Three’s a crowd: public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory

Abstract

In order to extend the literature on consensual nonmonogamy, we conducted two studies that examined public awareness and perceptions of polyamory. Specifically, we identified individual differences that predict people’s attitudes towards polyamory and also explored whether manipulations grounded in prejudice-reduction theory might lead to more positive perceptions. In both studies, individuals reporting more traditional traits (e.g. political conservatism and religiosity) had more negative attitudes towards polyamory. In addition, participants’ prior exposure to polyamory (i.e. familiarity with the term polyamory or knowing someone polyamorous) was positively related to attitudes towards polyamory, consistent with Allport’s contact hypothesis. Finally, an experimental manipulation revealed that participants who either received additional information about polyamory (consistent with the notion that increased knowledge about outgroups can reduce prejudice; Pettigrew & Tropp) or were asked to consider the advantages and limitations of monogamy (consistent with value self-confrontation theory; Rokeach) exhibited more positive attitudes towards polyamory than did participants who only received a standard definition of polyamory. As our results represent some of the first empirical findings on perceptions of polyamory, implications for addressing the stigmatisation of this relationship style are discussed.

Keywords:

• polyamory
• nonmonogamy
• stigma
• perceptions
• attitudes
• relationships

Acknowledgements

We thank Erin Crockett and Abby Riggs for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The causal direction of this relationship cannot be inferred from our research because of its correlational nature. It seems likely that an individual’s interest could lead to knowing someone polyamorous, but we cannot conclude with certainty that knowing someone polyamorous increases someone’s interest in the relationship orientation. Future research should expand upon our findings in an attempt to determine the causal direction or explore whether another mediating factor explains the relationship between knowing someone in a polyamorous relationship and personal interest in the relationship style.

2. Whereas swinging typically involves an emotionally monogamous couple engaging in temporary extradyadic sexual (but not emotional) relationships with others, polyamory involves the longer-term maintenance of both emotional and sexual relationships with all partners (Bonello, 2009; Bringle & Boebinger, 1990; McDonald, 2010). As Frank and DeLamater (2010) argue, this distinction is often quick to be made within the polyamorous and swinging communities themselves, but perhaps the general public is not as aware of the difference between the two relationship types.

3. In the self-reflection task condition, participants were asked to consider both the benefits and limitations of monogamy based on their own personal experiences. In addition to considering the limitations of monogamy (to initiate value self-confrontation; Grube et al., 1994), participants in this condition were asked to also consider the benefits for two reasons: First, having participants consider only the limitations of monogamy would likely have introduced demand characteristics. Second, people frequently and automatically think about the benefits of monogamy – as noted previously, mononormativity is pervasive and is woven into how we typically think about personal relationships (Conley, Ziegler, et al., 2013; Ryan & Jetha, 2010; Sheff, 2014; Weaver & Woollard, 2008) – and therefore, even if we had not asked about the benefits, participants would have likely been primed to think of the benefits because such thoughts are so dominant that they would be automatically activated. Thus, we argue that the nature of the self-reflection task (which asks about both pros and cons of monogamy) effectively initiates value confrontation in a way that minimises demand characteristics.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the Brown Foundation, Inc., of Houston, to the second author, as part of the John H. Duncan Chair.

Notes on contributors

Kevin T. Hutzler

Kevin T. Hutzler ([email protected]) earned a B.A. in Economics and Psychology from Southwestern University in 2013. He currently lives in Dallas, TX, USA, and works as an analyst for The Richards Group, the largest independently owned marketing and advertising firm in the United States.

Traci A. Giuliano

Traci A. Giuliano ([email protected]), Professor of Psychology, has been a member of the Southwestern University faculty since 1994. She earned her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Jordan R. Herselman

Jordan R. Herselman ([email protected]) obtained her B.A. in Psychology from Southwestern University in 2013. She currently lives in Littleton, CO, USA, and is earning her M.A. in Counselling at Denver Seminary.

Sarah M. Johnson

Sarah M. Johnson ([email protected]) earned a B.A. in Psychology and Spanish from Southwestern University in 2013. She currently lives in Hartford, CT, USA, and is a Master of Social Work candidate at the University of Connecticut, where she is specializing in policy practice and international social work.