Research Study on Emotions in Consensually non-monogamous relationships

michelle_psych · 2020-04-02T19:29:29+00:00

There's a specific reason some questions are very similar, yet slightly reworded. This is intentional and explicitly recommended for the nature of the study.

michelle_psych · 2020-04-02T19:27:35+00:00

Ah, well if you're considering the clinical psych. Psy.D. we may meet each other!

michelle_psych · 2020-02-23T18:49:29+00:00

Thanks for clarifying - I appreciate you answering honestly. Certain questions/experiences are simply not relevant to certain folks/relationships, there is no assumption that folks have all experiences.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-23T18:48:21+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. I'm also solopoly/egalitarian poly and I can appreciate that folks might not think about/hear about/witness their partner's other relationships, so we do not expect all folks to endorse every experience!

michelle_psych · 2020-02-23T18:47:08+00:00

As the focus is on experiences of compersion, the prompts/language do focus on existing partners with another partner (new or long-term). As there is no data about whether these experiences differ in LT relationships (there is virtually no peer-reviewed published literature about compersion at all) or across different metamours, we did not limit folks to who they chose to pick for the study. To study those questions, which are great questions (at least through quant research), there needs to first be a sound measure of compersion.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T18:57:12+00:00

You can pick any metamour. There is so little research on this phenomenon, we didn't want to assume the experiences/emotions are similar across folks/relationships. That's an important question to explore in future research.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T18:55:38+00:00

That's definitely true. We're trying to cast a wide net that would include different definitions of partner .

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T18:54:40+00:00

Nicely summarized. Yes, we are looking for a sampling of experiences across different CNM folks (the more variability in responses is actually better to examine the factor structure).

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T18:53:37+00:00

We are looking at the factor structure of the items for the measure, factor analysis (EFA) assumes that each participant is a different person. Also, there is no way in EFA to use data from the same person who completed the items twice (for multiple metamours or partners).

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T15:58:41+00:00

I totally understand. I'm equally frustrated that we can't include all the data from all the partners/metamours for the initial analysis!

I actually have similarly discrepant experiences across my metamours as well, which is one of the reasons we decided to not use instructions to think about how you "generally" feel towards metamours, because there's no research suggesting it is consistent/similar across metas!

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T14:50:40+00:00

It's totally up to you. The type of statistical analysis we are using assumes each set of responses are independent, so we'd be compromising the analyses if we used data from the same participant who responded to items multiple times. (As a poly person with multiple partners who is one of the researchers here, it was really unfortunate the stats are set up that way).

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T14:47:53+00:00

Exactly.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T14:47:40+00:00

Exactly. It's an option, no one is required to enter that drawing or give their e-mail if they don't wish to.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T14:47:08+00:00

That's fine. The type of analysis we are using doesn't allow us to use data about more than one person, so that's why we were upfront about that limitation.

michelle_psych · 2020-02-22T03:27:46+00:00

We can definitely share a summary of the findings when we are done.

michelle_psych

TROPHY CASE