Multidimensional Measurement of Attitudes Toward Consensual Non-Monogamy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increased interest in consensual non-monogamy (CNM), significant stigma remains against CNM. Consequently, there is a need for scales to assess attitudes toward CNM. In response to this need we developed the Multidimensional Attitudes toward CNM Scale (MACS). Items were developed in consultation with content experts and data were collected from two samples at two different Canadian Universities. Fit indices of exploratory (Sample A) and confirmatory (Sample B) factor analysis suggested a 16-item scale with three underlying factors: CNM is Dysfunctional, CNM is Immoral, and CNM is Healthy and Satisfying. Validity analyses, conducted using the combined sample (n = 806; 79% women; 67% heterosexual), demonstrated that participants with higher MACS total scores (i.e. more negative attitudes) were less likely to have ever been involved in a CNM relationship and were more likely to report monogamy as their ideal relationship style. Higher MACS scores were also associated with more negative attitudes toward bisexuality and toward women, and higher scores on measures of homophobia and jealousy. In contrast, individuals with higher scores on the CNM is Healthy subscale tended to score higher on measures of empathy. The MACS demonstrates strong psychometric properties and can assist in better understanding attitudes toward CNM relationships in research and clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".