Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does “Open” Rhyme with “Special”? Comparing Personality, Sexual Satisfaction, Dominance and Jealousy of Monogamous and Non-monogamous Practitioners

  • Special Section: Consensual Non-Monogamy
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Romantic relationships are changing in Western culture. The recent rise of alternative relationship models called consensual non-monogamies (CNMs) has drawn attention toward them. Western cultures largely stereotype and stigmatize CNMs, portraying their practitioners (among other aspects) as psychologically distinct from monogamous practitioners. Likewise, recent scientific literature suggests probable differences for CNMs practitioners, mainly them being more extraverted, agreeable, and open, but also less jealous and dominant toward their romantic partners. However, although CNMs differentiate themselves from cheating monogamous practitioners, potential differences are unclear. The present study compared 372 participants (with 193 CNMs practitioners) from Spanish culture regarding their personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance, and jealousy. On most dimensions, monogamous and CNMs practitioners did not differ significantly from each other. CNMs practitioners showed significantly higher openness and lower conscientiousness, although these differences were small and debatable; thus, these findings should be taken with caution. These differences could not be explained by differences in age, gender, education, marital status, sexual orientation, or other demographic variables. The addition of cheating monogamous mitigated these differences. Overall, this study suggests that monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners are not psychologically different. Methodological limitations and future recommendations are discussed, with particular emphasis on replication studies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. IQV measures dispersion in nominal variables and is interpretable as a proportion (for details, see Mueller, Schuessler, & Costner, 1977).

  2. Correlations comparisons were performed with Fisher’s r-to-z transform and two-tailed contrast using an online calculator available in http://vassarstats.net/rdiff.html. Spearman correlations are also applicable to this test, according to Myers and Sirois (2006).

References

  • Barash, D., & Lipton, J. (2002). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals and people. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. (2012). Rewriting the rules: An integrative guide to love, sex and relationships. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdrige, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrón, A., Martínez-Íñigo, D., De Paul, P., & Yela, C. (1999). Romantic beliefs and myths in Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belzer, F., Schmidt, S., Lucius-Hoene, G., Schneider, J. F., Orellana-Rios, C. L., & Sauer, S. (2013). Challenging the construct validity of mindfulness assessment—A cognitive interview study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Mindfulness, 4(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0165-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blow, A., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00926.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00136-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. (1998). Dating violence in two high school samples: Discriminating variable. Journal of Primary Intervention, 18, 431–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, D. (2017). Amores plurais situados—Para uma meta-narrativa socio-histórica do poliamor. Tempo Da Ciência, 24(48), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascais, F., & Cardoso, D. (2012). “Loving many”: Polyamorous love, gender and identity. In N. de Haro & M.-A. Tseliou (Eds.), Gender and love: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 21–29). Oxford, England: Inter-Disciplinary Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781848882089_004.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cloud, J. (1999). Henry & Mary & Janet &: Is your marriage a little dull? The “polyamorists” say there’s another way. Time, 154, 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616667925.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Perry, M., Gusakova, S., & Piemonte, J. L. (2019). Monogamous halo effects: The stigma of non-monogamy within collective sex environments. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1213-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Piemonte, J. L., Gusakova, S., & Rubin, J. D. (2018). Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B. (2013b). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & MacCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). Self and partner personality and responses to relationship threats. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1500–1511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, F. H., & Davis, S. A. (1980). Personality and sexual satisfaction in marriage. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 6(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926238008404246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1234/12345678.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, S., & Hancock, B. (2010). ‘Reaching the hard to reach’—Lessons learned from the VCS (voluntary and community Sector). A qualitative study. BMC Health Service Research, 8(10), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: (Vol. 1). The will to knowledge. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, M. (2008). Violencia en las relaciones de noviazgo entre jóvenes y adolescentes de la comunidad de Madrid. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haritaworn, J., Lin, C. J., & Klesse, C. (2006). Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefner, V., & Wilson, B. J. (2013). From love at first sight to soul mate: The influence of romantic ideals in popular films on young people’s beliefs about relationships. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 150–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.776697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasp, T. (2017). jasp (version 0.8.12) [Computer software] (0.8.1.2). https://jasp.stats.org/.

  • Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, K., & Davidson, D. (2018). Jealousy workshop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xPiQ05c17Y.

  • Liang, X., & Yang, Y. (2014). An evaluation of WLSMV and Bayesian methods for confirmatory factor analysis with categorical indicators. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 2(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijqre.2014.060972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Uribe, P., & Cassaretto-Bardales, M. (2011). Validación del Inventario de los Cinco Factores NEO-FFI en español en estudiantes universitarios peruanos. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 28(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsick, J., Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., & Rubin, J. (2014). Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology and Sexuality, 5(4), 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittchell, M., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 51(3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C., Selterman, D. F., & Conley, T. D. (2017). Personality correlates of desire to engage in consensual non-monogamy among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(4), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2017.1367982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moshagen, M., & Musch, J. (2014). Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology, 10, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. H., Schuessler, K. F., & Costner, H. L. (1977). Statistical reasoning in sociology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N. D., Ahn, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: A monte carlo approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, L., & Sirois, M. J. (2006). Spearman correlation coefficients, differences between. In S. Kotz, C. B. Read, N. Balakrishnan, B. Vidakovic, & N. L. Johnson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachanakis, J., & Bränström, R. (2018). Hidden from happiness: Structural stigma, sexual orientation concealment, and life satisfaction among sexual minorities across 28 European countries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(5), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx187.045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F., (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J., Moors, A., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Štulhofer, A., Buško, V., & Brouillard, P. (2010). Development and bicultural validation of the new Sexual Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, L. R., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., & Lund, L. K. (2003). Images of couples and families in Disney feature-length animated films. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(5), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390223987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veaux, F., Hardy, J., & Gill, T. (2014). More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory. Portland, OR: Thorntree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1–2), 137–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, G., Davidson, J., & Phillips, R. (2012). What psychology professionals should know about polyamory. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, 7, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J., Desmarais, S., Burleigh, T., & Milhausen, R. (2018). Reasons for sex and relational outcomes in consensually nonmonogamous and monogamous relationships: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yela, C. (2000). Predictors of and factors related to loving and sexual satisfaction for men and women. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 50(1), 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Poliamor Madrid association for supporting the study in recruitment and disclosure of results for participants, and Golfxs con Principios, Poliamor Valencia, and Poliamor Catalunya associations for supporting the study. The authors also acknowledge Antonia Dörnemann and Nicolas Alef for their reviews of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, King Juan Carlos University, Móstoles, Spain

    Oscar Lecuona & Sara de Rivas

  2. University Institute of Sexology, Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain

    Mar Suero

  3. Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Tobias Wingen

  4. Faculty of Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Oscar Lecuona

  5. Department of Psychology, King Juan Carlos University, Campus of Aranjuez, Capitán Angosto Gómez Castrillón St., 28300, Aranjuez, Madrid, Spain

    Oscar Lecuona

Authors
  1. Oscar Lecuona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mar Suero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tobias Wingen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara de Rivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Lecuona.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study obtained an ethical approval by King Juan Carlos University.

Informed Consent

All participants signed an informed consent ensuring confidentiality and anonymity, aligned with the Helsinki protocol and the Data Protection Policies in Spain.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lecuona, O., Suero, M., Wingen, T. et al. Does “Open” Rhyme with “Special”? Comparing Personality, Sexual Satisfaction, Dominance and Jealousy of Monogamous and Non-monogamous Practitioners. Arch Sex Behav 50, 1537–1549 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation