Monogamy as protection against COVID-19?: Non-monogamy stigma and risk (Mis)perception.

COVID-19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were "safer at home." Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy-that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer-from a disease transmission perspective-than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID-19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID-specific safety measures (such as mask-wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID-risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non-monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID-safe. Participants perceived monogamous-but-COVID-riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID-19. Non-monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID-19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.

Are there "Better" and "Worse" Ways to be Consensually Non-Monogamous (CNM)?: CNM Types and CNM-Specific Predictors of Dyadic Adjustment.

Research on consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has largely been restricted to comparisons between monogamous and CNM people, with researchers paying little attention to various CNM styles. The current research elucidated differences among three styles of CNM: open relationships, polyamory, and swinging. Across three studies, we demonstrated that people in polyamorous or swinger-style relationships have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and other relational outcomes (e.g., passionate love, trust) than those in open relationships. That is, people in open relationships consistently fared more poorly in their relational outcomes than those in other types of CNM relationships. In Studies 4 and 5, we isolated some of the reasons for these differences. We found that differences in relational outcomes between open-style and other styles of CNM dissipated when controlling for (a) couples' approach to communication, (b) extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for participating in CNM, (c) adherence to pro-monogamy beliefs and (d) degree of contact with one's partner's partners ("metamours"). Thus, CNM-specific relational dynamics are associated with dyadic adjustment in these relationships.

Structural competency and the future of firearm research.

In this critical literature review we develop a five-part agenda for pandemic-era research into mass shootings and multiple-victim homicides that promotes understanding the psychologies of individual shooters within larger structures and systems. We show how the momentous events set in motion by the COVID-19 virus, and the structural drivers of inequity and racism that its spread exposed, challenge mental health research on gun trauma to better account for broader terrains of race and place, as well as the tensions, politics, and assumptions that surround guns in the U.S. more broadly. Doing so will broaden mental-health interventions into epidemics of U.S. gun trauma, and challenge mental health research better recognize structural biases inherent in its own purview. We frame the agenda through the rubric of structural competency, an emerging framework that systematically trains health care professionals and others to recognize ways that institutions, neighborhood conditions, market forces, public policies, and health care delivery systems shape symptoms and diseases. Developing a structural framework around research into U.S. gun violence addresses the risks, traumas, meanings, and consequences that firearms represent for all communities-and highlights the importance of a renewed focus on mental health and safety for communities of color. Recognizing how gun violence reflects and encapsulates structures helps mental health experts address common sense gun policies within broader contexts-by fighting against structural racism or racially inflected gun policies for instance, or against economic policies that undermine access to mental health care more broadly.

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Future of Psychiatric Research into American Gun Violence.

ABSTRACT: This article outlines a four-part strategy for future research in mental health and complementary disciplines that will broaden understanding of mass shootings and multi-victim gun homicides. First, researchers must abandon the starting assumption that acts of mass violence are driven primarily by diagnosable psychopathology in isolated "lone wolf" individuals. The destructive motivations must be situated, instead, within larger social structures and cultural scripts. Second, mental health professionals and scholars must carefully scrutinize any apparent correlation of violence with mental illness for evidence of racial bias in the official systems that define, measure, and record psychiatric diagnoses, as well as those that enforce laws and impose criminal justice sanctions. Third, to better understand the role of firearm access in the occurrence and lethality of mass shootings, research should be guided by an overarching framework that incorporates social, cultural, legal, and political, but also psychological, aspects of private gun ownership in the United States. Fourth, effective policies and interventions to reduce the incidence of mass shootings over time-and to prevent serious acts of violence more generally-will require an expanded body of well-funded interdisciplinary research that is informed and implemented through the sustained engagement of researchers with affected communities and other stakeholders in gun violence prevention. Emerging evidence that the coronavirus pandemic has produced a sharp increase both in civilian gun sales and in the social and psychological determinants of injurious behavior adds special urgency to this agenda.