Frost and Gola (2015) offer empirical evidence that same‐sex and different‐sex relationship partners are similar in their experiences of intimacy and, as a result, the meaning of marriage will not fundamentally change with the legalization of same‐sex marriage. In this commentary, we offer another perspective: given the unique aspects of same‐sex relationships, we argue that the meaning of marriage may indeed change as same‐sex partners legally wed. We extend Frost and Gola (2015) by considering the limitations of respectability politics when advocating for same‐sex relationships and by shedding light on those who may seek to change the meaning of marriage.
AbstractIn four studies, we documented the symbolic meanings of the progression of contraceptive use in close relationships. In Study 1A, participants perceived a couple in which one partner suggests changing contraceptive method from condoms to the pill (a normative transition script) as having a more positive relationship than a couple in which one partner suggests changing from the pill to condoms (a counternormative transition script). In Study 1B, participants believed that couples who followed a counternormative transition script had higher likelihood of infidelity/STDs and a lower degree of closeness than couples who followed a normative transition script. In Study 2A, the association of counternormative transition with perceptions of greater infidelity and lower closeness was demonstrated among a group of college students imagining their own relationship partners suggesting the transition. In Study 2B, participants who imagined that their partner suggested a counternormative transition reported more negative emotions than did participants who imagined that their partner suggested a normative transition. These findings suggest that the symbolic meaning of condoms and birth control pills may contribute to the relative lack of safer sex behaviors in close relationships.
We documented the content and dimensions of non‐White groups' stereotypes about White men, then ascertained differences between ethnic groups in perception of those stereotypes. Stereotypes generally fell into dimensions of Gordon Gekkos, nice guys, and frat boys. African Americans generally listed (Study 1a), recognized (Study 1b), and endorsed (Study 2) fewer positive and more negative stereotypes than the other two ethnic groups, consistent with the stereotype content model (SCM). Also consistent with SCM, in Study 2, stereotypes about White men's competence were correlated with perception of Whites' societal status. Stereotypes about White men's coldness were correlated with measures of competition with Whites. These effects were especially strong among African Americans.
In the context of recent debates about same-sex marriage, consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships have recently begun making their way into media discussions. In the current research, we investigated whether stigma is attached to these nonnormative romantic relationships and, conversely, whether halo effects surround monogamous relationships. In Study 1 we analyzed open-ended responses to the question 'what are the benefits of monogamy?'. The most commonly mentioned benefits included the promotion of commitment and health (especially the prevention of sexually transmitted infections [STIs]). In Study 2, descriptions of CNM relationships were strongly stigmatized and a substantial halo effect surrounded monogamous relationships. Specifically, monogamous relationships were rated more positively than CNM relationships on every dimension (both relationship-relevant and arbitrary relationship-irrelevant factors) that we examined and across diverse social groups, including CNM individuals themselves. In Study 3, we conducted a person perception study in which participants provided their impressions of a monogamous or a CNM relationship. The monogamous couple was rated overwhelmingly more favorably than the CNM relationship. Finally, in Study 4, we replicated the findings with a set of traits that were generated with regard to relationships in general (rather than monogamous relationships, specifically) and with a broader set of arbitrary traits. Across all studies, the results consistently demonstrated stigma surrounding CNM and a halo effect surrounding monogamy. Implications for future research examining similarities and differences between monogamous and CNM relationships are discussed. Adapted from the source document.
In the context of recent debates about same‐sex marriage, consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships have recently begun making their way into media discussions. In the current research, we investigated whether stigma is attached to these nonnormative romantic relationships and, conversely, whether halo effects surround monogamous relationships. In Study 1 we analyzed open‐ended responses to the question "what are the benefits of monogamy?". The most commonly mentioned benefits included the promotion of commitment and health (especially the prevention of sexually transmitted infections [STIs]). In Study 2, descriptions of CNM relationships were strongly stigmatized and a substantial halo effect surrounded monogamous relationships. Specifically, monogamous relationships were rated more positively than CNM relationships on every dimension (both relationship‐relevant and arbitrary relationship‐irrelevant factors) that we examined and across diverse social groups, including CNM individuals themselves. In Study 3, we conducted a person perception study in which participants provided their impressions of a monogamous or a CNM relationship. The monogamous couple was rated overwhelmingly more favorably than the CNM relationship. Finally, in Study 4, we replicated the findings with a set of traits that were generated with regard to relationships in general (rather than monogamous relationships, specifically) and with a broader set of arbitrary traits. Across all studies, the results consistently demonstrated stigma surrounding CNM and a halo effect surrounding monogamy. Implications for future research examining similarities and differences between monogamous and CNM relationships are discussed.
AbstractCOVID‐19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were "safer at home." Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy–that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer–from a disease transmission perspective–than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID‐19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID‐specific safety measures (such as mask‐wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID‐risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non‐monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID‐safe. Participants perceived monogamous‐but‐COVID‐riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID‐19. Non‐monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID‐19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.
In our target article, "The Fewer the Merrier: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships," we documented a robust stigma toward consensual nonmonogamous relationships and a halo surrounding monogamous relationships. In the present piece, we respond to six commentaries of our target article with the aim of promoting future research and policy change. First, we address questions and concerns raised by commentators using existing data and found that regardless of perceived relationship happiness, sexual orientation, or gender (of experimental targets), individuals in consensual nonmonogamous relationships were more negatively viewed on a variety of qualities (both relationship‐specific and nonrelationship specific) compared to those in monogamous relationships. Second, we suggest productive future research avenues with regards to implications for social change, and strengthening methodology used in consensual nonmonogamous research. Finally, we consider common ground among the commentators as an avenue to promote coalition building through the examinations of prejudice toward individuals in nonnormative romantic relationships. We conclude that this is only the beginning of a fruitful line of research and argue that the stigma toward departures from monogamy is robust and, of course, worthy of additional research.
