Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Social Perceivers Evaluations of Polyamory
1.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Social Perceiver
1.3. Individual Differences: Religion and Political Orientation
1.4. The Authoritarian Personality
1.5. Sexuality and Relationships
1.6. The Current Study
1.6.1. Measuring Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets
1.6.2. Theoretical Framework
1.6.3. Analysis Plan and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Survey Instrument
2.3.1. Dependent Variables
2.3.2. Personality and Individual Difference Variables
- Altemeyer’s [51] 24-item Right-Wing Fundamentalism Scale was included to measure authoritarianism. A sample item is: “Laws have to be strictly enforced if we are going to preserve our way of life”.
- The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory [54] produced overt (11 Hostile Sexism items; e.g., “Women are too easily offended”) and covert (11 Benevolent Sexism items;” Women should be cherished and protected by men“) sexism scales.
- The 21-item Sexual Opinion Survey [55] was created as an indicator of learned, affective responses to sexuality and sexual content; scale responses represent erotophobia (e.g., “I do NOT enjoy daydreaming about sexual matters”) on one end to erotophilia (e.g., “I think it would be very entertaining to look at erotica”) on the other.
- Intergroup Disgust Sensitivity [57] was designed to assess negative affect, such as revulsion and disgust, toward ethnic outgroups (8 items including: “When socializing with members of a stigmatized group, one can easily become tainted by their stigma”). This is a general orientation toward outgroup members.
3. Results
3.1. Ratings of Feeling Thermometers toward Polyamorous Targets
3.1.1. Gender and Polyamorous Target Ratings
3.1.2. Sexual Orientation and Polyamorous Target Ratings
3.1.3. Synopsis of Gender and Sexual Orientation Polyamorous Target Rating Findings
3.2. Ratings of Dating Likelihood of a Polyamorous Person
3.2.1. Gender Differences in Dating Likelihood of a Polyamorous Partner
3.2.2. Bisexual Women’s Dating Likelihood of a Polyamorous Partner
3.2.3. Summary of Gender and Orientation Differences in Ratings of Dating Likelihood
3.2.4. Relationships between Polyamorous Target and Dating Likelihood Ratings
3.3. Relationships of Individual Difference Variables with Polyamory Ratings
3.3.1. Correlations
3.3.2. Polyamorous Target Feeling Thermometers Multiple Regression
3.3.3. Polyamorous Target Dating Likelihood Multiple Regression
3.3.4. Synopsis of Individual Differences as Multiple Regression Predictors of Polyamory Ratings
4. Discussion
4.1. Demographic Predictors of Polyamory Ratings
4.2. Personality Predictors of Polyamory Ratings
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Barker, M. This is my partner, and this is my… partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. J. Constr. Psychol. 2005, 18, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moors, A.C.; Ramos, A.; Schechinger, H. Bridging the science communication gap: The development of a fact sheet for clinicians and researchers about consensually non-monogamous relationships. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2021; Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubel, A.N.; Burleigh, T.J. Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities 2020, 23, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheff, E. Polyamory is deviant—But not for the reasons you may think. Deviant Behav. 2020, 41, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herek, G.M. Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 905–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conley, T.D.; Moors, A.C.; Matsick, J.L.; Ziegler, A. The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2013, 13, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, D.; Fasoli, F.; Huic, A.; Lopes, D. Which partners are more human? Monogamy matters more than sexual orientation for dehumanization in three European countries. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2018, 15, 504–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Castro, Y.; García Manso, A.; Martínez-Román, R.; Aguiar-Fernández, F.X.; Peixoto Caldas, J.M. Analysis of the experiences of polyamorists in Spain. Sex. Cult. 2022, 26, 1659–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Séguin, L.J. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory. Sexualities 2019, 22, 669–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, M.D.; Jones, P.; Taylor, B.A.; Roush, J. Healthcare experiences and needs of consensually nonmonogamous people: Results from a focus group study. J. Sex. Med. 2019, 16, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moors, A.C.; Gesselman, A.N.; Garcia, J.R. Desire, familiarity, and engagement in polyamory: Results from a national sample of single adults in the United States. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 619640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matsick, J.L.; Conley, T.D.; Ziegler, A.; Moors, A.C.; Rubin, J.D. Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychol. Sex. 2014, 5, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cragun, R.T.; Sumerau, J.E. The last bastion of sexual and gender prejudice? Sexualities, race, gender, religiosity, and spirituality in the examination of prejudice toward sexual and gender minorities. J. Sex Res. 2015, 52, 821–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Brewer, M. The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization, ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd ed.; Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 695–715. [Google Scholar]
- Burris, C.T. Torn between two lovers? Lay perceptions of polyamorous individuals. Psychol. Sex. 2013, 5, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, D.L.; Lopes, D.; Huic, A. What drives the dehumanization of consensual non-monogamous partners? Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021, 50, 1587–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, A.E.; Moore, E.A.; Haedtke, K.; Karst, A.T. Assessing implicit associations with consensual non-monogamy among US early emerging adults: An application of the single-target implicit association test. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 2813–2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, D.L.; Aybar Camposano, G.A.; Lopes, D. Stigmatization of consensual non-monogamous partners: Perceived endorsement of conservation or openness to change values vary according to personal attitudes. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 3931–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balzarini, R.N.; Shumlich, E.J.; Kohut, T.; Campbell, L. Dimming the “Halo” around monogamy: Re-assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships as a function of personal relationship orientation. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, M.T. The perceived satisfaction derived from various relationship configurations. J. Relatsh. Res. 2016, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunt-Mejer, K.; Campbell, C. Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. J. Sex Res. 2016, 53, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burleigh, T.J.; Rubel, A.N.; Meegan, D.V. Wanting ‘the whole loaf’: Zero-sum thinking about love is associated with prejudice against consensual nonmonogamists. Psychol. Sex. 2017, 8, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, A.E.; Hart, J.; Stefaniak, S.; Harvey, C. Exploring heterosexual adults’ endorsement of the sexual double standard among initiators of consensually nonmonogamous relationship behaviors. Sex Roles 2018, 79, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunt-Mejer, K.; Łyś, A.E. They must be sick: Consensual nonmonogamy through the eyes of psychotherapists. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2019, 37, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutzler, K.T.; Giuliano, T.A.; Herselman, J.R.; Johnson, S.M. Three’s a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychol. Sex. 2016, 7, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, S.M.; Giuliano, T.A.; Herselman, J.R.; Hutzler, K.T. Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychol. Sex. 2015, 6, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flicker, S.M.; Sancier-Barbosa, F. Your happiness is my happiness: Predicting positive feelings for a partner’s consensual extra-dyadic intimate relations. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2024, 53, 941–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, A.E.; Bagley, A.J.; Moore, E.A. Young men and women’s implicit attitudes towards consensually nonmonogamous relationships. Psychol. Sex. 2018, 9, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, D.; Pascoal, P.M.; Rosa, P.J. Facing polyamorous lives: Translation and validation of the attitudes towards polyamory scale in a Portuguese sample. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2020, 35, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, M.; Wilson, K. Development of the Consensual Non-Monogamy Attitude Scale (CNAS). Sex. Cult. 2017, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, R.A.; Burckley, J.; Centelles, V. Sanctioning sex work: Examining generational differences and attitudinal correlates in policy preferences for legalization. J. Sex Res. 2023, 60, 903–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- St Vil, N.M.; Giles, K.N. Attitudes toward and willingness to Engage in Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM) among African Americans who have never engaged in CNM. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 1823–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kenyon, C.R.; Wolfs, K.; Osbak, K.; van Lankveld, J.; Van Hal, G. Implicit attitudes to sexual partner concurrency vary by sexual orientation but not by gender—A cross sectional study of Belgian students. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cunningham, N.C.; Mitchell, R.C.; Mogilski, J. Which styles of moral reasoning predict apprehension toward consensual non-monogamy? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2022, 196, 11173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M.P.; Hendrick, S.S. Therapists’ sexual values for self and clients:Implications for practice and training. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 2003, 34, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigoropoulos, I.; Daoultzis, K.-C.; Kordoutis, P. Identifying context-related socio-cultural predictors of negative attitudes toward polyamory. Sex. Cult. 2023, 27, 1264–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, G.; Park, Y.; Hayes, A.; Grosdidier, I.V.; Park, S.W. Quality of alternatives positively associated with interest in opening up a relationship. Pers. Relatsh. 2021, 28, 538–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.-T.; Chen, C.-Y.; Chu, C.-H.; Kuan, Y.-S.; Chang, S.-Y.; Chi, P.-R. Public attitude toward multiple intimate relationships among unmarried young adults in Taiwan. Arch. Guid. Couns. 2019, 41, 55–76. [Google Scholar]
