Introduction

Monogamy, or “sexually exclusive, pair-bonding romantic relationships” (Ferrer, 2018, p. 817), is still the idealized norm for committed relationships. An overwhelming majority of Americans think committed couples should be monogamous (Hawkins & Smith, 2019). However, there has also been a deinstitutionalization of marriage that suggests that people are more accepting of alternatives to marriage, such as living single, cohabitation and communal living, and different roles and behaviors within marriage (Cherlin, 2004, 2020). One less discussed alternative is polyamory, the practice of having multiple relationships with the knowledge of all partners. Depending on how it is defined, somewhere between 2 and 23% of Americans have engaged in polyamory (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020), with higher percentages among young adults (Stephens & Emmers-Sommer, 2020). A recent YouGov poll shows that Americans tend to disapprove of non-monogamous relationships such as open relationships and polyamory (Sanders, 2023). It may be that polyamory is often conflated with cheating, resulting in the stigmatization of these relationships (Ferrer, 2018). Based on an online survey, people tend to rate monogamous relationships higher than relationships involving consensual non-monogamy on a host of factors, such as being comforting, providing stability, being socially acceptable, providing closeness, and promoting respect and trust (Conley et al., 2013).

It is important to examine the potential effects of cohort, sexual orientation, and contact on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamory. First, younger cohorts generally have more liberal sexual attitudes (Pampel, 2016). Younger cohorts have grown up with more attention to LGBTQ + rights and discussions of LGBTQ + issues and role models in the media (Hart-Brinson, 2018). Second, younger cohorts have higher proportions of individuals identifying as LGBTQ+, which is likely linked to a social climate that has been more tolerant of gender and sexual minorities and legal rights such as marriage between same-sex couples (Brown-Saracino et al., 2021; Rosenfeld, 2017). Sexual minorities are more likely to challenge conventional views of sex and relationships (Kaufman et al., 2022). Third, younger cohorts are more likely to know individuals who are polyamorous, and contact is associated with more positive views of polyamory (Hutzler et al., 2016). Therefore, we pose the following research questions: What is the impact of cohort, sexual orientation, and contact with polyamorists on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamorous legal rights? Does contact with polyamorists mediate the relationship between cohort and attitudes or sexual orientation and attitudes?

In order to address these questions, we use data from the 2021 American Marriage Survey to draw on a national probability-based sample to examine cohort, sexual orientation, contact with polyamorists, and attitudes toward monogamy and polyamory. Because younger cohorts and LGBQFootnote 1 individuals are more likely to know someone who engages in polyamory, we also examine potential interactions between these variables. While there has been an increase in research on polyamory in the last couple of decades, there are still limited studies that consider broader attitudes about monogamy and polyamorous legal rights using a national sample (Moors et al., 2021). Before turning to our methods and findings, we provide some background on the conceptualization of monogamy and polyamory and previous research on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamory.

Attitudes Toward Mononormativity and Polyamory

The Western world is a heteronormative society where monogamy between cisgender heterosexual people is portrayed as the “epitome of relationships” (Brown, 2020). People who do not conform to this norm often face disadvantages and are socially stigmatized. According to Gayle Rubin, “(monogamously) married heterosexual people sit at the top of the sexual hierarchy,” while all “other” individuals who do not fit gender or sexual norms, including those who practice consensual non-monogamy (CNM), sit at varying levels beneath this societal ideal (Brown, 2020, p. 107). The assumption that monogamy is normal and natural and therefore superior to non-monogamy has been coined mononormativity (Ferrer, 2018). This idea supports heteronormativity or the idea that heterosexuality is normal and natural (Herz & Johansson, 2015; Warner, 1991). Even today, even in high-income western societies, individuals who are monogamous, cisgender, and heterosexual continue to be given greater cultural legitimacy (Brown, 2020; Schippers, 2018). This can be seen in a “halo effect” in which monogamous individuals are seen more positively, even when it comes to “arbitrary” activities such as paying taxes, dog walking, and flossing teeth (Balzarini et al., 2018; Conley et al., 2013).

Polyamory is a form of consensual non-monogamy, which is rooted in the “consenting agreements to engage in varying degrees of romance and sex with more than one partner” (Moors et al., 2021, p. 2). Consensual non-monogamy is an umbrella term that embodies polyamory as well as open relationships, swinging, and group play, each being a distinct form of relationship with its own rules and expectations. Typically, in open relationships, partners pursue sexual relationships with people outside of their primary relationship but maintain all emotional/romantic intimacy in their primary relationship. However, polyamory encourages emotional and romantic relationships with multiple partners while sex may or may not be involved (Hutzler et al., 2016).

Due to mononormativity, people who practice consensual non-monogamy face discrimination (Brown, 2020; Ferrer, 2018; Séguin, 2019). Witherspoon and Theodore (2021) find that a majority of their sample faced CNM-related discrimination, including being denied a job promotion or losing custody of a child. Those who engage in polyamory are often seen as more promiscuous (Ferrer, 2018), less moral (Grunt-Meyer & Campbell, 2016; Séguin, 2019) and even less human (Rodrigues et al., 2018). Some media portrays polyamory in a negative light, equating non-monogamous relationships with cheating and presenting polyamorists as sex addicts (Antalffy, 2011). Such societal beliefs impact the experiences of individuals who practice consensual non-monogamy within healthcare settings as many report being stigmatized by healthcare providers who have limited knowledge and often treat them differently (Vaughan et al., 2019). While views of polyamorous individuals tend to be negative, it is important to note that those in other types of consensual non-monogamous relationships are seen even more negatively. For example, individuals in swinging or open relationships are seen as less moral and more self-motivated than those in polyamorous relationships, suggesting some distinctions between CNM oriented around sex versus relationships (Matsick et al., 2014).

Cohort, Sexual Orientation, Contact, and Attitudes Toward Polyamory

We draw on life course theory and contact theory to understand the impact of cohort, sexual orientation, and contact on attitudes toward mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights. Life course theory highlights the importance of historical time and social change in influencing human development and behavior, with a focus on cohorts, suggesting that younger cohorts have experienced social changes in a specific historical context to produce more liberal and open-minded views than older cohorts (Hutchison, 2019). Contact theory maintains that intergroup contact between ingroups and outgroups reduces prejudice towards members of the outgroup. Younger cohorts’ exposure to people with different identities and behaviors could influence their attitudes (Pettigrew et al., 2011).

Previous research indicates that younger cohorts are more likely to have positive attitudes towards unconventional ideas. Overall, younger cohorts are more open-minded, more politically and socially liberal, and more tolerant of diverse identities than their older counterparts (Janmaat & Keating, 2019). Younger cohorts likely have greater exposure to new ideas, identities, and movements. For example, students in 2018 held more positive attitudes towards a variety of non-traditional ideas surrounding marriage—including cohabitation, alternative family structures, and divorce—compared to students in 2002. The younger cohort generally held more negative beliefs about the institution of marriage as well (Coninck et al., 2021). At the same time, younger cohorts are more accepting of same-sex marriage (Kranjac & Wagmiller, 2022).

Younger cohorts are more likely to challenge heteronormative attitudes (Anderson et al., 2015). Cohort is strongly associated with attitudes toward sexual behavior, with younger cohorts having more positive attitudes toward premarital sex and same-gender sex (Pampel, 2016). Those in younger cohorts have significantly more exposure to people engaging in polyamory and positive affect toward polyamory (Moors et al., 2021), suggesting that contact theory and knowing others is an essential lens through which polyamory attitudes should be analyzed.

