Afterwards, a big execution is accomplished to get to know the newest aims of this study. Users on general people was greet to join, and also the survey is actually disseminated into a social media system, appealing all those who have been interested to accomplish it and you will motivating these to spread-out it among all of their associations.
One-means ANOVA analyses shown significant differences between the various teams according towards sort of matchmaking, with regards to the dependent changeable known the entire get of your own intimate like myths scale [F
Participants have been otherwise had been into the a consensual non-monogamous affective sexual relationship was in fact intentionally greeting to participate, with the objective of having an extensive test of individuals who you will connect along these lines.
This technique requisite search employees and make early in the day contact with those individuals exactly who addressed these types of on line areas to spell it out brand new objectives of your own look and you can suggest welcoming the players. Eventually, brand new means was applied in the groups Poliamor Catalunya, Poliamor Chile, Golfxs ripoff Principios, Poliamor Salamanca, Alchimia Poliamor Chile, Poliamor Espana, and you can Poliamor Valencia. Regarding your moral security, the participants gave their informed concur ahead of the administration regarding the fresh new tool. Before application of the brand new survey, the players considering informed consent, which had been designed for the latest reason for this research. This new file takes into account new norms and criteria recommended from the Password regarding Stability of American Psychological Association in addition to Singapore Declaration, making certain the fresh new better-being of your participants, their voluntary involvement, anonymity, and confidentiality.
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 three, step 1,204) = p 2 = 0.06], item 6 [F(step three, 1,204) = , p 2 = 0.06], item 8 [F(step three, step one,204) = p 2 = 0.11], and item 9 [F(step 3, 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, 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, 1,205) = p 2 = 0.07], item 6 [F(2, step one,205) = p 2 = 0.09], and item 7 [F(dos, step one,205) = p 2 = 0.07]. Furthermore, in items 8 [F(2, step one,205) = p 2 = 0.25] and 9 [F(2, step 1,205) = p 2 = 0.26] the effect size was large.
(dos, 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(2, step one,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(3, step one,185) = 1.36, p = 0.255, ? 2 2 2 = 0.01]; nor between sex, sexual orientation, and type of relationship [F(5, 1,185) = 0.97, p = 0.436, ? 2 2 2 2 = 0.01); nor among sex, sexual orientation, and type of relationship [F(5, 1,185) = 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(3, 1,185) = , p 2 = 0.03] and according to type of relationship, with a medium effect size [F(dos, 1,185) = , p 2 = 0.06]. As for sex case, no differences were observed in this factor [F(1, step one,185) = 0.18, p = 0.668, ? 2 = 2 = 2 = 0.01] and type of relationship [F(dos, 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(dos, step 1,185) = 0.21, p = 0.813, ? 2 2 2 Keywords: bisexual, consensual non-monogamy, monogamy, polyamory, exclusivity, better-half