- Kaufman, G.; Aiello, A.; Ellis, C.; Compton, D. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage, polyamorous marriage, and conventional marriage ideals among college students in the southeastern United States. Sex. Cult. 2022, 26, 1599–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatch, H.A.; Warner, R.H.; Broussard, K.A.; Harton, H.C. Predictors of transgender prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles 2022, 87, 583–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duckitt, J. Introduction to the special section on authoritarianism in societal context: The role of threat. Int. J. Psychol. 2013, 48, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hetherington, M.J.; Weiler, J.D. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Moors, A.C.; Selterman, D.F.; Conley, T. Personality correlates of desire to engage in consensual non-monogamy among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. J. Bisexuality 2017, 17, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penke, L.; Asendorpf, J.B. Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 1113–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ka, W.S.L.; Bottcher, S.; Walker, B.R. Attitudes toward consensual non-monogamy predicted by sociosexual behavior and avoidant attachment. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 4312–4320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rye, B.J.; Goldszmidt, R. Do attitude functions and perceiver demographics predict attitudes toward asexuality? Psychol. Sex. 2023, 14, 572–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croucher, S.M. Integrated threat theory. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephan, W.G.; Ybarra, O.; Rios, K. Intergroup threat theory. In Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination; Nelson, T.D., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 255–278. [Google Scholar]
- Rye, B.J.; Underhill, A. Contraceptive context, conservatism, sexual liberalism, and gender-role attitudes as predictors of abortion attitudes. Women’s Reprod. Health 2019, 6, 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altemeyer, B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism; University of Manitoba Press: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, A.K.; Sidanius, J.; Kteily, N.; Sheehy-Skeffington, J.; Pratto, F.; Henkel, K.E.; Foels, R.; Stewart, A.L. The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 109, 1003–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidanius, J.; Pratto, F. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Glick, P.; Fiske, S.T. Ambivalent sexism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 33, 115–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rye, B.J.; Fisher, W.A. Sexual Opinion Survey. In Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures, 4th ed.; Milhausen, R.R., Sakaluk, J.K., Fisher, T.D., Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 570–572. [Google Scholar]
- Penke, L. Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures, 4th ed.; Milhausen, R.R., Sakaluk, J.K., Fisher, T.D., Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 685–688. [Google Scholar]
- Hodson, G.; Choma, B.L.; Boisvert, J.; Hafer, C.L.; MacInnis, C.C.; Costello, K. The role of intergroup disgust in predicting negative outgroup evaluations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 49, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rye, B.J.; Goldzsmidt, R. It’s More Me than You: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes towards Sexuality and Gender Minority People; St. Jerome’s University: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2024; manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
- Gouveia, V.V.; Mendes, L.A.C.; Freire, S.E.A.; Freires, L.A.; Barbosa, L.H.G.M. Medindo Associação Implícita com o FreeIAT em Português: Um exemplo com atitudes implícitas frente ao poliamor. Psychol./Psicol. Refl. Exão E Crítica 2014, 27, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glasman, L.R.; Albarracín, D. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132, 778–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bechler, C.J.; Tormala, Z.L.; Rucker, D.D. The attitude-behavior relationship revisited. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 32, 1285–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Savin-Williams, R.C. An exploratory study of exclusively heterosexual, primarily heterosexual, and mostly heterosexual young men. Sexualities 2018, 21, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, W. Introduction to Sociology—3nd Canadian Edition; BCcampus Open Education: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2023; Available online: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology3rdedition (accessed on 16 July 2024).
