↓ Skip to main content

Dimming the “Halo” Around Monogamy: Re-assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships as a Function of Personal Relationship Orientation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dimming the “Halo” Around Monogamy: Re-assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships as a Function of Personal Relationship Orientation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhonda N. Balzarini, Erin J. Shumlich, Taylor Kohut, Lorne Campbell

Abstract

Previous research suggests that both monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) participants rate monogamous targets more positively. However, this pattern of stigma toward CNM relationships and the "halo effect" surrounding monogamy is at odds with the view that people typically favor members from their own groups over members of other groups. In the current research, we sought to re-examine the halo effect, using a more direct measure of stigma (i.e., desired social distance), in a methodological context that differentiates between the three most common types of CNM relationships. A convenience sample (N = 641) of individuals who self-identified as monogamous (n = 447), open (n = 80), polyamorous (n = 62), or swinger (n = 52) provided social distance ratings in response to these same relationship orientations in a counterbalanced order. Congruent with prior findings, CNM participants favored monogamous targets over CNM targets as a broad category (replicating the halo effect). However, results indicated this effect dissipated when participants were asked to differentiate between relationships they identify with, and other CNM relationships. Furthermore, supplementary findings suggest that monogamous targets were perceived to be the least promiscuous and were associated with the lowest perceived sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates, while swinger targets were perceived as the most promiscuous and were associated with the highest perceived STI rates. Consequently, our results imply social distance is partly attributable to the perception of STI risk, but not perceptions of promiscuity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 48%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,711,866
of 25,394,081 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,946
of 34,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,270
of 343,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#247
of 722 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 722 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.