“Bi”ing into monogamy: Attitudes toward monogamy in a sample of bisexual-identified adults.

Abstract

Bisexuality researchers have explored various aspects of bisexual (“bi”) commitment, including how bi-identified individuals negotiate nonmonogamous relationships, relationship stability in couples with 1 bi-identified and 1 straight-identified partner, and patterns of commitment across the life cycle. However, no research to date has quantitatively explored bi-identified individuals’ attitudes toward monogamy itself. As part of an online survey exploring attitudes toward monogamy in a sample of 5,988 adults, the current study examined a subsample of 293 bi-identified persons’ attitudes toward monogamy. All participants completed the Monogamy Attitudes Scale to assess attitudes toward monogamy as enhancing or sacrificing, in addition to questions regarding the sources surrounding participants’ attitudes toward monogamy. Two 2 (Male/Female) × 4 (Gay/Straight/Bi/Questioning) ANOVA results indicated a significant difference based on sexual identity for attitudes toward monogamy as enhancing, F(5) = 103.38, p < .001, and as a sacrifice, F(5) = 62.48, p < .001. Bi individuals viewed monogamy as less enhancing than gay, lesbian, and straight individuals, and similar to uncertain or questioning individuals. Bi individuals viewed monogamy as more of a sacrifice than gay, lesbian, and straight individuals, and similar to uncertain or questioning individuals. Bi-identified men viewed monogamy as more of a sacrifice than bi-identified women, F(5) = 22.09, p < .001. Findings on the sources regarding monogamy are also discussed. Overall, bi individuals expressed less supportive attitudes toward monogamy compared to other sexual identity groups despite reporting their own personal relationships as monogamous and traditional. Implications of these findings in clinical, educational, and advocacy settings are discussed.

Risks, Vulnerabilities, and Desires for Future Romantic Relationships and Relationship Education During Early Adulthood

“…The low number of individuals who identified as African American may partially explain why there were no other racial/ethnic findings. Last, although bisexual individuals are in relationships consisting of commitment (Reinhardt, 2001), they may also hold more flexible attitudes toward nonmonogamous relationships (Mark et al, 2014), which may influence their future relational desires.…”

Ain’t misbehavin? Monogamy maintenance strategies in heterosexual romantic relationships

“…Future research would benefit from specific explorations of MM in sexual minorities. Differences exist in attitudes toward and expectations for monogamy between heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual individuals in romantic relationships (Hoff & Beougher, ; Hosking, ; Mark et al, ), and MM cannot be assumed to be valued or enacted similarly across these groups.…”

“…The primary goal of the current study was to identify and characterize the strategies that heterosexual adults use in attempts to maintain monogamy when faced with an attractive alternative. The current study is limited to the exploration of MM in male–female romantic relationships, as prior qualitative work has identified differing attitudes toward and practices of monogamy between heterosexual, gay, and bisexual individuals in romantic relationships (Hoff & Beougher, ; Hosking, ; Mark, Rosenkrantz, & Kerner, ). Given strong endorsement of monogamy as a standard for heterosexual relationships, we expected that the majority of our sample would report using a number of MM strategies, similar to the findings that emerge in research on other forms of relationship maintenance (Stafford & Canary, ).…”

Walk the Line: How Successful Are Efforts to Maintain Monogamy in Intimate Relationships?

“…Eligibility criteria included being involved in a committed, monogamous male–female romantic relationship. Heterosexual participants were chosen for the sample as differences exist in attitudes toward and expectations for monogamy between heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual individuals in intimate relationships (Hoff & Beougher, 2008; Hosking, 2013; Mark, Rosenkrantz, & Kerner, 2014). The final sample ( N = 287) consisted of 143 women and 144 men with a mean age of 34.5 years ( SD = 9.6, range 19–68).…”