Multidimensional Measurement of Attitudes Toward Consensual Non-Monogamy.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Sex Research Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1080/00224499.2024.2320454
S Skakoon-Sparling, N Fairbrother, P Socha, M Faaborg-Andersen, S W Noor, T A Hart
{"title":"Multidimensional Measurement of Attitudes Toward Consensual Non-Monogamy.","authors":"S Skakoon-Sparling, N Fairbrother, P Socha, M Faaborg-Andersen, S W Noor, T A Hart","doi":"10.1080/00224499.2024.2320454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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: <i>CNM is Dysfunctional, CNM is Immoral</i>, and <i>CNM is Healthy and Satisfying</i>. Validity analyses, conducted using the combined sample (<i>n</i> = 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 <i>CNM is Healthy</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sex Research","volume":" ","pages":"378-389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sex Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2320454","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对双方同意的非一夫一妻制态度的多维测量。
尽管人们对两厢情愿的非一夫一妻制(CNM)越来越感兴趣,但对 CNM 仍然存在严重的偏见。因此,我们需要一个量表来评估人们对 CNM 的态度。为了满足这一需求,我们开发了 "对 CNM 的多维态度量表"(MACS)。量表的项目是在咨询内容专家后开发的,数据收集自加拿大两所不同大学的两个样本。探索性(样本 A)和确认性(样本 B)因素分析的拟合指数表明,16 个项目的量表有三个基本因素:功能失调的 CNM、不道德的 CNM 和健康满意的 CNM。使用合并样本(n = 806;79% 为女性;67% 为异性恋者)进行的有效性分析表明,MACS 总分较高(即态度较为消极)的参与者不太可能曾经有过 CNM 关系,并且更有可能将一夫一妻制作为其理想的关系方式。MACS 得分越高的人对双性恋和女性的态度越消极,对同性恋和嫉妒的测量得分也越高。相反,在 "CNM 是健康的 "子量表中得分较高的人往往在移情测量中得分较高。MACS 具有很强的心理测量特性,有助于在研究和临床环境中更好地了解人们对 CNM 关系的态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sex Research (JSR) is a scholarly journal devoted to the publication of articles relevant to the variety of disciplines involved in the scientific study of sexuality. JSR is designed to stimulate research and promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary sexual science. JSR publishes empirical reports, theoretical essays, literature reviews, methodological articles, historical articles, teaching papers, book reviews, and letters to the editor. JSR actively seeks submissions from researchers outside of North America.
期刊最新文献
"No Asians" Because "No Femmes"? Racial Preferences in Gay White Australian Men and Their Relationship with Preferences for Masculinity and Femininity. Feasibility and Impact of School-Based Online Comprehensive Sexuality Education on Vocational High School Students: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Moving Toward a More Comprehensive Standard for Sex Education: A Latent Class Analysis and Examination of Young Adult Sexual Health. Appearance-Related Social Media Consciousness, Geosocial Networking App Use, and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among Latinx Sexual Minority Men in the US: Acculturation as Moderator. Navigating Consent During Alcohol-Involved Sex: A Qualitative Study Examining Alcohol Consumption and the Sexual Consent Communication Process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1