Sexual minorities are more liberal than their heterosexual counterparts, particularly in relation to sex and relationships (Kaufman et al., 2022). Before same-sex marriage was legalized throughout the US, queer couples had to come up with creative ideas to show their commitment to one another (Reczek et al., 2009). Since LGBQ individuals did not have the option to be married legally, they created and recreated aspects of formal marriage through various rituals, ceremonies, household structures, and legal contracts (Baumle & Compton, 2015; Compton, 2015). The commitment ceremony also became a part of LGBQ culture in which ceremonies replicated weddings and other symbols of “marriage” (Hull, 2006), though these relationships remained outside formal marriage until legalization.

Tweedy (2010) suggests that polyamory may be considered a sexual orientation. While most definitions of sexual orientation consider the gender of both the individual and those to whom they are attracted, Tweedy asserts that polyamory is an embedded identity, and engaging in polyamorous behavior carries risks because it is considered outside heterosexual norms. Indeed, polyamorous people often feel the need to conceal their identity or relationships and discuss the difficulties in coming out (Carlström & Andersson, 2019). As Haritaworn et al. (2006: 518) state: “Polyamory has arisen from the confluence of a number of sexually emancipatory discourses.” The polyamory movement might not have been possible without feminism and gay and lesbian rights (Antalffy, 2011).

In addition, there is also an overlap between LGBTQ + identities and polyamorous identities. People who identify as sexual minorities are over twice as likely as heterosexual participants to report a desire to engage in polyamory (Moors et al., 2021), and sexual minorities are more likely to form polyamorous relationships (Fairbrother et al., 2019). The overlap in multiple oppressed identities might lead to greater acceptance of unconventional relationships (Worthen, 2018). Sexual minorities are also more likely to report knowing someone who had or is currently engaged in polyamory (Moors et al., 2021). Having exposure to people who engage in polyamory helps bring awareness to what it is and normalizes it. Indeed, LGBQ students are both significantly less likely to support general conventional views of marriage and significantly more likely to support polyamory and other forms of relationships than straight students (Kaufman et al., 2022). This pattern also applies to young adults aged 18 to 29 years old (Stephens & Emmers-Sommer, 2020).

More exposure to polyamorous people is likely to increase support for polyamory. We have seen this with other sexual and gender minorities. For example, those with LGBT friends have more supportive attitudes toward LGBT individuals and rights (DellaPosta, 2018; Lewis et al., 2017), including same-sex marriage (Lee & Mutz, 2019; Grigoropoulos, 2018). It is similar for contact with gay and lesbian parents and support for same-sex parenting families (Vecho et al., 2019). One study of college students finds that those who have LGB family or close friends are more likely to support polyamorous marriage rights (Kaufman et al., 2022) though another recent study finds no significant impact of contact on attitudes (Grigoropoulos et al., 2023).

Contact theory also implies that differing levels of exposure to polyamorous people by cohort and sexuality will affect people’s attitudes towards polyamory. Therefore, contact may be an indicator of attitudes that interacts with or transcends cohort and sexual orientation. Younger people and sexual minorities are more likely to have contact with polyamorous people (Moors et al., 2021). Drawing from contact theory, it would suggest that those with greater contact with polyamorous people would be able to ask questions and debunk the negative stigma tied to polyamory. Moors and colleagues (2021) suggest that this contact may increase support for polyamory among younger generations and sexual minorities.

Overall, there is limited research on attitudes toward polyamory. Our study will add to this field by both using a nationally representative sample and measuring multiple attitudes, which will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the different lenses through which people judge polyamory.

Summary and Hypotheses

Academically, we have very little data on polyamory, and particularly from nationally representative samples. The American Marriage Survey will allow us to examine attitudes toward polyamory across cohort, sexual orientation, and contact and greatly extend this literature.

Drawing from prior literature we pose the following hypotheses:

  • H1: Younger cohorts will be less likely to support mononormativity and more likely to support polyamorous legal rights compared to older cohorts.

  • H2: People who identify as LGBQ will be less likely to support mononormativity and more likely to support polyamorous legal rights compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

  • H3: People who have contact with people who practice polyamory will be less likely to support mononormativity and more likely to support polyamorous legal rights compared to people who have little to no contact with polyamorous people.

