SMU Journal of Undergraduate Research
Abstract
This research explores SMU’s undergraduate students in their own identities and romantic relationships in the realm of the bisexuality spectrum using the Kinsey Scale. I developed a 46-item online survey comprised of six component parts, which incorporated previous scales of Kinsey, Consensual Non-Monogamy, Self-Acceptance of Sexuality Inventory, and Experience in Close Relationships scales, to measure respondents’ sense of attraction and preferences as well as attachment scales and assess the participants’ relationship beliefs pertaining to consensual non-monogamy. A total of 312 undergraduate students started the survey, but only 250 consented and completed it. I present descriptive and inferential statistics on participants’ perception, acceptance rate, and comfort level within the bisexuality spectrum in themselves and their romantic partners. Results can generally assist and educate undergraduate students as well as higher education professionals about the contemporary sexuality acceptance rates and comfort levels of dating individuals with various gender and sexual identities.
Faculty Mentor/Sponsor
Dustin Grabsch
Recommended Citation
Caliste, Na'Ni Machenry () "The Undergraduate Students' Rate of Bisexuality and its Acceptance in Their Own and Others' Romantic Relationships," SMU Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 9: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jour/vol9/iss2/3
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Comments
Faculty Feedback
Author Response
In the Methods section, it would help to create a separate Participants subheading.
The Participants section should include details on recruitment methods, data collection procedures, and compensation. These are currently only in the discussion section.
It might also strengthen your paper to clearly map your two research questions to the specific questionnaires that will be used to address them. This connection could be clarified in both the Data Analysis section and later in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.
I clarified all marketing outlets via personal and academic. I added the compensation, recruitment methods, and the primary focus/target audience-SMU undergraduate student body. Thanks for this suggestion.
In light of the aforementioned, this study will provide insight to ascertain the perceptions and 1.) attitudes of undergraduate students in terms of dating a bisexual partner and the 2.) comfortability of dating a partner based on their sexual orientation.
These two prompts are the research questions and are answered via the following data:
Scales to understand undergraduate students in terms of dating a bisexual partner: Table 3/Acceptance Rates of Romantic Partner Identity
Attitudes of undergraduate students in dating a partner based on their sexual orientation: T test
As mentioned, you provided the feedback of clarifying the two research questions in all 3 sections (Data Analysis, Discussion, and Conclusion). Throughout these 3 sections, the purpose was reiterated to clarify the research's relevance. Thanks for this suggestion! It will likely help the reader's understanding.
You used the mean for each individual item on some of the scales, which isn’t the typical approach for scoring these questionnaires. Usually, researchers sum the items for a total score or use subscale scores if applicable. Please include a justification for using item means in your analysis.
Related to this, I had some difficulty interpreting what the mean values (e.g., a 4 vs. a 5) represent in the Results section. You might consider reiterating the scale anchors or scoring details when introducing each table.
In Tables 4, 5, and 6, it isn’t clear what the “Range” column refers to.
In Table 7, it would be helpful to explain how anxiety and avoidance were calculated.
Pertaining to the research scales (SASI, CNAS, ECR-S) all of them use the mean values, so to mirror the original source, I used mean values as well in the research.
I understand the concern about the range; however, participants did indeed select Likert responses within the range of 4, even if the scale was 1 - 7. Therefore, I did not think any edits were needed.
In Table 7, I added to the Methods section under data analysis the way attachment anxiety and avoidance were calculated.
The references to television shows felt a bit unexpected for a scientific report. You might consider grounding those examples more firmly in the research literature rather than in anecdotal examples from popular media. Also, my recollection is that Joey Tribbiani dated only women, so that may not be the best example for the concept you’re discussing.
In the discussion, you mention that some findings are “unexpected for SMU.” Providing additional context about the demographics of the school and sample (for example, location, tuition, political climate, or campus culture) would help readers understand why these results were surprising. Alternatively, remove that language from the discussion.
It might be helpful to more explicitly connect your discussion back to your introduction. Right now, the two sections feel somewhat distinct. Even though there isn’t much prior research in the introduction, consider noting whether your results speak to the broader issues or questions you raised earlier.
I recommend removing the section in the introduction about sleep and mental health and long-distance relationships since it doesn’t clearly relate to your main topic and makes the introduction longer than necessary.
Thanks for the suggestion. I completely eliminated the Joey Tribbiani section and replaced it with the “anything that moves trope” to stay on topic of bisexuality research.
I listed the tuition, demographics, and political climate at SMU and compared them to how they can suggest shocking research results. Ultimately, I rephrased from “unexpected for SMU” to “may sound contradicting” to take focus off the institution’s name and reputation. I also provided sources in the reference section. Thanks for the suggestion.
I added a brief statement on the results within the introduction and how the main discussion results relate to the two research questions. Thanks for the suggestion.
I completely removed the romantic relationships in the college section involving the sleep, mental health, and substance abuse section. As mentioned it is completely irrelevant to the main topic of the paper. Thanks for the overall suggestion as it helped focus the paper
Some of the tables, particularly Tables 1 and 2, might be better represented as bar graphs. This would make it easier for readers to visually compare percentages and see trends more clearly.
The writing could benefit from a careful proofreading to fix typos and grammatical errors and to make the tone more scientific. Here are a few specific examples: • Bisexuality Discrimination section (Introduction): The phrase “yet it’s totally not the case” could be revised to sound more formal. • Results: Instead of “Table 2 gathers information surrounding the undergraduate students’...,” consider “Table 2 reports information about…. • Results: The phrase “There’s a huge difference towards scale point 4” should avoid implying a statistical effect size unless one was tested. • Discussion: The sentence “This indicates that a complex relationship with multiple partners is unbearable compared to…” overstates the data’s implications and should be softened.
Discussion: Change “This impacts college students cause male partners are…” to “This impacts college students because male partners are….” • Measures and Instruments section: Be sure to define CNAS when it is first mentioned.
In the Results section, under the table note, you mention “transgender men have the highest mean in avoidance, n = 42.00.” Based on the sample description, it seems there were no transgender men included, so please double-check that statement. I would also avoid drawing conclusions based on a single individual in the Discussion section.
In the Discussion, be cautious about the statement suggesting that higher means than the national average indicate overall increases in these rates. With a small and potentially non-representative sample, especially if the study title included words like “sexuality” or “bisexuality,” this could inflate participation bias.
Regarding the findings in Table 9, it would be helpful to explore why bisexual individuals might also be less comfortable dating another bisexual person. You could connect this point to the literature you cite on bisexuality discrimination to help interpret this pattern.
The paper relies quite a bit on a single source (Mehta, 2023), with the exception of the section on Bisexuality Discrimination. There’s likely a lot of other relevant research on this topic that you could incorporate to strengthen your argument and show a broader understanding of the empirical literature
I appreciate the suggestion to visualize the data however both visual representations did not enhance readability, hence the example below. Therefore, I’ve decided to not include this into the manuscript. Happy to discuss further if this is a dealbreaker for publication.