the most consistent predictors were sociosexuality and erotophobia–erotophilia. This study adds to our knowledge in a nascent area of sexual attitude and discrimination research—it demonstrates the differences between rating an outgroup person and attitude toward engaging with them personally. The latter appears to involve more complexity in terms of the relationship with personality and the type of social perceiver. More research is needed into the differentiation between general ratings of others who engage in non-mainstream, stigmatized sexual practices versus when the ratings involve personal involvement or behavior of the social perceiver (i.e., such as dating). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a review of the recent literature on attitudes toward consensual non-monogamy (CNM). These attitudes are constrained to evaluations of people who practice CNM, CNM relationships, and CNM concepts; willingness to engage in or personal interest in practicing CNM is not included in this review. Relevant published research was located through database searches, as well as by perusing references and citations. Based on over two dozen investigations, it is concluded that average attitudes toward CNM are around neutral, with some slightly negative and some slightly positive. Studies taking a comparative perspective—whereby monogamous couples are pitted against CNM couples—overwhelmingly find more favorable attitudes toward monogamy. This literature supports assertions of the prevalence of monocentrism/compulsory monogamy. Further, some researchers investigated sociodemographic and psychological variables as predictors of CNM attitudes. Considering demographic characteristics, those who identify as monogamous and heterosexual tend to be more negative toward CNM relative to their counterparts, and most of the research suggests there are no gender differences in CNM attitudes. In terms of psychological variables, those reflecting authoritarian ideological values tended to predict CNM attitudes the best. The psychological variables are interpreted within the broader dual-process motivational model of prejudice with attention to authoritarianism and social dominance. To conclude, measurement issues are discussed, existing instruments are critiqued, and recommendations are made for which instruments are appropriate for different research goals. Specifically, the Attitudes towards Polyamory scale is a concise, unidimensional instrument with sound psychometric properties, making it a good general assessment of polyamory or CNM. Created using excellent test construction techniques, the Multidimensional Measurement of Attitudes toward Consensual Non-Monogamy (MACS) is a very promising belief-based CNM attitudes scale with three factors. Finally, directions for future research are discussed with an emphasis on differentiating between beliefs and attitudes as suggested by attitude theory, with most CNM attitude scales conflating the former with the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]