Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness of Emerging Adults to Engage in Consensual Non-Monogamy: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past decade, research on consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has increased. However, willingness to engage in CNM is an understudied phenomenon within this field. Because qualitative methods are rarely used to study this phenomenon, little is known about why individuals may or may not be willing to engage in CNM. Further, research on CNM has devoted little attention to the period of emerging adulthood. The current study used a mixed-methods approach to examine a sample of emerging adults’ (ages 18–29; N = 549) willingness to engage in CNM. Results from a qualitative content analysis revealed three distinct groups (Unwilling, Willing, and Open-Minded), and several subthemes emerged within each group that help explain why emerging adults are willing to engage in CNM. Quantitative analyses examined the relationship between group membership and demographic characteristics, finding that a greater proportion of women and heterosexual participants were Unwilling. Results also indicated that a greater proportion of men were Willing, and a greater proportion of sexual minorities were Open-Minded. Group mean differences were examined using quantitative measures of CNM attitudes and willingness. The Unwilling group reported more negative attitudes towards CNM compared to the Open-Minded and Willing groups. Additionally, the Open-Minded group reported more negative attitudes compared to the Willing group. On the willingness to engage in CNM Scale, the Unwilling group had lower mean scores compared to the Willing and Open-Minded groups. The Willing group had higher mean scores compared to the Open-Minded group. Implications for CNM research and methodology are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, E. (2010). ‘‘At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy’’: Cheating and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 851–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late tends through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Insecure romantic attachment dimensions and frequency of mate retention behaviors. Personal Relationships, 23, 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–1565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013b). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. E. (1987). Methodological triangulation: A vehicle for merging quantitative and qualitative research methods. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 19, 130–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Rhoades, G. K. (2011). Relationship education in emerging adulthood: Problems and prospects. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 293–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, M. (2012). Monogamous order and the avoidance of chaotic excess. Psychology & Sexuality, 3, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K., & DeLamater, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries, identities, and fluidities across relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 9–22). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzler, K. T., Giuliano, T. A., Herselman, J. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). Three’s a crowd: public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7, 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurich, A. P., & Jurich, J. A. (1975). Alternative family forms: Preferences of nonparticipants. Home Economics Research Journal, 3, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, P. K., Manhart, L. E., & Lafferty, W. E. (2008). Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 344–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. E., & Hawkins, R. L. (2016). Welfare, liberty, and security for all? U.S. sex education policy and the 1996 Title V Section 510 of the Social Security Act. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1027–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, H. A. (2015). Subjective adult identity and casual sexual behavior. Advances in Life Course Research, 26, 1–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life-course-specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 79–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C., Conley, T. D., Edelstein, R. S., & Chopik, W. J. (2015). Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 222–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C., Rubin, J. D., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. M. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood the role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead, S. B., Negash, S., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Emerging adults’ expectations for pornography use in the context of future committed romantic relationships: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 625–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 584–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2014). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 961–982.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. M. (1982). Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2016). Willingness to engage in consensual nonmonogamy among emerging adults: A structural equation analysis of sexual identity, casual sex attitudes, and gender. Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1243200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2017). Testing the validity and factor structure of the willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy scale among college men and women. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14, 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., Rhaodes, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Intertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, L. D. (1978). Alternative marital and family forms: Their relative attractiveness to college students and correlates of willingness to participate in nontraditional forms. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. E., & Byers, E. S. (2017). Heterosexual young adults’ interest, attitudes, and experiences related to mixed-gender, multi-person sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 813–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Wells, C. (1973). Student attitudes toward alternate marriage forms: Renovating marriage. Danville, CA: Consensus Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Family Journal, 13, 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woik, E. (2015). Hook up culture: Changing the structure of future relationships? (Master’s thesis, Minnesota State University). Retrieved from http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/433/

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kayla Byerly for her contributions and assistance in coding the qualitative data for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child and Family Studies, College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 115 Jessie W. Harris Building, 1215 W. Cumberland Avenue, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Kayla M. Sizemore & Spencer B. Olmstead

Authors
  1. Kayla M. Sizemore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Spencer B. Olmstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kayla M. Sizemore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sizemore, K.M., Olmstead, S.B. Willingness of Emerging Adults to Engage in Consensual Non-Monogamy: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Arch Sex Behav 47, 1423–1438 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1075-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1075-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation