Individual Difference Predictors of Attitudes toward Polyamorous Targets and Likelihood to Date a Polyamorous Partner in a Student Sample
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».