This research has the potential to bring more attention to polyamorous relationships, disrupt heteronormative views of relationships, and consider legal rights for those in relationships involving more than two people. If attitudes are supportive of polyamorous relationships, or if certain groups such as younger cohorts or LGBQ individuals are supportive, this could signal a change in what is deemed acceptable in relationships and potentially lead to changes in policies that impact those in polyamorous relationships.

Method

The data came from the American Marriage Survey, a national survey focused on attitudes toward marriage post-marriage equality. The survey was administered by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in August 2021 with an AmeriSpeak probability-based panel of adults aged 18 years old and over in the US. AmeriSpeak uses area probability and address-based sampling to randomly select households in the US. This technique covers about 97% of the population, with exclusions due to non-listed households and new household dwellings. The sampling technique ensures a representative sample of adults residing in US households. Participants took the survey via the internet (95.4%) or telephone (4.6%). The final sample was 2665 American adults.

Measures

Our dependent variables focus on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamorous relationship rights. Attitudes toward monogamy are measured with two statements: “monogamy is the normal orientation for relationships” and “marriage should always be monogamous.” Respondents could answer on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. We created an index of mononormativity by combining these two variables (α = 0.851). The scale ranges from 2 to 10 with 6 being the neutral midpoint and higher values indicating more positive views of monogamy.

Attitudes toward polyamorous relationships are measured with two statements: “committed relationships with more than two individuals should have the same legal rights as married couples” and “marriage among three or more people should be legal.” We created an index of polyamorous legal rights by combining these two variables (α = 0.914). The scale ranges from 2 to 10 with 6 being the neutral midpoint and higher values indicating more support for the legal rights of polyamorous relationships.

Our main predictor variables are cohort, sexual orientation, and contact. We measure cohort by placing individuals into cohort groups based on age and year of birth. We use the cohorts constructed by the Pew Research Center to create the following groups: Silent (born before 1946), Boomers (born 1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1980), Millennials (born 1981–1996), and Generation Z (born 1997–2012) (Dimock, 2019). Only older members of Gen Z are included in this study as they had to be born by 2003 to qualify as adults 18 and older. The sample mainly consists of individuals from the Millennial (32%), Gen X (23%), and Baby Boomer (33%) generations with fewer Silent (6%) and Gen Z (5%) individuals.

We measure sexual orientation with the question: “Which of the following terms best describes your sexual orientation?” Respondents could choose heterosexual/straight, gay or lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or other. We recoded this variable to indicate LGBQ status as 1 and heterosexual as 0. One-fifth of the sample identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer. We measure contact with the question: “Do you know a person who identifies as polyamorous?” Respondents are coded as 1 for yes and 0 for no. A little over one-fifth of the sample indicated that they know someone who is polyamorous.

We also include control variables for gender, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, parenthood status, religious attendance, and political ideology (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). Gender is measured with the question “what is your gender identity?” and categories include cis man (44%), cis woman (54%), and trans or nonbinary (2%). Race/ethnicity is measured with categories for white (66%), Black (12%), Hispanic (14%), Asian (2%), and other (6%). Education is measured as the highest level of education from 1 (less than high school) to 5 (graduate or professional degree). The mean of education is 3.26, indicating the average person in the sample has some college education. We include a dummy variable for being married (50%) and for being a parent (30%). Religious attendance is measured as the frequency of attendance at religious services from 1 (never) to 9 (several times a week). The mean religious attendance is 3.8, which indicates the average person in the sample attends religious services several times a year. Political ideology is measured on a scale of 1 (very liberal) to 5 (very conservative). The mean political ideology is 2.92, indicating that the average person in the sample holds moderate political views.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables
Full size table

Analytic Strategy

We first provide descriptive statistics for all of the variables, which gives a picture of attitudes toward monogamy and polyamorous relationship rights among a national sample. We then test our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models.

