ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 20 May 2021 doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.621646 Assumption of the Myths of Romantic Love: Its Relationship With Sex, Type of Sex-Affective Relationship, and Sexual Orientation Jenny Cubells-Serra 1 , Alejandro Sánchez-Sicilia 1*, Priscila Astudillo-Mendoza 1 , Neli Escandón-Nagel 2 and María José Baeza-Rivera 2 1 Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco, Chile Romantic love promotes and lays the foundation for the development of hegemonic Edited by: affective sex relationships, guiding the normative ways of feeling and experiencing love. Jaime Barrientos, This way of conceiving love is an intrinsic part of women’s subordination, and it entails Alberto Hurtado University, Chile a greater tolerance for situations of violence in sex-affective relationships in which the Reviewed by: Dolores Frias-Navarro, exercise of asymmetric power relations between men and women is legitimized. With the University of Valencia, Spain current advent of the postmodern stage, a wide variety of dissident (non-heterosexual) Dora Bianchi, sexual orientations with heterosexual hegemony have been given greater visibility and Sapienza University of Rome, Italy legitimacy, and new ways of relating to sex affectively have emerged initially opposed *Correspondence: Alejandro Sánchez-Sicilia to traditional romantic discourse, the fundamental pillar of monogamy. The aim of the alejandrosiciliahi@gmail.com present work was to study whether these different ways of linking us and understanding affective sex relations marked a significant difference with respect to the heterosexual Specialty section: This article was submitted to monogamous hegemonic model in the assumption of the mythified ideas of romantic Gender, Sex and Sexualities, love. Therefore, we studied the relationship between sex, sexual orientation, and the a section of the journal type of sex-affective relationship (monogamous or non-monogamous by consensus) Frontiers in Sociology in the assumption of the myths of romantic love. For this purpose, an instrument that Received: 26 October 2020 Accepted: 30 March 2021 showed appropriate psychometric properties was created, and a cross-sectional study Published: 20 May 2021 was carried out with a sample of 1,235 people who completed a self-administered online Citation: questionnaire. The results indicated that there were no significant differences according Cubells-Serra J, Sánchez-Sicilia A, Astudillo-Mendoza P, to sex, but there were differences in sexual orientation and type of relationship. It may be Escandón-Nagel N and concluded that a person, regardless of sex, heterosexual or homosexual, monogamous Baeza-Rivera MJ (2021) Assumption or who has never had affective sex relations, will have a significantly greater probability of of the Myths of Romantic Love: Its Relationship With Sex, Type of assuming the myths of romantic love than a person with a sexual orientation other than Sex-Affective Relationship, and Sexual heterosexual or homosexual and who is in a non-monogamous consensual relationship. Orientation. Front. Sociol. 6:621646. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.621646 Keywords: bisexual, consensual non-monogamy, monogamy, polyamory, exclusivity, better-half Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 1 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love INTRODUCTION RESEARCH ON LOVE Affective sexual relationship is a phenomenon affected by Myths of romantic love are defined by Yela (2003) as a set of transitional events in the middle of a postmodern stage were socially shared beliefs about the supposed true nature of love. To originally opposed discourses and ways of understanding these Ferrer et al. (2010), myths of romantic love are like any other types of relationships coexist and conflict between each other. In myth: fictitious, absurd, misleading, irrational, and impossible this context is produced a multiphrenic state, in which people to fulfill. Yela (2003) systematizes the main shared and socially start to experience bewilderment of the illimitate multiplicity accepted myths of romantic love: (a) myth of the better half: the (Gergen, 1991, p. 80). The way in which affective sexual couple we have chosen was predestined and was the only or best relationships are understood is subverted; thus, the conditions possible option; (b) myth of exclusiveness: we can only feel love are fulfilled for the emergence of new forms of interrelating for one person at the same time; (c) myth of fidelity: passionate, ourselves in an affective sexual way. Likewise, relating in romantic and erotic desires must be satisfied exclusively with a consensual non-monogamous way, or relating in a non- one’s partner; (d) myth of jealousy: the belief that jealousy is an heterosexual way does not mean per se a change in the discourse indicator of true love; (e) myth of marriage: passionate love must and real practices that sustain and promote these new ways of lead to a stable cohabitation of the couple; (f) myth of eternal relating as opposed to a whole heterosexual and monogamous passion: passionate love in the first months can and must go on socialization. Paraphrasing Kollontai (1976), we could consider forever; (g) myth of equivalence: belief that the concepts of love that a change in the formal or external ties that unite a couple and falling in love are equivalent, and therefore, if you stop being does not mean “wipe out in one act” romantic considerations— in love, it means that you do not love your partner anymore; maintained by a patriarchal system—that over decades have built (h) myth of omnipotence: belief that “love can do everything” and validated a way of understanding the relational dynamics, and must remain no matter what happens in the relationship; promoting some at the expense of others. That is why, and this and (i) myth of couple: the monogamous couple is something time, following the research of Lagarde (2001), that revolution is natural and universal, and it has always been at any time and in not, in an intrinsic manner, merely in the way of the relationships, any culture. and thus introducing a new person to the relationship or Research about love has mainly focused on the study of a agreeing to maintain an open or polyamorous relationship specific type of love, romantic love, which, framed in a specific does not entail a deconstruction of romantic considerations historical, social and cultural context, has been an important per se. part of our socialization with respect to hegemonic affective As Hammack et al. (2019) points out. In the 21st century, sexual relationships, such as heterosexual and monogamous ones greater diversity in human relationships proliferates, and as (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Barcelona, 1992; Glucksberg we have noted, new relational ways and forms of intimacy and McGlone, 1999; Flecha et al., 2005; Lagarde, 2005; Lakoff emerge. As Fairbrother et al. (2019) shows, although only and Johnson, 2008; Schäfer, 2008; Herrera, 2010; Cubells and a small proportion of the population currently maintains Calsamiglia, 2015; Sánchez-Sicilia and Cubells, 2019). a consensual non-monogamous relationship, interest in Regarding romantic love and its relationship with sex, consensual non-monogamous relationships is greater, especially romantic love expresses a certain gender ideology in which among younger adults, who also have a greater interest in roles are differentiated, responding to a binary that places and commitment to these types of relationships, suggesting “man/woman” in positions that are not only antagonistic but also that consensual non-monogamous relationships may increase unbalanced (Marín Rojas, 2015). One of its main consequences is in prevalence over time. Despite this, people in consensual to increase inequality between men and women, perpetuate roles non-monogamous relationships are perceived less favorably and increase life dissatisfaction (Martínez-Gómez et al., 2019). than those in monogamous relationships (Grunt-Mejer and In this way, several studies coincide in the thesis that this way Campbell, 2016) considering this type of relationship to be of to conceive love is an intrinsic part of women’s subordination, poorer quality, even rating consensual non-monogamous people justifying a greater tolerance for situations of violence in affective with arbitrary traits (Conley et al., 2013). sexual relationships in which the exercise of asymmetric power Queer studies provide a flexible paradigm that recognizes relations between men and women is legitimized, supported the diverse forms and possibilities in a post-normative and by the process of socialization in love in which roles and post-binary context in which people are not constrained expectations are attributed in different ways according to sex by hegemonic assumptions belonging to the paradigms of (Hooks, 2000; Bosch et al., 2007; Gil and Lloret, 2007; Pujal, gender, sexuality and relationships (Hammack et al., 2019). 