To this prevent, new device are disseminated certainly one of individuals Facebook communities you to target low-normative content off affective sexual dating

Later, a big execution are accomplished to satisfy the newest seeks away from this study. People about standard people was basically desired to become listed on, and survey is actually disseminated toward a social network system, inviting all these have been curious accomplish they and you can inspiring these to spread-out they amongst their associations.

One-method ANOVA analyses found tall differences when considering different organizations in respect towards type of matchmaking, depending on the built changeable referred to the entire score of romantic love myths measure [F

Professionals who have been otherwise had been during the an excellent consensual non-monogamous affective sexual relationship were purposefully enjoy to participate, with the objective of experiencing an extensive try of people that you are going to associate similar to this.

This method needed lookup team to make early in the day exposure to the individuals who managed such on the internet areas to spell it out the fresh expectations of your search and recommend welcoming the participants. In the long run, this new means was utilized throughout the organizations Poliamor Catalunya, Poliamor Chile, Golfxs con Principios, Poliamor Salamanca, Alchimia Poliamor Chile, Poliamor Espana, and you can Poliamor Valencia. Concerning your ethical safeguards, the participants gave its informed agree prior to the administration regarding the fresh instrument. Before application of the fresh survey, the players offered advised consent, that was designed for the latest reason for this research. This new file considers the newest norms and you can requirements recommended of the Password off Ethics of your own Western Mental Connection together with Singapore Declaration, making certain the newest better-becoming of one’s people, its volunteer contribution, privacy, and confidentiality.

Analysis Data

We first analyzed the factorial structure of the scale of myths of romantic love, for which the sample was divided into two groups. With the first subsample, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out to identify the underlying structure of the data, using principal components and Varimax rotation as a method of extraction. Straightaway, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the remaining 50% of the sample to confirm the factor structure proposed by the EFA. To estimate the goodness of fit of the model, we used chi-square (? 2 ) not significant, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI > 0.95), the RMSEA ( 0.95), and the SRMR ( 2 ) was used for ANOVA. According to Cohen (1988), the reference values for d are: 2 , the values proposed by Cohen (1988) are: 2 (SB) (50) , p 2 = 0.08], item 5 [F_{(step 3, step 1,204)} = p 2 = 0.06], item 6 [F_{(step three, step one,204)} = , p 2 = 0.06], item 8 [F_{(step 3, step one,204)} = p 2 = 0.11], and item 9 [F_{(step three, step 1,204)} = , p 2 = 0.08].

One-way ANOVA analyses revealed significant differences for the sexual orientation variable in the global romantic love myths score [F_{(step three, step 1,204)} = p 2 = 0.13] with a medium effect size (Table 3). Specifically, the heterosexual group presented higher scores with respect to the bisexual group (mean difference = 0.56, SE = 0.05, p 2 = 0.14]. Specifically, the heterosexual group presents higher scores than the homosexual group (mean difference = 0.26, SE = 0.08, p = 0.006, d = 0.31), bisexual (mean difference = 0.69, SE = 0.06, p 2 = 0.06], obtaining that heterosexual people present more myths than those who define themselves as bisexual (mean difference = 0.38, SE = 0.05, p 2 = 0.11], item 3 [F_{(dos, step 1,205)} = 91. 98 p 2 = 0.13], item 5 [F_{(2, step one,205)} = p 2 = 0.07], item 6 [F_{(dos, step 1,205)} = p 2 = 0.09], and item 7 [F_{(2, step 1,205)} = p 2 = 0.07]. Furthermore, in items 8 [F_{(2, step 1,205)} = p 2 = 0.25] and 9 [F_{(dos, step 1,205)} = p 2 = 0.26] the effect size was large.

_{(dos, step 1,205)} = p 2 = 0.22] with a large effect size. Specifically, the differences are explained by the fact that the monogamous group presents higher scores than the consensual non-monogamous groups (mean difference = 0 0.71, SE = 0.04, p 2 = 0.26). Post-hoc analyses showed that the monogamous group scored significantly higher than the non-monogamous group (mean difference = 0.93, SE = 0.05, p 2 = 0.06], although the effect size in this case was medium. Specifically, it was obtained that the monogamous group scored higher than the non-monogamous group (mean difference = 0.40, SE = 0.05, p 2 = 2 = 0.03] and type of relationship [F_{(dos, step 1,185)} = , p 2 = 0.04], with a small effect size in both cases. The interaction between the different factors did not reach statistical significance. Specifically, there were no differences in this factor with respect to the interaction among sex and sexual orientation [F_{(step 3, 1,185)} = 1.36, p = 0.255, ? 2 2 2 = 0.01]; nor between sex, sexual orientation, and type of relationship [F_{(5, step 1,185)} = 0.97, p = 0.436, ? 2 2 2 2 = 0.01); nor among sex, sexual orientation, and type of relationship [F_{(5, step one,185)} = 1.05, p = 0.385, ? 2 = 0.01], with respect to the score obtained in this factor, but there are differences according to sexual orientation, with a small effect size [F_{(step three, step 1,185)} = , p 2 = 0.03] and according to type of relationship, with a medium effect size [F_{(2, 1,185)} = , p 2 = 0.06]. As for sex case, no differences were observed in this factor [F_{(step one, step one,185)} = 0.18, p = 0.668, ? 2 = 2 = 2 = 0.01] and type of relationship [F_{(dos, step 1,185)} = 4.26, p = 0.014, ? 2 = 0.01] are statistically significant, although with a small effect size. No interaction effect is observed among these different variables in terms of the score obtained in Factor 2 . There were no differences in this factor with respect to the interaction between sex and sexual orientation [F_{(step three, step one,185)} = 1.84, p = 0.139, ? 2 = 0.01], sex and relationship type [F_{(2, step one,185)} = 0.21, p = 0.813, ? 2 2 2 Keywords: bisexual, consensual non-monogamy, monogamy, polyamory, exclusivity, better-half