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the study variables. The mean for the mononormativity scale is 7.32, indicating that there is support for the idea that monogamy is the norm. In contrast, the mean for polyamorous legal rights is 4.8, indicating that, on average, people are not supportive of granting legal rights for polyamorous relationships.

Table 2 shows mean scores for mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights by cohort, sexual orientation, gender, and contact. Older cohorts show greater support for mononormativity, with the Silent generation scoring a mean one point higher than the Millennial and Gen Z generations. Cohort differences are even greater in looking at legal rights, with the Silent generation scoring an average of 3.69 (opposed to legal rights) compared to 5.64 (neutral about legal rights) for Gen Z. There are clear differences by sexual orientation. While LGBQ individuals on average are neutral about monogamy and polyamorous legal rights, heterosexual individuals on average support mononormativity and oppose polyamorous legal rights. Gender differences seem to be between cis people and trans/nonbinary people. On average, cis woman and cis men show some support mononormativity and some opposition to legal rights for polyamorous relationships while trans and nonbinary individuals lean toward opposing mononormativity and toward supporting polyamorous legal rights. Finally, those who know someone who is polyamorous tend to be neutral toward both attitudes while those who do not know a polyamorous individual support mononormativity and oppose polyamorous legal rights.

Table 2 Mean mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights by cohort, sexual orientation, gender, and contact
Full size table

Table 3 (first two columns) provides results for regression models of attitudes toward mononormativity. The first column shows coefficients for the full model, while the second and third columns show the coefficients for the models with interactions of cohort and contact and sexual orientation and contact, respectively. Looking at the first column of coefficients, we find some support for our first hypothesis that younger cohorts will be less likely to support mononormativity. Specifically, Millennials score 0.30 points lower on the mononormativity scale than those in the Baby Boomer generation. We also find support for our second hypothesis. LGBQ individuals are significantly less likely to support mononormativity, scoring close to a point lower on the scale compared to their straight counterparts. Supporting our third hypothesis, individuals who know a polyamorous person are significantly less likely to support mononormativity, scoring 0.74 point lower on this scale than those who do not know anyone who is polyamorous.

Table 3 Regressions of mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights
Full size table

Table 4 shows interaction effects. Looking at the interaction between cohort and contact, we find a significant negative coefficient for the interaction between Millennial and contact. This suggests that the negative impact of contact on mononormativity is even stronger for the Millennial cohort. As shown in Fig. 1, the biggest gap between those who know someone who is polyamorous and those who do not know someone who is polyamorous in support for mononormativity is for Millennials. We also find a significant negative interaction between sexual orientation and contact. As shown in Fig. 2, support for mononormativity decreases more steeply with contact among LGBQ individuals than straight individuals. We can see this interaction more clearly if we calculate predicted values for a straight individual and compare it to that for an LGBQ individual, based on the regression equation with this interaction. To do this, we use the example of a Boomer white man with moderate education and ideology, who is not married or a parent. With these characteristics, the predicted mononormativity score for a straight man who knows no one who is polyamorous would is 7.65 while their queer counterpart would score 6.97. Now if these individuals know someone who is polyamorous, it would decrease the straight man’s score from 7.65 to 7.08 and the queer man’s score from 6.97 to 5.84. This is impactful when recognizing 6 is the neutral midpoint on the scale, suggesting the queer man with contact is the only one who would disagree with mononormativity.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Support for mononormativity by contact and cohort

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Support for mononormativity by contact and LGBQ status

Full size image
Table 4 Regressions of mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights with interactions
Full size table

While not the main focus, there are some significant findings involving control variables. Those who identify as trans or nonbinary as well as Black and Hispanic individuals are significantly less likely to support mononormativity compared to cis men and white individuals, respectively. On the other hand, cis women, Asians, those with more conservative political views, and those who attend religious services more frequently are more likely to support mononormativity.

Table 2 (last two columns) provides results for regression models of attitudes toward polyamorous legal rights. The first column shows coefficients for the full model, while the second and third columns show the coefficients for the models with interactions of cohort and contact and sexual orientation and contact, respectively. Looking at the first column of coefficients, we find support for our first hypothesis that younger cohorts will be more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Specifically, Gen Z individuals score 0.74 points higher and Millennials score 0.66 point higher on the mononormativity scale than those in the Baby Boomer generation. We also find support for our second hypothesis. LGBQ individuals are significantly more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships, scoring 0.69 point higher on the scale compared to their straight counterparts. Supporting our third hypothesis, individuals who know a polyamorous person are significantly more likely to support legal rights, scoring 0.85 point higher on this scale than those who do not know anyone who is polyamorous.

Table 4 includes interaction effects. Looking at the interaction between cohort and contact, we find a significant positive coefficient for the interaction between Millennial and contact. This suggests that the positive effect of contact on support for polyamorous legal rights is stronger among Millennials. As shown in Fig. 3, Millennials who know someone who is polyamorous score over one point higher on support for poly legal rights than Millennials who do not know someone who is polyamorous. The impact of contact on Gen Z is also quite large but did not reach significance, likely due to the smaller sample size of Gen Z. Unlike with the mononormativity model, we do not find a significant interaction between sexual orientation and contact.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Support for polyamorous legal rights by contact and cohort

Full size image

Again, there are some significant findings involving control variables. Similar to the mononormativity model, those who identify as trans or nonbinary as well as Black and Hispanic individuals are significantly more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships while cis women, those with more conservative political views, and those who attend religious services more frequently are less likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships. In addition, education, marital status, and parental status have significant effects on attitudes toward legal rights. Education is positively associated with support for legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Those who are married are less likely to support polyamorous legal rights than their unmarried counterparts. Somewhat surprisingly, parents are more likely to support polyamorous legal rights than those without children.

Discussion

This study set out to examine attitudes toward mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights. Based on a national probability-based sample, our findings suggest that there are still positive levels of mononormativity, with general support for the view that monogamy is the norm and marriage should always be monogamous. This pattern is consistent with the continued emphasis on heteronormative relationships in which monogamy is a requirement (Brown, 2020). Furthermore, while a sizable minority of Americans may engage in polyamory (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020), people are generally not supportive of granting legal rights, including marriage, for polyamorous relationships. It may be that polyamory still holds a negative connotation, particularly regarding promiscuity and commitment issues (Ferrer, 2018), especially since polyamory and cheating are often conflated (Antalffy, 2011). It may also be that Americans have not seen polyamorous relationships and the unknown is particularly unappealing. So while Americans have generally come to accept marriage between same-sex couples (Kaufman & Compton, 2021), marriage between three or more individuals may pose a greater challenge to traditionally held notions of marriage.

Given the large shifts in ideas about sexuality and marriage in the last decade, we examined the influence of cohort, sexual orientation, and contact with polyamorists on attitudes toward monogamy and polyamorous legal rights. Our findings show that these are all important factors in shaping attitudes. In fact, across both scales of mononormativity and polyamorous legal rights, we found support for all of our hypotheses related to cohort, sexual orientation, and contact.

First, we found that younger cohorts are less likely to support mononormativity and more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Specifically, Millennials score 0.30 points lower on the mononormativity scale than those in the Baby Boomer generation. At the same time, Gen Z individuals score 0.74 points higher and Millennials score 0.66 points higher on the polyamorous legal rights scale than those in the Baby Boomer generation. These findings are consistent with previous research that finds that younger cohorts are more likely to challenge heteronormative attitudes (Anderson et al., 2015) and have more liberal sex attitudes (Pampel, 2016). Younger cohorts are also more accepting of same-sex marriage (Kranjac & Wagmiller, 2022), which could also move toward liberalization of legal rights for others outside of traditional heterosexual marriage.