2007; Esteban and Távora, 2008; Cubells and Calsamiglia, 2015; Furthermore, sexual and gender identities are deeply and De Miguel, 2015; Bonilla et al., 2017; Caro and Monreal, 2017; recursively multifaceted (Van Anders, 2015), which in turn are Sánchez-Sicilia and Cubells, 2019). In this context, the myths not fixed, but are fluidly generated through recurrent social of romantic love play a fundamental role, as they are the practices and adherence to normative standards (Butler, 1990). main guides of the appropriate ways of feeling, thinking and Queer paradigms understand this diversity in human relations behaving, favoring the standardization of heterosexual, romantic, subject to historical and cultural contingencies that reconfigure monogamous, and hard-wearing relationships (Cubells and our understanding of the meanings and possibilities of human Calsamiglia, 2015; Sánchez-Sicilia and Cubells, 2019). Despite bonds (Hammack et al., 2019). this, and as will be observed throughout this work, the vast Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 2 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love majority of research on the myths of romantic love are focused of non-hegemonic relationships in depth. However, few on studying the relationship between myths and sex. investigations delve into the possible similarities or differences Different research has investigated the relationship between between this type of relationship and traditional monogamous sex and the assumption of the myths of romantic love, ones (Balzarini et al., 2019a,b). In one of the first works delimited mainly in normative relations, such as monogamous on the subject of study, Klesse (2006)—who interviewed and heterosexual relationships. There are studies like those non-heterosexual people in non-monogamous sexual of Rodríguez-Castro et al. (2013) and Rodríguez-Castro and relationships—found that polyamorous people constructed Alonso-Ruido (2015) which indicate that women agree more the term polyamory as a consensual non-monogamy, away than men with the beliefs of romantic love. In looking for more from the principles of monogamy and romantic love. Later, specificity in the possible differences by sex in romantic beliefs, both Wilkinson (2010) and Klesse (2011) himself, observed there are several studies, both quantitative and qualitative, that that at least some aspects of the discourses of romantic love have pointed out that in women romantic love and a more had been absorbed by the notion of polyamory, evidenced by idealized, love-mate, and less ludic vision of love predominates, the close interrelationship between love, intimacy, affection, where passion is linked to altruism and sacrifice, while in men and sexual desire in polyamory. This seems to be consistent sexual and ludic love predominates, focused on an objective, with the research findings of Morrison et al. (2013), who found where they enjoy superficial and transitory relationships (Ubillos no difference between monogamous and non-monogamous et al., 2001; Leal, 2007; Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013; Caro relationships with regard to passionate love, confidence and and Monreal, 2017; Sánchez-Sicilia and Cubells, 2018). On the the attachment pattern. For Enciso (2015), polyamory is contrary, Ferrer et al. (2010), Ramos et al. (2010), and Larrañaga not the antithesis of monogamy, but the two concepts have et al. (2012) observe that these beliefs are present in boys several similarities, suggesting that it might sometimes be and girls, without finding significant differences by sex, nor more accurate to refer to polyamory as “polymonogamy.” do Cuenca-Montesino et al. (2015) find them with respect to Following along this line, Ben-Ze’ev and Brunning (2018) the intensity of romantic love. On the other hand, results like consider that polyamory represents a romantic way of life with those of Fundación Mujeres (2011), Nava-Reyes et al. (2018) self-expansive criteria, whereas Wosik-Correa (2010) points and Bisquert-Bover et al. (2019) claim that men respond in a out that romantic love discourses value individuality in the more mythical way about love. Several studies have addressed the same way as non-monogamous discourses do; even though assumption of romantic love myths and their relationship with there is not an expectation of sexual fidelity to a single partner, sex, but there is no consensus that there are differences between there is a certain type of “emotional fidelity” toward those women and men with respect to adherence to this type of belief. forming the relationship that has been reconfigured (Klesse, Martínez-Gómez et al. (2019) states that the results of studies 2011). Thus, the studies presented suggest that consensual non- on sex make many of these myths associated with heterosexual monogamous forms do not differ substantially from romantic couples and relationships, making the LGTBI collective invisible. forms and that they have also incorporated characteristics For this reason, in this work, we considered it fundamental of the latter. According to the findings of Balzarini et al. to study the myths of romantic love and sexual orientation. (2019a) it would not be enough to compare consensual non- Although no specific works have been found in relation to myths monogamous relationships with monogamous ones, as the of romantic love and sexual orientation, we found several works different configurations of polyamorous relationships would that studied aspects that are included in myths of romantic love, influence the similarities and differences that might exist with such as those that refer to jealousy and exclusivity. Dijkstra et al. monogamous relationships. (2013) observe that lesbian women and gay men express less In this context, and considering the lack of consensus intensity of jealousy than heterosexual people before hypothetical regarding possible sex differences in the assumption of the myths scenarios of lack of exclusivity. Atencio (2017) found that of romantic love and the scarcity of quantitative studies that bisexual people show higher levels of jealousy than homosexual investigate the assumption of these beliefs and their relationship and heterosexual people before a possible situation of lack of with sexual orientation and consensual non-monogamous forms exclusivity, with the latter group experienced a lower level of of sex-affective relationships, the present research aims to address jealousy and discomfort. Frederick and Fales (2016) found in this objective and identify the role of sex, type of sexual affective their work with a sample of 2,275 bisexual people that only one relationship, and sexual orientation in the assumption of the third of bisexual women and men in the study had discomfort in myths of romantic love. To address this objective, a questionnaire a situation of lack of sexual exclusivity. The same authors found had to be created and its psychometric properties evaluated. that in this study with a sample of 1,588 homosexual people, Our main hypothesis is that there will be no difference in that in the same way as with bisexual people, only one third of the assumption of the myths of romantic love based on sex. the homosexual people in the study reported discomfort in a With respect to the sexual orientation variable, and based on situation of lack of sexual exclusivity, and no differences were the extensive literature presented in this paper that relates the found between gay and lesbian participants in terms of the degree discourse of romantic love as part of heterosexual socialization, as of discomfort. well as quantitative studies that emphasize the study of jealousy Regarding the relationship that romantic love has with and lack of exclusivity as a function of sexual orientation, we the type of affective sexual relationship practiced, some consider that there will be significant differences depending articles, especially qualitative studies, discuss a few types on sexual orientation. In terms of the type of affective-sexual Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 3 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love relationship and by referering to other qualitative studies, we proposed in this article, only sections A and D were used, which anticipate that there will be no significant differences according are detailed below. to the type of relationship. Descriptive and Sociodemographic Data (A) This section of the instrument is made up of items that METHOD collect sociodemographic information, such as sex, age, sexual orientation, experience(s) of sexual relationship(s) Participants current or past- in the case of not having a relationship at Using a non-probabilistic sampling for convenience and snowball the moment, you were asked to answer according to the last type, which was accessed through a social network system sexual affective relationship that you had-, etc. In addition, as a means of calling and selecting participants, a sample of there was an item with 17 response options corresponding to 1,235 people who participated between April and May 2018 different types of affective sexual relationships- a categorization was accessed. Of these participants, 81.5% reported having elaborated for the objectives of the research based on the Spanish nationality, 12% Chilean, 1.1% Mexican, and 6% initial categorization of Rohwer (2015)—which ranged from another nationality (Italian, Argentine, Venezuelan, Romanian, monogamy to different expressions of consensual non- Portuguese, among others). Regarding the level of studies monogamy: faithful monogamy, unfaithful monogamy (me), completed or currently completed, 57.2% had