- Moors, A.C.; Conley, T.D.; Edelstein, R.S.; Chopik, W.J. Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2015, 32, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, B.A.; Ngo, J. The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences; Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balzarini, R.N.; Shumlich, E.J.; Kohut, T.; Campbell, L. Sexual attitudes, erotophobia, and sociosexual orientation differ based on relationship orientation. J. Sex Res. 2020, 57, 458–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sizemore, K.M.; Olmstead, S.B. Willingness of emerging adults to engage in consensual non-monogamy: A mixed-methods analysis. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2018, 47, 1423–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanel, P.H.P.; Vione, K.C. Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Feeling Thermometer Targets Correlations | Dating Likelihood Correlations | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Polyamorous Man | Polyamorous Woman | Polyamorous Man | Polyamorous Woman | Polyamorous Man | Polyamorous Woman | ||
Mean (SD) n[∀] | N = 485–490 | N = 485–490 | N = 265–268 (Exclusively or Mostly Heterosexual Women Participants) | N = 71–78 (Exclusively or Mostly Heterosexual Men Participants) | N = 67–69 (Bisexual or Pansexual Women Participants) | N = 67–69 (Bisexual or Pansexual Women Participants) | |
Authoritar-ianism a | 2.62 (0.77) 489[0.89] | −0.40 *** | −0.47 *** | 0.08 | 0.38 *** | −0.03 | −0.04 |
Erotophobia–Erotophilia | 5.05 (1.03) 466[0.88] | 0.35 *** | 0.40 *** | −0.22 *** | −0.42 *** | 0.29 * | 0.30 * |
Hostile Sexism | 2.29 (1.34) 489[0.95] | −0.33 *** | −0.38 *** | −0.05 | 0.28 * | −0.11 | −0.13 |
Benevolent Sexism | 2.66 (1.16) 491[0.89] | −0.30 *** | −0.31 *** | −0.33 *** | 0.35 ** | −0.04 | −0.06 |
Social Dominance Orientation | 2.35 (1.10) 489[0.85] | −0.29 *** | −0.35 *** | −0.40 *** | 0.03 | −0.08 | −0.06 |
Intergroup Disgust Sensitivity | 1.86 (0.94) 487[0.80] | −0.26 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.36 *** | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
Socio-sexuality | 3.40 (1.39) 490[0.89] | 0.23 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.18 *** | −0.26 * | 0.37 ** | 0.39 *** |
Religiosity | 2.15 (1.22) 495 | −0.15 *** | −0.18 *** | −0.15 ** | 0.21 § | −0.20 | −0.15 |
Feeling Thermometers | Dating Likelihood | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poly-Amorous Man N = 424 | Poly-Amorous Woman N = 424 | Poly-Amorous Man and Woman Combined N = 424 | Polyamorous Man Nheterosexual women participants = 252 | Poly-Amorous Woman Nheterosexual men participants = 70 | Poly-Amorous Partner Nheterosexual = 322 | Poly-Amorous Man Nbisexual women participants = 67 | Poly-Amorous Woman Nbisexual women participants = 67 | |
Participant Gender | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 | na | na | −0.16 ** | na | na |
Participant Sexual Orientation a | 0.09 § | 0.10 * | 0.10 * | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 | na | na |
Right-Wing Authoritarian-ism | −0.18 * | −0.23 *** | −0.21 ** | −0.09 | −0.21 | −0.15 § | −0.00 | −0.03 |
Erotophobia– Erotophilia | 0.14 * | 0.18 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.15 § | 0.17 | 0.14 * | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Hostile Sexism | 0.01 | −0.02 | −0.00 | 0.18 **b | −0.10 | 0.11 | −0.05 | −0.08 |
Benevolent Sexism | −0.10 § | −0.05 | −0.08 | −0.14 § | −0.12 | −0.16 * | −0.05 | −0.07 |
Social Dominance Orientation | −0.08 | −0.09 | −0.08 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.16 |
Intergroup Disgust Sensitivity | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
Sociosexuality | 0.10 § | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.18 * | 0.12 | 0.16 * | 0.27 § | 0.30 * |
Religiosity | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | −0.05 | 0.02 | −0.18 | −0.13 |
F (df) | 120.82 *** (10, 413) | 160.68 *** (10, 413) | 140.72 *** (10, 413) | 30.89 *** (9, 242) | 20.57 * (9, 60) | 60.06 *** (10, 311) | 20.05 § (8, 58) | 20.25 * (8, 58) |
Adjusted R2 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.13 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rye, B.J.; Goldszmidt, R. Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample. Sexes 2024, 5, 351-370. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes5030026
Rye BJ, Goldszmidt R. Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample. Sexes. 2024; 5(3):351-370. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes5030026
Chicago/Turabian StyleRye, B. J., and Rebecca Goldszmidt. 2024. "Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample" Sexes 5, no. 3: 351-370. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes5030026
APA StyleRye, B. J., & Goldszmidt, R. (2024). Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample. Sexes, 5(3), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes5030026