Second, we found that LGBQ individuals are significantly less likely to support mononormativity, scoring close to a point lower on the scale compared to their straight counterparts, and more likely to support legal rights for polyamorous relationships. This finding is consistent with recent research on college students and young adults (Kaufman et al., 2022; Stephens & Emmers-Sommer, 2020). Queer individuals often find monogamous relationships as restrictive of allowing their full sexual expression (Arter & Bunge, 2023), which may be a reason for greater engagement in polyamorous relationships (Fairbrother et al., 2019).

Third, we found support that contact is related to attitudes. Individuals who know a polyamorous person are significantly less likely to support mononormativity, scoring 0.74 points lower on this scale than those who do not know anyone who is polyamorous, and more likely to support legal rights, scoring 0.85 point higher on this scale than those who do not know anyone who is polyamorous. Contact theory suggests that contact with people who hold different identities can increase acceptance of those identities or behaviors (Pettigrew et al., 2011), and previous studies show that contact with LGBT individuals increases support for LGBT rights and families (DellaPosta, 2018; Lee & Mutz, 2019; Vecho et al., 2019). Our study shows that this may extend to polyamorous rights.

While these variations in scores across cohort, sexual orientation, and contact are impactful on their own, perhaps most interesting and impactful is the interaction effects and their future implications. Given contact theory and our initial analysis, we tested interactions between cohort and contact and between sexual orientation and contact. Our findings show that the negative impact of contact on mononormativity and the positive impact of contact on support for polyamorous legal rights is even stronger for younger cohorts. In fact, Millennial and Gen Z folks with contact are the only groups who do not feel negative toward polyamorous legal rights. This makes sense given that younger cohorts have more exposure to people engaging in polyamory (Moors et al., 2021). It may be that younger cohorts experience contact with polyamorous people in qualitatively different ways, perhaps coming away from interactions with a less prejudiced view of polyamory.

We also find that contact has a stronger impact on LGBQ individuals than straight individuals. Again, like younger cohorts, sexual minorities have more contact with people who engage in polyamory (Moors et al., 2021), and this exposure is likely to bring greater awareness and acceptance of polyamory. Furthermore, these identities may be intertwined. Sexual minorities are more likely to be polyamorous (Fairbrother et al., 2019) and polyamory is often seen as a queer sexual orientation (Tweedy, 2010). The combination of multiple oppressed identities could lead to greater acceptance of unconventional relationships (Worthen, 2018).

Our research has a few limitations. First, our sample includes a limited number of Gen Z members as they had to be 18 or older to take the survey. Future research should see if there are further trends towards acceptance of polyamory among Gen Z. Second, our measure of polyamorous legal rights focuses on legalizing marriage among three or more people. Some people may think of negative stereotypes surrounding polygamy, while those who engage in polyamorous relationships often attempt to distance themselves from the heteronormative and patriarchal aspects of polygamy (Park, 2017). Third, our measure of contact is somewhat ambiguous as we ask whether respondents know a person who identifies as polyamorous, which does not allow for distinctions in how close their relationship with that person might be. For example, a person who is close friends with someone who is polyamorous is likely to be more supportive of polyamorous legal rights than a person who is only a casual acquaintance of someone who is polyamorous. Evidence on intergroup relations suggests that more positive contact with people in outgroups softens negative views of that group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), including dehumanization of those engaging in consensual non-monogamous relationships (Rodrigues et al., 2021).

Despite these limitations, our study offers greater understanding of attitudes toward mononormativity and polyamorous rights among a national sample. While overall attitudes are not supportive of legal rights for polyamorous relationships, our research suggests that certain groups, most notably younger cohorts, LGBQ adults, and individuals who know someone who identifies as polyamorous, are more supportive of polyamorous legal rights. Given cohort replacement and increasing proportions of the population that identify as LGBQ, this may indicate an impending change in views of what role monogamy plays or does not play in relationships. With greater questioning of mononormativity and greater support for polyamorous rights, public policies may shift toward providing more recognition and rights for polyamorous relationships.