I asked ppl "how poly/monog are you", on a scale from 0 (very monog) to 5 (very poly)
should i present the data granularly, or would it be easier to just have "monog people" (0-1-2) and "poly people (3-4-5) grouped as two groups? Or "monog (0-1), "medium" (2-3), and poly (4-5)?
Conversation
Replying to
granular is usually better, but the v poly bin sizes start to get a bit low, and i'm not sure if the difference between ppl marking "mostly poly" and "fully poly" is worth distinguishing?
12
1
34
Replying to
I'd consider separating between 0 (strictly mono) and the rest (non-monog), because that's where the distinction is most interesting.
18
Replying to
Just "how monog are you", where 1: would never consider a sexually or emotionally exclusive relationship 5: only ever desires their partner could be a clearer construct
Replying to
Granular, or at least 3 bins. My feeling is that this is a genuine spectrum, kind of like the Kinsey scale
1
Replying to
You lose variation if you bucket, but I would expect the interpretation to be pretty similar. I feel like going from 6 buckets to 3 makes sense.
3
Replying to
As long as there are people using terms like monogamish I think you'll have to stick to granular, even if its hard to know how individuals gauge the scale.
1