university unfaithful monogamy (him/her), unfaithful monogamy studies, 26.9% a master’s or postgraduate degree, 10.9% higher (both), open relationship (emotional and sexual) of “limited” professional education, 4.5% general secondary education, and communication, open relationship (emotional and sexual) 0.5% were other. The 68.9% (n = 851) stated that they were of “open” communication, open relationship (emotional but women, 30.2% (n = 373) men, and 0.9% (n = 11) stated not sexual) of “limited” communication, open relationship that they did not feel represented by this dual category. The (emotional, but not sexual) of “open” communication, average age was 26.92 years (SD: 8.51), between a minimum open relationship (sexual but not emotional) of “limited” range of 18 and a maximum of 70, with a median of 24 communication, open relationship (sexual but not emotional) and a mode of 19. Concerning sexual orientation, 60.7% of “open” communication, hierarchical closed-triad polyamory, (n = 750) stated that they were heterosexual, 24% (n = non-hierarchical closed-triad polyamory, hierarchical open- 296) bisexual, 9.5% (n = 117) homosexual, and 5.8% (n triad polyamory, non-hierarchical open-triad polyamory and = 72) stated that they did not feel represented by any of swinging. In addition, for those who did not feel represented these categories (some participants identified themselves as by the alternatives we proposed, the response was considered asexual, demisexual, pansexual, undefined, “hetero-curious,” and an open option item. Each response option is accompanied by queer, among others). Regarding the type of affective-sexual corresponding explanatory texts and drawings (Annex 1). relationship, 59.4% (n = 734) recognized that they were For the development of the analyses presented in this maintaining or had maintained a monogamous relationship, article, the first four response options were grouped into the 33.1% (n = 409) were maintaining or had maintained consensual “monogamous” category, and the following ones as well as those non-monogamous relationships (open relationships, polyamory, of the open option, which coincided with a type of consensual relationship anarchy, or swinging), 6.1% (n = 76) stated that they non-monogamous relationship, were grouped in the “consensual were not maintaining or had not maintained any type of affective- non-monogamous” category. Those who marked the option of sexual relationship and 1.3% (n = 16) stated an “unclassifiable” never having had any type of affective sexual relationship were types of affective-sexual relationship. More details for the sample grouped in the “unrelated” category. Those responses from the and the data can be found on the Open Science Framework (OSF; open option that was unclassifiable were not considered in see: https://osf.io/q4gb9/). the analyses. To evaluate the sexual orientation variable, participants had to Instrument choose one of the following options: heterosexual, homosexual, Affective Sexual Diversity Evaluation Scale bisexual, other (indicate which other). Regarding the sex The affective sexual diversity evaluation survey is a self- variable, it was understood as an identity and non-binomial application form designed by the authors of this study for the category where participants choose among three options [man, objectives of the research, based on the categorization presented woman, other (to complete)] in relation to the sex with which by Barrón et al. (1999), Yela (2003), and Ferrer et al. (2010) and they identified. designed with items formulated in a non-exclusive way toward non-hegemonic relationships. Scale of Myths of Romantic Love Adapted to Affective Sexual The survey language was Spanish. It was composed of a Diversity (D) descriptive section and three scales structured in the following The scale consists of 12 items presented in a Likert-type response way: (A) descriptive and sociodemographic data; (B) scale of format that goes from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” feelings toward the relationship(s) adapted to affective sexual The items that are inverse are presented with the letter R at the diversity; (C) scale of sexual and emotional jealousy adapted to beginning of code D1. Affective sexual relationships must always affective sexual diversity and (D) scale of myths of romantic love be composed of two people—D2. Affective sexual relationships adapted to affective sexual diversity. To respond to the objectives must be directed toward a stable and hard-wearing union—RD3. Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 4 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love We are capable of falling in love with more than one person the instrument could still present concerning the non-normative at a time—D4. To be jealous is an indicator of true love— forms of affective sexual relationships. D5. In the case of falling in love with two people at the same Later, a massive implementation was carried out to fulfill the time, we will always be more in love with one than with the aims of this study. Participants from the general population were other; we will never feel precisely the same for both—RD6. We invited to participate, and the questionnaire was disseminated on can love more than one person at a time—D7. In the case of a social network system, inviting all those who were interested loving two people at the same time, we will always love one to complete it and inspiring them to disseminate it among more than the other; we will never feel the same for both—RD8. their contacts. When in an affective sexual relationship, there is no problem Participants who were or had been in a consensual non- having sexual relationships with other people—RD9. When in an monogamous affective sexual relationship were intentionally affective sexual relationship, there is no problem in maintaining invited to participate, with the aim of having a wide sample emotional (non-sexual) relationships with other people—D10. of people who could relate in this way. To that end, An affective sexual relationship must lead to a stable and forever the instrument was disseminated among various Facebook union—RD11. You can be “complete” without having an affective groups that address non-normative content regarding affective sexual relationship—D12. Somewhere there are people who are sexual relationships. predestined to be with others and start an affective sexual This procedure required research staff to make prior contact relationship. The global scale composed of the average of all the with those who managed these online spaces to explain items is presented. A higher score on the total scale will mean a the objectives of the research and propose inviting their higher adherence to the myths of romantic love, while a lower members. Finally, the instrument was applied in the groups score will represent a lower adherence to these beliefs. Poliamor Catalunya, Poliamor Chile, Golfxs con Principios, The internal consistency for this scale (n = 1,235) presents a Poliamor Salamanca, Alchimia Poliamor Chile, Poliamor España, Cronbach’s alpha of 0.834, which shows a reliability value that is and Poliamor Valencia. Regarding the ethical safeguards, in line with what is expected to be applied to research (Nunnally, the participants gave their informed consent prior to the 1978). administration of the instrument. Before the application of the survey, the participants provided informed consent, Procedure which was created for the purposes of this research. The The construction of the scale of romantic love myths adapted document considers the norms and criteria proposed by the to sexual diversity was carried out based on a bibliographical Code of Ethics of the American Psychological Association review of works that had previously studied the phenomenon and the Singapore Declaration, ensuring the well-being of of myths about romantic love, principally the categorization the participants, their voluntary participation, anonymity, of Barrón et al. (1999), Yela (2003), and the study by Ferrer and confidentiality. et al. (2010) mentioned above. A scale was designed with items formulated in a non-exclusive way toward non-hegemonic types Data Analysis of relationships. Traditionally, the scales of romantic love myths We first analyzed the factorial structure of the scale of myths have been framed within the limits of heterosexual monogamy. of romantic love, for which the sample was divided into two For this purpose, the following procedure was developed: groups. With the first subsample, exploratory factor analysis 1) Creation of the items by excluding terms that refer only to (EFA) was carried out to identify the underlying structure of normative affective sexual relationships and making other forms the data, using principal components and Varimax rotation of relationship invisible was undertaken. as a method of extraction. Straightaway, we carried out a 2) Expert judgment was used to assess the content validity. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the remaining 50% Judges assessed the degree to which the instrument measures the of the sample to confirm the factor structure proposed by variable it seeks to measure. They are experts both in the design the EFA. To estimate the goodness of fit of the model, we of instruments and in research in social sciences, critical social used chi-square (χ 2 ) not significant, the Comparative Fit psychology and affective sexual diversity. Index (CFI > 0.95), the RMSEA (<0.08), the Tucker-Lewis 3) A discussion group was carried out with 10 young people, Index (TLI > 0.95), and the SRMR (<0.05) (Byrne, 2006; who reviewed in detail the understanding and scope of each item. Ortiz and Fernández-Pera, 2017). An Ordinal Cronbach’s alpha Their suggestions were taken into account for further revision of was calculated for the total scale and the two factors. The the instrument. quantitative variables are described by the mean (M) and the 4) A pilot study was carried out with a sample of 50 people, standard deviation (SD). For qualitative variables, case counts in which information about the difficulties in understanding and percentages reported. some items was collected. Likewise, we identified the necessity The Student’s t-test was used to analyze whether there are of incorporating new items. Finally, the scale was composed of differences by sex in the scores of the different items of the 12 items. romantic love myths instrument, as well as the total scale 5) Before the massive application, we requested the and the two factors that make up this scale (its factorial collaboration of an expert in the diffusion of knowledge structure is presented in the results section). In addition, in regarding love and consensual non-monogamous relationships, order to analyze differences according to sexual orientation with the aim of correcting those ambiguities or difficulties that and the type of relationship separately, a one-way ANOVA Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 5 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love test was used. For statistically significant variables we carried Descriptive Analysis of the Scale of Myths out comparisons by pairs, applying Tukey’s test. However, of Romantic Love Adapted to Affective in the case of the analyses by individual items, post-hoc Sexual Diversity and Comparison of ANOVA analyses were not reported, since the total score of the instrument, that is the total mark and the results Groups of its component factors, were considered more relevant in The main results obtained in the descriptive values (M and this study. SD) for each of the items, including the total score of the It is important to note that for all analyses incorporating the myth scale and its two factors, for the variables sex (Table 2), sex variable, the “other” group (n = 11) was excluded, and when sexual orientation (Table 3), and type of relationship (Table 4), the type of relationship variable was analyzed, the “unclassifiable” presenting, analysis of comparison groups. group (n = 16) was excluded due to the very small sample sizes. Regarding sex, statistically significant differences, although To analyze the combined effect of the variables of interest (sex, with a small effect size, are observed in items 2 [t (1,206) = −3.26, sexual orientation, and type of relationship) on the dependent p = 0.002, d = 0.20], 9 [t (1,206) = −2.02, p = 0.04, d = 0.13], 10 variable referring to the total romantic love myths score, the [t (1,206) = −2.88, p = 0.004, d = 0.18] and 11 [t (1,206) = −4.19, p results of the multifactorial ANOVA analysis are presented to < 0.001, d = 0.28]. In all these items, except item 9, it is the men determine the effect for each one of them. These analyses who present a higher score. were also carried out incorporating each of the factors of the Despite finding some differences regarding sex in some items instrument as a dependent variable. (Table 2), it was observed that there are no statistically significant The significance level was set at 5% (p ≤ 0.05). The specific differences between women and men on the global scale of myths p-values obtained are presented in the different analyses, except [t (1,206) = −0.74, p = 0.46, d = 0.04]. when the values are <0.001, in which case they are indicated as p In Factor 1, as shown in Table 2, no statistically significant < 0.001. differences were found according to sex [t (1,206) = 0.85, p = 0.39, In the different group comparison analyses, data referring to d = 0.01], while in Factor 2 men had a higher score than women, effect size are presented. Specifically, Cohen’s d (d) was used although with a small effect size [t (1,206) = −2.91, p = 0.004, d in the case of two-group comparisons, while eta squared (η²) = 0.18]. was used for ANOVA. According to Cohen (1988), the reference Regarding sexual orientation, as can be seen in Table 3, values for d are: <0.49 corresponds to a small effect size; between statistically significant differences were observed in all items. 0.50 and 0.79, medium; 0.80 or more, large. Regarding η², the Those items in which the effect size was medium are mentioned values proposed by Cohen (1988) are: <0.05, small; between 0.06 below: item 3 [F (3, 1,204) = 34.25 p < 0.001, η² = 0.08], item 5 and 0.13, medium; 0.14 or higher, large. [F (3, 1,204) = 26.65 p < 0.001, η² = 0.06], item 6 [F (3, 1,204) = The statistical analyses were carried out using the free software 25.21, p < 0.001, η² = 0.06], item 8 [F (3, 1,204) = 48.40 p < 0.001, R version 3.5.3. η² = 0.11], and item 9 [F (3, 1,204) = 35.90, p < 0.001, η² = 0.08]. One-way ANOVA analyses revealed significant differences for the sexual orientation variable in the global romantic love myths score [F (3, 1,204) = 61.82 p < 0.001, η² = 0.13] with a RESULTS medium effect size (Table 3). Specifically, the heterosexual group Factorial Analysis presented higher scores with respect to the bisexual group (mean For EFA, we used the extraction method of principal components difference = 0.56, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.84) and the and Varimax rotation. The results show the existence of two “other” category (mean difference = 0.71, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001, factors that together explain 48.48% of the variance. The structure d = 1.03). In addition, homosexual people scored higher than and factor loads are shown in Table 1. bisexuals (mean difference = 0.40, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001, d = Factor 1 corresponds to items referring to myths about 0.61) and others (mean difference = 0.55, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001, d exclusivity in the couple, while factor 2 alludes to items linked = 0.77). to the romantic idea of “the better half.” Regarding Factor 1, statistically significant differences were Regarding the CFA, the Satorra-Bentler adjustment was used also found according to sexual orientation, with a large effect size, to carry out the analyses. The proposed structure can be seen in as shown in Table 3 [F (3, 1,204) = 66.10 p < 0.001, η² = 0.14]. Figure 1. The adjustment indicators are: (χ 2 (SB) (50) 204.70, Specifically, the heterosexual group presents higher scores than p < 0.001, RMSEA (SB) = 0.070 [0.070–0.089], CFI (SB) = the homosexual group (mean difference = 0.26, SE = 0.08, p = 0.930, TLI (SB) = 0.907, SRMR = 0.061). Two covariances 0.006, d = 0.31), bisexual (mean difference = 0.69, SE = 0.06, p < were included—one between item 9 and 8 and the other 0.001, d = 0.86) and the “other” group (mean difference = 0.87, between item 5 and 7—because the indicators of goodness of SE = 0.10, p < 0.001, d = 1.06). In addition, homosexual people fit improved and because of the high correlation between the had higher scores than the bisexual group (mean difference = items (Table 1). 0.43, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001, d = 0.56) and the “other” group (mean The reliability of the full scale, based on the full sample of difference = 0.61, SE = 0.13, p < 0.001, d = 0.75). participants, gives a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 (CI [0.85–0.88]), Table 3 also shows that there are differences with respect to while for the exclusivity factor, the reliability was 0.85 (CI [0.83– Factor 2, according to sexual orientation, with a medium effect 0.87]), and for the better half, it was 0.76 (CI [0.72–0.78]). size [F (3, 1,204) = 24.06 p < 0.001, η² = 0.06], obtaining that Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 6 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love TABLE 1 | Factorial structure with EFA and the factor loads of the romantic love scale adapted to affective sexual diversity. N◦ Item Factor 1 Factor 2 3 We are capable of falling in love with more than one person at a time. 0.786 9 When in an affective sexual relationship, there is no problem in maintaining emotional (non-sexual) relationships with other 0.760 people. 8 When in an affective sexual relationship, there is no problem in having sexual relationships with other people. 0.752 6 We are able to love more than one person at a time. 0.712 1 Affective sexual relationships must be always composed of two people. 0.502 5 In the case of falling in love with two people at the same time, we will always love one more than the other; we will never feel 0.467 exactly the same for both 7 In the case of loving two people at the same time, we will always love one more than the other; we will never feel exactly the 0.455 same for both 10 An affective sexual relationship must lead to a stable and forever union. 0.750 2 Affective sexual relationships must be directed toward a stable and hard-wearing union. 0.729 4 To be jealous is an indicator of true love. 0.640 12 Somewhere there are people who are predestined to be with others and start an affective sexual relationship. 0.567 11 You can be “complete” without having an affective sexual relationship. 0.390 Explained variance 37.150% 11.329% Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. FIGURE 1 | Proposed CFA structure and factor loads. Source: Authors’ own creation. heterosexual people present more myths than those who define instrument, when comparing them according to type of themselves as bisexual (mean difference = 0.38, SE = 0.05, p < relationship. Particularly, the items in which a medium effect 0.001, d = 0.51) and those who ascribe to the category “other” size is observed for the comparison are: item 1 [F (2, 1,205) = (mean difference = 0.49, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001, d = 0.64). In 73.43 p < 0.001, η² = 0.11], item 3 [F (2, 1,205) = 91. 98 p < addition, the homosexual group presents higher scores in this 0.001, η² = 0.13], item 5 [F (2, 1,205) = 48.57 p < 0.001, η² = factor, with respect to the bisexual group (mean difference = 0.36, 0.07], item 6 [F (2, 1,205) = 61.41 p < 0.001, η² = 0.09], and SE = 0.08, p < 0.001, d = 0.46) and to “other” (mean difference item 7 [F (2, 1,205) = 44.83 p < 0.001, η² = 0.07]. Furthermore, = 0.47, SE = 0.12, p < 0.001, d = 0.60). in items 8 [F (2, 1,205) = 198.23 p < 0.001, η² = 0.25] and On the other hand, as can be seen in Table 4, statistically 9 [F (2, 1,205) = 209.12 p < 0.001, η² = 0.26] the effect size significant differences were detected in all the items of the was large. Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 7 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love TABLE 2 | Descriptive and comparative analysis, according to sex, of the Scale of Myths of Romantic Love. Women Men n = 837 n = 371 M SD M SD t p d C.I. 95% Cohen’s d D1 1.92 1.24 1.96 1.21 −0.46 0.649 0.03 −0.09–0.15 D2 2.32 1.30 2.58 1.34 −3.26 0.002* 0.20 0.08–0.32 D3 2.10 1.21 2.04 1.20 0.85 0.398 0.05 −0.07 to 0.18 D4 1.36 0.78 1.45 0.84 −1.83 0.068 0.11 −0.01 to 0.24 D5 2.95 1.24 2.92 1.32 0.45 0.650 0.03 −0.09 to 0.15 D6 1.65 0.97 1.67 0.95 −0.31 0.758 0.02 −0.10 to 0.14 D7 2.93 1.27 2.98 1.33 −0.69 0.492 0.04 −0.08 to 0.16 D8 2.93 1.38 2.77 1.38 1.89 0.059 0.12 −0.01–0.24 D9 3.02 1.33 2.85 1.34 2.02 0.044* 0.13 0.01–0.25 D10 2.04 1.16 2.25 1.22 −2.88 0.004* 0.18 0.06–0.30 D11 1.59 1.01 1.89 1.21 −4.19 <0.001** 0.28 0.16–0.40 D12 2.63 1.35 2.48 1.39 1.78 0.075 0.11 −0.01 to 0.23 Myths Scale 2.29 0.71 2.32 0.74 −0.74 0.460 0.04 −0.01–0.16 Factor 1 2.50 0.85 2.46 0.88 0.85 0.394 0.01 −0.08 to 0.17 Factor 2 1.99 0.73 2.13 0.82 −2.91 0.004* 0.18 0.06–0.31 *p < 0.05; ** < 0.001 Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. TABLE 3 | Descriptive and comparative analysis, according to sexual orientation, of the Scale of Myths of Romantic Love. Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Other n = 742 n = 113 n = 290 n = 63 M SD M SD M SD M SD F p η² C.I. 95% η² D1 2.14 1.30 1.91 1.15 1.52 0.96 1.43 0.89 22.69 <0.001** 0.05 0.03–0.08 D2 2.50 1.32 2.56 1.38 2.15 1.26 2.00 1.30 7.65 <0.001** 0.02 0.01–0.03 D3 2.34 1.23 1.99 1.20 1.61 1.00 1.48 0.93 34.25 <0.001** 0.08 0.05–0.11 D4 1.45 0.85 1.47 0.78 1.24 0.69 1.14 0.40 7.28 <0.001** 0.02 0.00–0.03 D5 3.18 1.21 2.73 1.25 2.52 1.25 2.40 1.26 26.65 <0.001** 0.06 0.04–0.09 D6 1.83 1.01 1.63 0.93 1.34 0.80 1.16 0.60 25.21 <0.001** 0.06 0.03–0.08 D7 3.13 1.23 2.99 1.31 2.57 1.30 2.33 1.33 19.14 <0.001** 0.05 0.02–0.07 D8 3.13 1.23 2.85 1.34 2.25 1.20 1.98 1.20 48.40 <0.001** 0.11 0.08–0.14 D9 3.22 1.30 3.12 1.27 2.41 1.22 2.21 1.32 35.90 <0.001** 0.08 0.05–0.11 D10 2.25 1.19 2.26 1.33 1.77 1.02 1.67 1.12 15.42 <0.001** 0.04 0.02–0.06 D11 1.81 1.15 1.74 1.24 1.43 0.91 1.24 0.62 12.36 <0.001** 0.03 0.01–0.05 D12 2.73 1.34 2.64 1.42 2.26 1.30 2.27 1.44 9.96 <0.001** 0.02 0.01–0.04 Myths Scale 2.48 0.69 2.32 0.78 1.92 0.60 1.78 0.53 61.82 <0.001** 0.13 0.10–0.17 Factor 1 2.72 0.83 2.46 0.89 2.03 0.71 1.85 0.65 66.10 <0.001** 0.14 0.11–0.18 Factor 2 2.15 0.77 2.13 0.84 1.77 0.65 1.66 0.65 24.06 <0.001** 0.06 0.03–0.08 **p < 0.001; Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. One-way ANOVA analyses revealed significant differences 0.04, p < 0.001, d = 1.11), as shown in Table 4. In addition, between the different groups according to the type of the unrelated group presents higher scores than the consensual relationship, with respect to the dependent variable referred non-monogamous group (mean difference = 0.73, SE = 0.08, p to the total score of the romantic love myths scale [F (2, 1,205) < 0.001, d = 1.32). = 165.90 p < 0.001, η² = 0.22] with a large effect size. Regarding factor 1, according to type of relationship, Specifically, the differences are explained by the fact that the statistically significant differences were found, with a large effect monogamous group presents higher scores than the consensual size [F (2, 1,205) = 209.12 p < 0.001, η² = 0.26). Post-hoc analyses non-monogamous groups (mean difference = 0 0.71, SE = showed that the monogamous group scored significantly higher Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 8 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love TABLE 4 | Descriptive and comparative analysis, according to type of relationship, of the Scale of Myths of Romantic Love. Monogamous Consensual Unrelated n = 734 Non- monogamous n = 75 n = 399 M SD M SD M SD F p η² C.I. 95% η² D1 2.17 1.29 1.38 0.84 2.60 1.28 73.43 <0.001** 0.11 0.08–0.14 D2 2.55 1.34 2.04 1.21 2.79 1.32 23.782 <0.001** 0.04 0.09–0.06 D3 2.37 1.22 1.46 0.84 2.56 1.37 91.98 <0.001** 0.13 0.10–0.17 D4 1.46 0.83 1.22 0.67 1.57 0.93 14.64 <0.001** 0.02 0.01–0.04 D5 3.20 1.20 2.45 1.21 3.04 1.38 48.57 <0.001** 0.07 0.05–0.10 D6 1.88 1.05 1.24 0.61 1.68 0.98 61.41 <0.001** 0.09 0.06–0.12 D7 3.19 1.23 2.46 1.23 3.11 1.32 44.827 <0.001** 0.07 0.04–0.10 D8 3.36 1.27 1.91 1.01 3.37 1.31 198.23 <0.001** 0.25 0.21–0.29 D9 3.40 1.21 2.15 1.16 3.11 1.29 140.79 <0.001** 0.19 0.15–0.23 D10 2.30 1.22 1.71 1.02 2.28 1.18 33.95 <0.001** 0.05 0.03–0.08 D11 1.74 1.11 1.56 1.04 1.71 1.02 3.64 0.027* 0.01 0.0–0.02 D12 2.74 1.36 2.26 1.34 2.79 1.23 17.91 <0.001** 0.03 0.01–0.05 Myths Scale 2.53 0.69 1.82 0.53 2.55 0.66 165.90 <0.001** 0.22 0.18–0.25 Factor 1 2.80 0.80 1.86 0.62 2.78 0.79 209.12 <0.001** 0.26 0.22–0.30 Factor 2 2.16 0.77 1.76 0.68 2.22 0.68 40.92 <0.001** 0.06 0.04–0.09 *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. than the non-monogamous group (mean difference = 0.93, SE orientation, and type of relationship [F (5, 1,185) = 0.97, p = 0.436, = 0.05, p < 0.001, d = 1.27), while the unrelated group had η² < 0.01]. higher scores than the non-monogamous group (mean difference Regarding the sexual orientation variable, there are = 0.92, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001, d = 1.42). statistically significant differences between the different groups, Regarding Factor 2, statistically significant differences were except between bisexual and other; and between heterosexual also observed in the scores obtained by the different groups and homosexual as shown in Table 5. This table shows that the according to type of relationship [F (2, 1,205) = 40.92 p < heterosexual group scores significantly higher than the bisexual 0.001, η² = 0.06], although the effect size in this case was group and the “other” group, while the homosexual group also medium. Specifically, it was obtained that the monogamous scores significantly higher than the bisexual group and the group scored higher than the non-monogamous group (mean “other” category. difference = 0.40, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.64). In Regarding the type of relationship variable, statistically addition, the unrelated group presented higher scores than the significant differences were detected between the monogamous non-monogamous group (mean difference = 0.47, SE = 0.09, and consensual non-monogamous groups and between p < 0.001, d = 0.68). consensual non-monogamous and unrelated groups, as shown in Table 6. Specifically, this table shows that the monogamous Multifactor Analysis of Variance group has a statistically higher score than the non-monogamous The results of the analysis of the myth scale according to sex, group, while the non-monogamous group scores significantly sexual orientation and type of relationship are presented below. lower than the unrelated group. Multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that there Regarding Factor 1, the factorial ANOVA shows that there are no statistically significant differences between women and is no interaction effect among the variables sex and sexual men with respect to the total scale score [F (1, 1,185) = 0.19, p = orientation [F (3, 1,185) = 0.55, p = 0.651, η² < 0.01], sex and 0.660, η² = <0.01], but there are differences according to sexual type of relationship [F (2, 1,185) = 0.02, p = 0.985, η² < 0.01], orientation [F (3, 1,185) = 10.48, p < 0.001, η² = 0.03] and type of sexual orientation and type of relationship [F (6, 1,185) = 1.89, p relationship [F (2, 1,185) = 25.66, p < 0.001, η² = 0.04], with a small = 0.079, η² = 0.01); nor among sex, sexual orientation, and effect size in both cases. The interaction between the different type of relationship [F (5, 1,185) = 1.05, p = 0.385, η² = 0.01], factors did not reach statistical significance. Specifically, there with respect to the score obtained in this factor, but there are were no differences in this factor with respect to the interaction differences according to sexual orientation, with a small effect size among sex and sexual orientation [F (3, 1,185) = 1.36, p = 0.255, [F (3, 1,185) = 10.73, p < 0.001, η² = 0.03] and according to type of η² < 0.01], sex and relationship type [F (2, 1,185) = 0.09, p = relationship, with a medium effect size [F (2, 1,185) = 35.80, p < 0.910, η² < 0.01], sexual orientation and type of relationship 0.001, η² = 0.06]. As for sex case, no differences were observed in [F (6, 1,185) = 1.46, p = 0.188, η² = 0.01]; nor between sex, sexual this factor [F (1, 1,185) = 0.18, p = 0.668, η² = <0.01]. Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 9 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love TABLE 5 | Post-hoc factorial ANOVA analysis for the dependent variable of global romantic love myths score and its two factors, considering sexual orientation as a grouping variable. Variable Contrast N M SD Mean difference SE p d C.I. 95% Cohen’s d Myths scale Heterosexual 742 2.48 0.69 0.16 0.06 0.052 0.49 0.29–0.69 Homosexual 113 2.32 0.78 Heterosexual 742 2.48 0.69 0.56 0.04 <0.001** 1.04 0.83–1.24 Bisexual 290 1.92 0.60 Heterosexual 742 2.48 0.69 0.71 0.08 <0.001** 1.19 0.93−1.46 Other 63 1.78 0.53 Homosexual 113 2.32 0.78 0.40 0.07 <0.001** 0.51 0.29–07.73 Bisexual 290 1.92 0.60 Homosexual 113 2.32 0.78 0.55 0.10 <0.001** 0.60 0.29–0.92 Other 63 1.78 0.53 Bisexual 290 1.92 0.60 0.15 0.09 0.316 0.17 −0.10–0.44 Other 63 1.78 0.53 Factor 1 Heterosexual 742 2.72 0.83 0.26 0.07 0.002* 0.31 0.11–051 Homosexual 113 2.46 0.89 Heterosexual 742 2.72 0.83 0.69 0.05 <0.001** 0.86 0.82–1.00 Bisexual 290 2.03 0.71 Heterosexual 742 2.72 0.83 0.87 0.09 <0.001** 1.06 0.80–1.33 Other 63 1.85 0.65 Homosexual 113 2.46 0.89 0.43 0.08 <0.001** 0.56 0.34–0.78 Bisexual 290 2.03 0.71 Homosexual 113 2.46 0.89 0.61 0.11 <0.001** 0.89 0.56–1.20 Other 63 1.85 0.65 Bisexual 290 2.03 0.71 0.18 0.10 0.288 0.26 −0.02–0.53 Other 63 1.85 0.65 Factor 2 Heterosexual 742 2.15 0.77 0.02 0.07 0.997 0.03 −0.17–0.22 Homosexual 113 2.13 0.84 Heterosexual 742 2.15 0.77 0.38 0.05 <0.001** 0.51 0.38–0.65 Bisexual 290 1.77 0.65 Heterosexual 742 2.15 0.77 0.49 0.10 <0.001** 0.64 0.38–0.90 Other 63 1.66 0.65 113 2.13 0.84 0.36 0.08 <0.001** 0.51 0.29–0.73 Homosexual 290 1.77 0.65 Bisexual Homosexual 113 2.13 0.84 0.47 0.11 <0.001** 0,60 0.29–0.92 Other 63 1.66 0.65 Bisexual 290 1.77 0.65 0.11 0.10 0.720 0.17 −0.10–0.44 Other 63 1.66 0.65 Adjusted p-values: Tukey Method; **p < 0.001; Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. Specifically, in terms of sexual orientation, as shown in significant, although with a small effect size. No interaction Table 5, the heterosexual group scores significantly higher than effect is observed among these different variables in terms of all other groups. In addition, this table shows that the homosexual the score obtained in Factor 2. There were no differences in group has a statistically higher score than the bisexual group and this factor with respect to the interaction between sex and the “other” category. sexual orientation [F (3, 1,185) = 1.84, p = 0.139, η² = 0.01], Concerning the type of relationship, Table 6 shows that sex and relationship type [F (2, 1,185) = 0.21, p = 0.813, η² monogamous people have higher scores than non-monogamous < 0.01], sexual orientation and relationship type [F (6, 1,185) people in Factor 1, as well as the latter score significantly lower = 0.89, p = 0.504, η² < 0.01]; nor between sex, sexual than the unrelated group. orientation, and relationship type [F (5, 1,185) = 0.61, p = 0.694, On the other hand, as for Factor 2, the factorial ANOVA η² < 0.01]. indicates that the sex variable is not significant [F (1, 1,185) = Table 5 shows that the heterosexual group has a statistically 2.21, p = 0.137, η² = <0.01], while sexual orientation [F (3, 1,185) higher score than the bisexual group and the “other” category in = 4.34, p = 0.005, η² = 0.01] and type of relationship Factor 2. The same is true for the homosexual group, whose score [F (2, 1,185) = 4.26, p = 0.014, η² = 0.01] are statistically is statistically higher than bisexuals and “other.” Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 10 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love TABLE 6 | Post-hoc factorial ANOVA analysis for the dependent variable of global romantic love myths score and its two factors, considering the type of relationship as a grouping variable. Variable Contrast N M SD Mean difference SE p d C.I. 95% Cohen’s d Myths scale Monogamous 734 2.53 0.69 0.71 0.04 <0.001** 1.11 0.98–1.24 No monogamous 399 1.82 0.53 Monogamous 734 2.53 0.69 −002 0.07 0.962 0.03 −0.27–0.21 Unrelated 75 2.55 0.66 No monogamous 399 1.82 0.53 −0.73 0.08 <0.001** 1.32 1.06–1.58 Unrelated 75 2.55 0.66 Factor 1 Monogamous 734 2.80 0.80 0.93 0.04 <0.001** 1.27 1.13–1.40 No monogamous 399 1.86 0.62 Monogamous 734 2.80 0.80 0.01 0.09 0.986 0.03 −0.21–0.26 Unrelated 75 2.78 0.79 No monogamous 399 1.86 0.62 −0.92 0.09 <0.001** 1.42 1.15–1.68 Unrelated 75 2.78 0.79 Factor 2 Monogamous 734 2.16 0.77 0.40 0.05 <0.001** 0.54 0.42–0.66 No monogamous 399 1.76 0.68 Monogamous 734 2.16 0.77 −0.07 0.09 0.724 0.08 −1.16–0.32 Unrelated 75 2.22 0.68 No monogamous 399 1.76 0.68 −0.47 0.09 <0.001** 0,68 0,42–0,93 Unrelated 75 2.22 0.68 Adjusted p-values: Tukey Method; **P < 0.001; Factor 1: exclusiveness; Factor 2: better half. Source: Authors’ own creation. On the other hand, regarding the type of relationship, Table 6 et al., 2012). This similarity is considered expectable, as both shows that the monogamous group scored significantly higher men and women have been socialized in patriarchal contexts that than the non-monogamous, while the unrelated group scored strategically promote the assumption of such myths. Likewise, statistically higher than the non-monogamous group. by establishing gender-differentiated roles in the affective and sexual ways of relating, asymmetric power relations based on gender differences are uncritically held (Cubells and Calsamiglia, DISCUSSION 2015). However, in the better half factor, men scored significantly The objective of the study was to analyze the influence of higher than women, but with a small effect size. Similarly, sex, sexual orientation, and type of affective sexual relationship when analyzing each item separately, significant differences were variables on the assumption of the myths of romantic love, observed in which men scored higher, but with small effect for which it was necessary to create and test the psychometric sizes. It would be interesting to be able to go deeper into these properties of a scale of myths about romantic love. differences in the future. The instrument showed suitable psychometric properties both Regarding the sexual orientation of the participants, people in terms of reliability and in terms of the validity of the construct, who identified as bisexual and/or with other types of orientations confirmed by the factor analyses performed (CFA and EFA). The showed a lower degree of agreement with the myths of results prove the existence of two factors corresponding to Factor romantic love compared to heterosexuals and homosexuals. 1 “exclusiveness” and Factor 2 “the better half.” Convergent These differences were observed in the analyses both on the validity was confirmed, showing that monogamous people scored global scale and when comparing item by item, both with higher than non-monogamous people on the exclusivity factor. a medium effect size. Regarding the differences observed in Nevertheless, further research is needed to continue investigating each of the factors, a large effect size was observed for the the psychometric properties of the instrument. exclusiveness factor and a medium effect size for the better half The results regarding the relationship between sex and factor. These results confirmed the hypothesis that there were acceptance of romantic love myths confirmed the hypothesis significant differences according to sexual orientation. A possible that there were no significant differences between men and explanation for this difference could be due to the characteristics women. These results were observed both in the score obtained of the sample, in which most bisexual people reported not on the total scale, as well as with respect to exclusiveness factor. establishing monogamous relationships, which represents a The results presented here contradict the expectations of some break with the normative forms of affective sexual relationships. studies where women show greater agreement with the myths Regarding the type of affective sexual relationship, people (Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013; Rodríguez-Castro and Alonso- who relate in a monogamous way and those who have never Ruido, 2015). However, the results are consistent with research maintained an affective sexual relationship, presented a greater in which romantic beliefs were present in equal measure in both degree of belief in or assumption of the myths of romantic love men and women (Ferrer et al., 2010; Ramos et al., 2010; Larrañaga than people who relate in a consensual non-monogamous way Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 11 