Suppr超能文献

LGBTQ+ 人群中的浪漫关系模式及其相关因素:潜在类别分析。

Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among LGBTQ+ persons: A latent class analysis.

机构信息

Team ENACT, University of Nîmes, Nîmes, France.

Research Chair in Sexual Diversity and Gender Plurality, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2024 Sep 13;19(9):e0309954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309954. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Research comparing monogamous and non-monogamous relationships on well-being indicators across diverse populations have yielded inconsistent findings. The present study investigates sociodemographic characteristics, as well as personal and relational outcomes, across different relationship configurations. Data were drawn from an online community-based sample of 1,528 LGBTQ+ persons aged 18 years and older in Quebec, Canada. A latent class analysis was performed based on legal relationship status, relationship agreement, cohabitation status, and the seeking of extradyadic sexual and romantic partners on the internet. Class differences on sociodemographic characteristics and well-being and relationship quality indicators were examined. A five-class solution best fit the data, highlighting five distinct relationship configurations: Formalized monogamy (59%), Free monogamy (20%), Formalized open relationship (11%), Monogamous considering alternatives (7%) and Free consensual non-monogamies (3%). Cisgender women were more likely to engage in monogamous relationships than cisgender men, who were overrepresented in open relationships. Lower levels of perceived partner support were observed in both free monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships, the latter of which also showed lower levels of well-being. Consensual non-monogamy researchers exploring relationship outcomes should examine relationship facets that go beyond relationship structure or agreement. Variations in monogamies and non-monogamies, both consensual and non-consensual, may be present within each broad relationship configuration, as reflected in different personal and relational needs, which can then translate to better or poorer outcomes.

摘要

对不同人群的幸福指标进行比较的研究发现,一夫一妻制和非一夫一妻制的关系存在不一致的结果。本研究调查了不同关系配置下的社会人口统计学特征,以及个人和关系结果。数据来自加拿大魁北克省一个基于在线社区的 1528 名 LGBTQ+ 年龄在 18 岁及以上的人的样本。根据法律关系状况、关系协议、同居状况以及在互联网上寻求婚外性和浪漫伴侣,进行了潜在类别分析。检查了不同关系配置在社会人口统计学特征、幸福感和关系质量指标上的差异。五类别解决方案最适合数据,突出了五种不同的关系配置:正式一夫一妻制(59%)、自由一夫一妻制(20%)、正式开放关系(11%)、考虑替代方案的一夫一妻制(7%)和自由双方同意的非一夫一妻制(3%)。顺性别女性比顺性别男性更有可能从事一夫一妻制关系,而顺性别男性在开放关系中更为突出。在自由一夫制和双方同意的非一夫一妻制关系中,都观察到感知到的伴侣支持水平较低,后者的幸福感水平也较低。研究关系结果的双方同意的非一夫一妻制研究人员应该检查超越关系结构或协议的关系方面。在每个广泛的关系配置中,可能存在双方同意和非双方同意的一夫一妻制和非一夫一妻制的变化,这反映了不同的个人和关系需求,从而可以转化为更好或更差的结果。

相似文献

1
Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among LGBTQ+ persons: A latent class analysis.
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 13;19(9):e0309954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309954. eCollection 2024.
2
Jealousy, Consent, and Compersion Within Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships.
Arch Sex Behav. 2019 Aug;48(6):1811-1828. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4. Epub 2019 Jan 3.
4
Comparing Relationship Quality Across Different Types of Romantic Partners in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships.
Arch Sex Behav. 2019 Aug;48(6):1749-1767. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7. Epub 2019 May 8.
5
Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy.
Arch Sex Behav. 2017 Feb;46(2):407-417. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
8
Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Mar;12(2):205-232. doi: 10.1177/1745691616667925.
9
Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory.
PLoS One. 2017 May 18;12(5):e0177841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177841. eCollection 2017.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire.
Arch Sex Behav. 2024 Aug;53(8):3285-3307. doi: 10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5. Epub 2024 Jul 1.
2
Non-consensual and Consensual Non-monogamy in Norway.
Int J Sex Health. 2021 Jul 12;34(1):65-80. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2021.1947931. eCollection 2022.
3
What do we know about consensual non-monogamy?
Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Dec;48:101468. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101468. Epub 2022 Sep 16.
4
Factors that Facilitate and Hinder the Experience of Compersion Among Individuals in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships.
Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Aug;51(6):3035-3048. doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4. Epub 2022 Jul 25.
6
Introduction to the Special Section on Consensual Non-Monogamy.
Arch Sex Behav. 2021 May;50(4):1217-1223. doi: 10.1007/s10508-021-02055-z. Epub 2021 Jun 4.
7
Examining Variations in Participation and Outcomes of Consensual and Nonconsensual Extradyadic Behavior among Ashley Madison Users.
J Sex Res. 2021 Nov-Dec;58(9):1194-1204. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2021.1908509. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
9
Validation of a brief version of the Social Provisions Scale using Canadian national survey data.
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2019 Dec;39(12):323-332. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.39.12.02.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验