Erin Shumlich

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

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.

Sexual Attitudes, Erotophobia, and Sociosexual Orientation Differ Based on Relationship Orientation

Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) is an overarching term for relationship orientations that differ based on the degree to which consensual sexual and emotional needs are fulfilled outside of a dyad. Despite the diversity of CNM relationship orientations and growing research examining CNM, it is unclear whether the sexual attitudes, inclination to approach/avoid sexual stimuli (i.e., erotophobia-erotophilia), and sociosexuality differ among individuals who identify with distinct CNM relationships. Further, as the agreements made in CNM relationships permit extradyadic relationships, important differences might emerge for CNM and monogamous individuals. 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 ratings of their sexual attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and sociosexuality. Results indicated that swingers had the most permissive and instrumental attitudes, were the most erotophilic, and were the most unrestricted sexually. Conversely, monogamists scored the lowest on these traits. No differences emerged between relationship orientations for attitudes toward communion and birth control. These findings have important implications for sexuality research because they reinforce the view that some underlying differences and similarities exist between monogamous and CNM individuals.

Executive Dysfunction in Criminal Populations: Comparing Forensic Psychiatric Patients and Correctional Offenders

Abstract Background: Robust executive function (EF) deficits have been found in criminal groups and have been implicated as contributors to criminal behavior. A widely cited model of EF is made up of inhibition, shifting, and working memory. The current study compares these three EF components of two different criminal groups to one another and to a normative sample. Methods: EF of 42 forensic psychiatric patients was assessed and compared with 77 correctional offenders. EF was determined using the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). Results: Forensic psychiatric patients display poorer performance on EF compared to correctional offenders. Overall, forensic psychiatric patients perform most poorly on measures of shifting. Furthermore, a large proportion of both forensic psychiatric patients (9.5–35.7%) and correctional offenders (5.2–27.3%) display clinically significant deficits in all components of EF compared to what would be expected in the normative population (2.5%). Conclusions/Implications: This study provides evidence of heterogeneity of cognitive deficits among different criminal populations and pervasive EF deficits in forensic and correctional populations compared to a normative sample. Understanding the unique EF profiles of different criminal groups can better inform rehabilitation programs and risk and release decisions.