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love (open relationships, polyamory, relationship anarchy, swinging, to women (68.9% women), both in this study and in others that etc.). These differences were observed for the total scale with a deal with similar topics (Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013; Borrajo large effect size, as well as in the item-by-item comparison with a et al., 2015). This sex difference in the number of participants medium effect size. These differences were also observed in the could entail biases in this and other analyses. exclusiveness factor with a large effect size and the better half In the future, we propose carrying out new research on the factor with a medium effect size. These results disconfirmed the myths of romantic love, using this or other instruments with hypothesis that there no were significant differences according similar characteristics, with the aim that any person, regardless to the type of relationship. Therefore, these results provide of how they relate to others in an affective sexual way, can new information which contradicts—according to statistical feel represented, overcoming terminology such as “couple” or analysis—what has been observed by Klesse (2011), Wilkinson approaches to the myths surrounding this idea, since conceiving (2010), Enciso (2015), and Ben-Ze’ev and Brunning (2018) of affective sexual relationships as something exclusive to two concerning the fact that people that have engaged in consensual people presupposes that the researcher assumes the myth of a non-monogamous relationships and polyamory would have couple (Yela, 2003). Taking into account that participants from incorporated romantic discourses inherent in monogamy. It several countries responded to the survey, it would also be of would be interesting to carry out mixed studies that cross interest to develop future studies to identify possible cultural both types of data, allowing us to break down the option of differences in the expression of the myths of romantic love, consensual non-monogamy into polyamory, open relationships, as well as possible similarities and differences in adherence to and so forth, enabling us to study the possible differences that romantic love myths among the different types of consensual may arise. non-monogamous relationships as well as their contrast with The multifactorial analyses reinforce the findings presented monogamous couples. above. No statistically significant differences were observed Regarding the results, it is evident that the study has developed between men and women with respect to assumptions about an instrument with suitable psychometric properties to evaluate myths of romantic love, but there were significant differences the myths of romantic love in people with diverse sexual with respect to sexual orientation and type of relationship. The orientations and to consider the existing variety of affective interaction between the different factors did not reach statistical sexual relationships. Moreover, the degree of assumption of significance. As for the factors exclusiveness and better half, the romantic myths varies according to sexual orientation and type interaction among the different factors did not reach statistical of affective sexual relationship, and not according to sex. Finally, significance. In both, no significant differences were observed the results report that a person, man or woman, heterosexual by sex, but significant differences were observed with respect to or homosexual, who relates in a monogamous way or who has sexual orientation and type of relationship. Thus, heterosexuals never maintained an affective sexual relationship, will present a adhered most to the myths of romantic love in both the greater belief in or assumption of the myths of romantic love than exclusiveness and better half factors, followed by homosexuals, a bisexual person or someone with another non-homosexual or results in line with the work of Dijkstra et al. (2013), who in heterosexual sexual orientation who has maintained at least one turn adhered more than bisexuals and “others,” contrary to what affective sexual relationship and who relates in a consensual non- was found by Atencio (2017) and in line with what was observed monogamous way (open relationships, polyamory, relationship by Frederick and Fales (2016) regarding lack of exclusivity. anarchy, swinging, etc.); thus, this person presents a lower Regarding the type of relationship, monogamous people adhered assumption of the myths of romantic love. more than non-monogamous people to the myths in both the exclusivity and better half factor, while the latter adhered less than the unrelated. In both factors, the significant differences reported DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT small effect size. More details for the sample and the data can be found on the It is important to note that the effect sizes observed in the Open Science Framework (OSF; see: https://osf.io/q4gb9/). multifactor Anova analyses were smaller than those found in the one-factor Anova analyses. This could present a possible limitation to the study since, although the sample size was large, ETHICS STATEMENT it is difficult to achieve large and similar sample sizes for all possible combinations. The groups are also very unbalanced Prior to the application of the survey, the participants accepted in some cases. For example, there was a large difference an informed consent, which was created by the researchers in sample size between heterosexual people (n = 750), and for the purposes of this research. The document considers those who did not feel represented by any of the proposed the norms and criteria proposed by the Code of Ethics of categories (n = 72). Likewise, convenience sampling may have the American Psychological Association and the Singapore influenced the results obtained since participants may have Declaration, ensuring the well-being of the participants, their certain perceptions regarding the study topic (Price and Murnan, voluntary participation, anonymity and confidentiality. 2004). This methodological decision was taken in response to the need to have a wide sample, including a collective of difficult AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS access, such as people who have consensual non-monogamous affective sexual relationships (n = 409). Likewise, it is considered JC-S, AS-S, and PA-M designed the study and acquired data, necessary to make visible the low participation of men compared interpreted the results, and wrote the article. PA-M, AS-S, Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 12 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love NE-N, and MB-R conducted the statistical analyses. All authors Salamanca, Alchimia Poliamor Chile, Poliamor España, and contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Poliamor Valencia. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL We thank all the people who answered and shared the survey. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found Carme Viladrich (UAB). Ester and Ana (SEA-UAB). Poliamor online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2021. Catalunya, Poliamor Chile, Golfxs con Principios, Poliamor 621646/full#supplementary-material REFERENCES Enciso, G. (2015). A Journey From Emotions to Affect on Polyamory Practices: Or What Words Were Silent About the Body. doctoral dissertation, Atencio, E. E. (2017). Sexual Orientations and Perceptions of Jealousy. Doctoral UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN. Esteban, M. L., and Távora, A. (2008). Romantic love and social subordination of Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., women: revisions and proposals. Anuario de Psicol. 39, 59–73. et al. (2019a). Comparing relationship quality across different types of romantic Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., and Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Arch. Sex. Behav. 48, relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally 1749–1767. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7 representative sample of Canadian adults. J. Sex Res. 56, 695–704. Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, doi: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667 J. J., et al. (2019b). Demographic comparison of American individuals Ferrer, V. A., Bosch, E., and Navarro, C. (2010). Romantic myths in Spain. Boletín in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. J. Sex Res. 56, 681–694. de Psicol. 99, 7–31. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1474333 Flecha, A., Puivert, L., and Redondo, G. (2005). Preventive socialization of gender Barcelona, A. (1992). The language of romantic love in English and Spanish. violence. Feminismo/s 6, 107–120. doi: 10.14198/fem.2005.6.08 Atlantis 14, 5–27. Frederick, D. A., and Fales, M. R. (2016). Upset over sexual versus Barrón, A., Martínez-Iñigo, D., De Paul, P., and Yela, C. (1999). Romantic beliefs emotional infidelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual and myths in Spain. Span. J. Psychol. 2, 64–73. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600005461 adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45, 175–191. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014- Ben-Ze’ev, A., and Brunning, L. (2018). How complex is your love? The case 0409-9 of romantic compromises and polyamory. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 48, 98–116. Fundación Mujeres (2011). “Myths of romantic love and prevention of gender doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12156 violence,” in Monográfico 93. Coeducación y mitos del amor romántico, ed. Bisquert-Bover, M., Giménez-García, C., Gil-Juliá, B., Martínez-Gómez, N., and Fundación Mujeres (Madrid: España), 7–10. Gil-Lario, M. (2019). Myths of romantic love and self-esteem in adolescents. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self. New York, NY: Basic. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 5, 507–518. doi: 10.17060/ijodaep.2019.n1.v5.1633 Gil, E. P., and Lloret, I. (2007). Gender Violence. Barcelona: UOC. Bonilla, E., Rivas, E., García, B., and Criado, A. (2017). Myths of Romantic Love and Glucksberg, S., and McGlone, M. S. (1999). When love is not a the Normalisation of Gender Violence in Adolescents. Oviedo: Comunicación journey: what metaphors mean. J. Pragmatics 31, 1541–1558. presentada en el III Congreso Nacional de Psicología. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00003-X Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., and Calvete, E. (2015). Justification beliefs of Grunt-Mejer, K., and Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: violence, myths about love and cyber dating abuse. Psicothema 27, 327–333. assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. J. Sex Res. 53, 45–53. doi: 10.1037/t41331-000 doi: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1010193 Bosch, E., Ferrer, V. A., García, E., Ramis, M. C., Mas, M. C., Navarro, C., et al. Hammack, P. L., Frost, D. M., and Hughes, S. D. (2019). Queer intimacies: a (2007). From the Myth of Romantic Love to Violence Against Women. Madrid: new paradigm for the study of relationship diversity. J. Sex Res. 56, 556–592. Universidad de las islas Baleares. Ministerio de Igualdad. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1531281 Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc. York, NY: Routledge. Psychol. 50, 392–402. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392 Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural Equation Modeling Using EQS, ed P. Lawrence Herrera, C. (2010). The Socio-Cultural Construction of Romantic Love. (London: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.). Madrid: Fundamentos. Caro, C., and Monreal, C. (2017). Beliefs in romantic love and gender violence. Int. Hooks, B. (2000). All About Love: New Visions. New York, NY: William Morrow. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 2, 47–56. doi: 10.17060/ijodaep.2017.n1.v2.917 Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: contesting the terms of Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2a Ed.). non-monogamy. Sexualities 9, 565–583. doi: 10.1177/1363460706 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 069986 Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., and Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer Klesse, C. (2011). Notions of love in polyamory—elements in a discourse on the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous multiple loving. Laboratorium 3, 4–25. romantic relationships. ASAP. 13, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x Kollontai, A. (1976). Marxism and Sexual Revolution. Madrid: Miguel Castellote. Cubells, J., and Calsamiglia, A. (2015). Romantic love’s repertoire and the Lagarde, M. (2001). Feminist Keys for Negotiation in Love. Managua: Puntos conditions of possibility of violence against women. Universitas Psychol. 14, de Encuentro. 1681–1694. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-5.rarc Lagarde, M. (2005). Keys Feminists for My Partner in Life. Barcelona: Horas Cuenca-Montesino, M. L., Graña, J. L., and O’Leary, K. D. (2015). Intensity of love y Horas. in a community sample of Spanish couples in the region of Madrid. Span. J. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors We Live By. London: The University Psychol. 18, 1–9. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2015.79 of Chicago Press. De Miguel, A. (2015). Sexual Neoliberalism: The Myth of Free Choice. Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., and Yubero, M. (2012). Influence of the sex and gender Madrid: Feminismos. in the sexual attitudes in Spanish university students. Summa Psicol. 9, 5–13. Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., and Groothof, H. A. (2013). Jealousy in response doi: 10.18774/448x.2012.9.89 to online and offline infidelity: the role of sex and sexual orientation. Scand. J. Leal, A. (2007). New times, old questions about love: a study with teenagers. Revista Psychol. 54, 328–336. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12055 de Posgrado y Sociedad 7, 56–72. Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 13 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646 Cubells-Serra et al. Myths of Romantic Love Marín Rojas, A. (2015). Love and the Furies: Reflections about love, mistreatment Rohwer, K. (2015). Diversity of love relationship concepts, in Stories From and violence inside of lesbian relationships. Revista Punto Género. 5, 85–108. the Polycule: Real Life in Polyamorous Families, ed. E. Sheff (London: doi: 10.5354/0719-0417.2015.37665 Thorntree Press), 32. Martínez-Gómez, N., Nebot-Garcia, J., Gil, B., and Giménez-García, C. (2019). Sánchez-Sicilia, A., and Cubells, J. (2018). Love, postmodernity and gender Myths of romantic love: breaking the framework of heteronormativity,” in En perspective: between romantic love and liquid love. Investigaciones Feministas busca de buenas prácticas de masculinidades igualitarias desde el ámbito de 9, 151–171. doi: 10.5209/INFE.58143 la universidad, eds. R. Carmona and J. Sanfélix (Elche: Universidad Miguel Sánchez-Sicilia, A., and Cubells, J. (2019). Loving teen discourse: analysis of the Hernández de Elche), 167–176. romantic love repertoire from the boys and girls programs. Athenea Digital 19, Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., and Beaglaoich, C. Ó. (2013). A 3–31. doi: 10.5565/rev/athenea.2429 comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences Schäfer, G. (2008). Romantic love in heterosexual relationships: women’s in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychol. Sexuality 4, experiences. J. Soc. Sci. 16, 187–197. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2008.11892617 75–91. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2011.631571 Ubillos, S., Zubieta, E., Páez, D., Deschamps, J. C., Ezeiza, A., and Vera, A. (2001). Nava-Reyes, M. A., Rojas-Solís, J. L., Amador, L. M. G., and Quintero, Love, culture and sex. Revista Electrónica de Motivación y Emoción 4, 8–9. L. A. M. (2018). Gender roles, sexism and myths of romantic Van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: integrating gender/sex love in Mexican adolescents. Interamerican J. Psychol. 52, 102–111. and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Arch. Sex Behav. 44, doi: 10.30849/rip/ijp.v52i1.341 1177–1213. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Wilkinson, E. (2010). “What’s queer about non-monogamy now?,” in Ortiz, M., and Fernández-Pera, M. (2017). Structural equation modeling: Understanding Non-Monogamies, eds M. Barker and D. Langdridge (London: a guide for medical and health sciences. Terapia Psicol. 36, 47–53. Routledge), 243–254. doi: 10.4067/s0718-48082017000300047 Wosik-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous Price, J. H., and Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the relationships. Psychol. Sexuality 1, 44–61. doi: 10.1080/19419891003 necessity of reporting them. Am. J. Health Educ. 35, 66–67. 634471 doi: 10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611 Yela, C. (2003). Love From Social Psychology. Madrid: Pirámide. Pujal, M. (2007). Feminism and Gender Violence. Barcelona: UOC. Ramos, E., Luzón, J. M., Recio, P., and De la Peña, E. M. (2010). Abuse Perception Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the Scale. Proyecto Andalucía Detecta. Prevención de la Violencia de Género. Sevilla: absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a Instituto de la Mujer. Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social. Junta potential conflict of interest. de Andalucía. Rodríguez-Castro, Y., and Alonso-Ruido, P. (2015). Analysis of the speeches of Copyright © 2021 Cubells-Serra, Sánchez-Sicilia, Astudillo-Mendoza, Escandón- the young people on violence in intimate relationships. Revista de Estudios e Nagel and Baeza-Rivera. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms Investigación en Psicol. Educ. 2, 15–18. doi: 10.17979/reipe.2015.0.02.235 of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or Rodríguez-Castro, Y., Lameiras-Fernández, M., Carrera-Fernández, M. V., and reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the Vallejo-Medina, P. (2013). The reliability and validity of the Myths Scale copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal toward Love: adolescents’ beliefs. Revista de Psicol. Soc. 28, 157–168. is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or doi: 10.1174/021347413806196708 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 14 May 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 621646