Skip to main content

Which Partners Are More Human? Monogamy Matters More than Sexual Orientation for Dehumanization in Three European Countries

Sexuality Research and Social Policy volume 15, pages 504–515 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Compared to monogamous relationships, consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships are stigmatized. Similarly, compared to heterosexual individuals, gay men are perceived to have more promiscuous and less committed romantic relationships. Hence, CNM and same-sex male relationships are potential targets of dehumanization (i.e., denied traits considered unique of human beings). We tested the impact of monogamy and sexual orientation on dehumanization, and examined if CNM (vs. monogamous) and same-sex (vs. heterosexual) partners are dehumanized through the attribution of primary (non-uniquely human) and secondary (uniquely human) emotions. A sample of heterosexual young adults (N = 585, 455 women; M age = 25.55, SD = 7.48) in three European countries—Croatia, Italy, and Portugal—attributed primary and secondary emotions to four groups: (a) CNM same-sex male partners, (b) CNM heterosexual partners, (c) monogamous same-sex male partners, and (d) monogamous heterosexual partners. Results showed that uniquely human emotions were attributed less to CNM than to monogamous partners, and this happened regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, CNM same-sex and CNM heterosexual partners were evaluated similarly. This pattern of results was consistent across countries. The implication of these findings for social policies and sexual rights is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Lattanzio, S., Loughnan, S., & Volpato, C. (2014). Human-itarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. Br J Soc Psychol, 53, 573–584. doi:10.1111/bjso.12066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772. doi:10.1177/1363460710384645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. P. (2014). Polyamory and criminalization of plural conjugal unions in Canada: Competing narratives in the s.293 reference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11, 63–75. doi:10.1007/s13178-013-0137-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. J Exp Soc Psychol, 46, 107–113. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharj, N., & Hegarty, P. (2015). A postcolonial feminist critique of harem analogies in psychological science. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 257–275. doi:10.5964/jspp.v3i1.133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaney, A. D., & Sinclair, H. C. (2013). Defining concepts and new directions: A commentary on “The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding nonnormative romantic relationships”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 38–41. doi:10.1111/asap.12000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boysen, G., Vogel, D., Madon, S., & Wester, S. (2006). Mental health stereotypes about gay men. Sex Roles, 54, 69–82. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-8870-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, M. (2016). Monogamy and nonmonogamy: Evolutionary considerations and treatment challenges. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 4, 343–352. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M., & Reyna, C. (2011). The chain of being: A hierarchy of morality. Perspect Psychol Sci, 6, 428–446. doi:10.1177/1745691611414587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., & Groscup, J. (2009). Perceptions of same-sex domestic violence among crisis center staff. J Fam Violence, 24, 87–93. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9212-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Attributing primary and secondary emotions to lesbians and gay men: Denying a human essence or gender stereotyping? Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 6, 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burris, C. (2014). Torn between two lovers? Lay perceptions of polyamorous individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 258–267. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.779311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, M., & Vescio, T. (2011). Core American values and the structure of antigay prejudice. J Homosex, 58, 248–262. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.540180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276–282. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., Vezzali, L., & Favara, I. (2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions? Int J Psychol, 48, 527–541. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.688132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. J Pers Soc Psychol, 90, 804–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (2016). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality & Culture, 20, 295–315. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9324-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T., Moors, A., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. J Sex Med, 9, 1559–1565. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02712.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B. (2013b). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 17, 124–141. doi:10.1177/1088868312467087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, R., Rodriguez, A., & Leyens, J.-P. (2005). Infrahumanization or familiarity? Attribution of uniquely human emotions to the self, the ingroup, and the outgroup. Personal Soc Psychol Bull, 31, 243–253. doi:10.1177/0146167204271421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, M.-P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognit Emot, 18, 71–96. doi:10.1080/02699930244000444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doan, L., Miller, L., & Loehr, A. (2015). The power of love: The role of emotional attributions and standards in heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay couples. Social Forces, 94, 401–425. doi:10.1093/sf/sov047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2015). Discrimination in the UE in 2015. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/68004

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). Homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in the EU member states. Part II: The social situation. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/397-FRA_hdgso_report_part2_en.pdf

  • EVS. (2011). European Values Study 2008: Integrated dataset (EVS 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file version 3.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.11004

  • Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay- and lesbian-sounding voice elicits stereotyping and discrimination. Arch Sex Behav. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasoli, F., Paladino, M. P., Carnaghi, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., & Bain, P. G. (2016). Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men. Eur J Soc Psychol, 46, 237–248. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillmor, K., Bernstein, M., & Benfield, J. (2014). Have you no shame? Infrahumanization of promiscuous sexual assault victims as moderated by dispositional and situational just world orientation. Journal of Student Research, 3, 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 45–53. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1010193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Laham, S., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 203–218). Washington, DC: APA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Dehumanization and prejudice. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 89–104). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annu Rev Psychol, 65, 399–423. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, P. (2013). Deconstructing the ideal of fidelity: A view from LGB psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 31–33. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01298.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, W. (2013). Agreements about extra-dyadic sex in gay men’s relationships: Exploring differences in relationship quality by agreement type and rule-breaking behavior. J Homosex, 60, 711–733. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.773819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzler, K., Giuliano, T., Herselman, J., & Johnson, S. (2016). Three’s a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7, 69–87. doi:10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kertzner, R. M. (2012). A mental health research perspective on marital rights and civil marriage for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 16, 136–145. doi:10.1080/19359705.2012.652577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kite, M., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychol Women Q, 11, 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J Pers Soc Psychol, 109, 901–931. doi:10.1037/pspp0000048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz, A., Davidov, E., Schwartz, S., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison. Eur J Soc Psychol, 45, 120–134. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, E., & Klassen, A. (1976). Public attitudes toward homosexuality: Part of the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex Research. J Homosex, 1, 29–43. doi:10.1300/J082v01n01_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B. L., & Levy, D. L. (2017). When love meets hate: The relationship between state policies on gay and lesbian rights and hate crime incidence. Soc Sci Res, 61, 142–159. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leyens, J.-P., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., & Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 4, 186–197. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M.-P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Eur J Soc Psychol, 31, 395–411. doi:10.1002/ejsp.50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D., de Oliveira, J., Nogueira, C., & Grave, R. (2016). The social determinants of polymorphous prejudice against lesbian and gay individuals: The case of Portugal. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14, 56–70. doi:10.1007/s13178-016-0230-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias toward “group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, H., & Tsang, J.-A. (2008). Separating the “sinner” from the “sin”: Religious orientation and prejudiced behavior toward sexual orientation and promiscuous sex. J Sci Study Relig, 47, 379–392. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00416.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcu, A., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). Exclusion of ethnic groups from the realm of humanity: Prejudice against the gypsies in Britain and in Romania. Psicología Politica, 30, 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsick, J., Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., & Rubin, J. (2014). Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 339–348. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.832934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull, 129, 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J., Memering, S., Welling, L., & Shackelford, T. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Arch Sex Behav, 46, 407–417. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Schechinger, H. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships. Eur Psychol, 22, 55–71. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J., & Conley, T. (2013). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual nonmonogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 52–69. doi:10.1111/asap.12020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., Rubin, J., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. (2014). It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy. Journal Für Psychologie, 22, 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K. C. (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 488–508. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Soc Psychol Q, 55, 321–333. doi:10.2307/2786800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, M.-P., Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez, R., Rodriguez, A., Gaunt, R., & Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions with the ingroup and the outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 105–117. doi:10.1177/1368430202005002539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L., & Fingerhut, A. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annu Rev Psychol, 58, 405–424. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, M., & Bauer, R. (2005). Polyamory und mono-normativität: Ergebnisse einer empirischen studie über nicht-monogame lebensformen. [Polyamory and mono-normativity: Results of an empirical study in non-monogamous ways of life]. In L. Merritt, T. Bührmann, & N. Schefzig (Eds.), Mehr als eine liebe. Polyamouröse beziehungen. [more loves than one. Polyamorous relationships] (pp. 59–70). Berlin: Orlanda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plasek, J., & Allard, J. (1984). Misconceptions of homophobia. J Homosex, 10, 23–37. doi:10.1300/J082v10n01_02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (1988). Sociological research on male and female homosexuality. Annu Rev Sociol, 14, 125–147. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). “We agree and now everything goes my way”: Consensual sexual nonmonogamy, extradyadic sex, and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 373–379. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Smith, C. V. (2016). Caught in a “bad romance”?, Reconsidering the negative association between sociosexuality and relationship functioning. Journal of Sex Research. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1252308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohmann, A., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Castano, E., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). The attribution of primary and secondary emotions to the in-group and to the out-group: The case of equal status countries. J Soc Psychol, 149, 709–730. doi:10.1080/00224540903348253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubel, A., & Bogaert, A. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 961–982. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.942722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. J Appl Psychol, 101, 1687–1704. doi:10.1037/apl0000148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. (2010). Investigating differences in public support for gay rights issues. J Homosex, 57, 748–759. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.485875.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S., & Struch, N. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and inter-group antagonism. In D. Bar-Tal, C. Grauman, A. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A., Rhoades, G., Allen, E., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2016). Willingness to engage in consensual nonmonogamy among emerging adults: A structural equation analysis of sexual identity, casual sex attitudes, and gender. Journal of Sex Research. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1243200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, R., Kinder, B., & Ironson, G. (1987). Heterosexual bias in the perception of loving relationships of gay males and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 163–172. doi:10.1080/00224498709551355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting americans. J Marriage Fam, 62, 48–60. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaes, J., Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, M., & Miranda, M. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 23, 64–106. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, A. A., Teeters, S. A., Sadler, M. S., & Cronan, S. B. (2016). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviors towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. J Homosex. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viki, G. T., & Calitri, R. (2008). Infrahuman outgroup or suprahuman ingroup: The role of nationalism and patriotism in the infrahumanization of outgroups. Eur J Soc Psychol, 38, 1054–1061. doi:10.1002/ejsp.495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viki, G. T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. J Exp Soc Psychol, 49, 325–328. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpato, C., & Andrighetto, L. (2015). Dehumanization. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 31–37). Oxford: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.24035-x.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vrangalova, Z., Bukberg, R., & Rieger, G. (2014). Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. J Soc Pers Relat, 31, 93–113. doi:10.1177/0265407513487638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77, 126–134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691–721. doi:10.1023/A:1015640318045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21–38. doi:10.1080/10508610802471104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, W., & Roys, A. (2005). The components of sexual orientation, religiosity, and heterosexuals’ impressions of gay men and lesbians. J Soc Psychol, 145, 65–84. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.1.65-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL, Av. das Forças Armadas, Lisbon, 1649-026, Portugal

    David Rodrigues & Diniz Lopes

  2. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    David Rodrigues

  3. School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Stag Hill Campus, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK

    Fabio Fasoli

  4. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Aleksandra Huic

Authors
  1. David Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabio Fasoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aleksandra Huic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diniz Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Rodrigues.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

This research was funded by the grant SFRH/BPD/73528/2010, awarded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) to the first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, D., Fasoli, F., Huic, A. et al. Which Partners Are More Human? Monogamy Matters More than Sexual Orientation for Dehumanization in Three European Countries. Sex Res Soc Policy 15, 504–515 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0290-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0290-0

Keywords

  • Consensual non-monogamy
  • Sexual orientation
  • Dehumanization
  • Stigmatization
  • Cross-national