Immunity to mononormativity: Negativity bias towards polyamory - the MAP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An explicit negativity bias in the form of stigmatisation and pathologisation of people in consensual non-monogamous relationships has been observed both in the general population and among psychotherapists ( Barker, 2011; Burgleigh et al., 2017; Grunt-Meyer et al., 2019; Hutzler et al., 2017; Knapp, 1997). However, there is currently little research that specifically relates to polyamory: this is also mainly located in the Polish, Canadian and American areas. Due to an increasing demand for competent psychotherapists for the polyamorous population group (McCoy, 2013), as well as the prevailing professional and social prejudices about the nature of CNM relationships (Duplassie, 2015), further research seems to be relevant. Not only research on the explicit attitudes towards polyamory mentioned above is a key component to effecting change in the social order and/or stigma, but research on implicit attitudes is also essential. In this area, only three studies appear to have addressed implicit attitudes towards CNM relationships (Kenyon et al., 2018; Thomson et al., 2018; Thomson et al., 2020). However, researchers in the field of social cognition specifically recommend the use of implicit measurements to avoid confounding with socially desirable responses in the response behaviour (Dunham et al., 2006). This study aims to narrow the research gap regarding polyamory by not focusing on all CNM relationships, but rather by specifically focusing on polyamory. Secondly, in addition to explicit measures, implicit measurements will also be applied to expand the research area of valid studies with less socially desirable response behaviour in the area of CNM relationships to polyamory. Thirdly, it will be examined whether increased empathy is associated with a reduced negative attitude towards polyamorous individuals. Finally, we will examine whether there is a group difference between psychotherapists and the general population regarding attitudes towards polyamory. It is expected that psychotherapists will show a lower implicit preference for monogamy than the general population. Both the general population and psychotherapists often identify with social norms, such as mononormativity. However, it can be assumed that psychotherapists, in addition to a possible identification with traditional social norms, have a further basis for identification with their professional, occupational values. This professional basis for identification is based on an open, non-judgmental attitude, reflecting on one's own prejudices, as well as the ethical values of the profession (Pomerantz et al., 1998).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".