Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond the Dyad: a Review of the Novel Insights Gained From Studying Consensual Non-monogamy

  • Female Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders (A Stanton & T Lorenz, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to highlight the major advancements in our understanding of consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships—or intimate relationships between three or more people who are non-exclusive sexually and/or emotionally. We aim to review key insights from research on the benefits (i.e., diversification of need fulfillment) and challenges (i.e., continued stigma) of CNM relationships and how research on CNM highlights some limitations of the existing theories of relationships.

Recent Findings

The last two decades have seen a trend towards increasing diversity of family structures. Although monogamy remains the most common relationship structure, CNM relationships are increasing in prevalence and in interest to both lay people and researchers. Recent research has begun to uncover novel insights into who is more likely to be drawn to and engage in CNM, how CNM relationships compare to monogamous relationships, and the potential benefits and challenges of engaging in CNM relationships.

Summary

While people in CNM relationships still experience stigma, for those who desire such relationships, CNM can be a viable and healthy alternative to monogamy, and may even help people meet more of their needs through diversifying need fulfillment across multiple partners. Despite this, many existing relationship theories are not inclusive of CNM relationship experiences and aspects of existing theories of positive relationships and sexuality may not extend to people in CNM relationships. Moving forward it is important to consider whether our concepts and measures are inclusive to people in diverse relationships, including those in CNM relationships.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. United Nations. World population ageing. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf.

  2. Rosenfeld M, Byung-Soo K. The independence of young adults and the rise of interracial and same sex unions. Am Sociol Rev. 2005;70:541–62.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tamura R, Murphy KM, Simon CJ. Fertility decline, baby boom and economic growth. J Hum Cap. 2008;2:262–302.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tamura R, Simon C. Secular fertility declines, baby booms and economic growth: international evidence. Macroecon Dyn. 2016;21:1601–72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC, Matsick J, Valentine B. A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2013;2:124–41.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ryan C, Jetha C. Sex at dawn: how we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships. New York: Harper; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bittman M, Pixley J. The double life of the family. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stacey J. In the name of the family: rethinking family values in the postmodern age. Boston: Beacon Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Conley TD, Moors AC, Matsick JL, Ziegler A. The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2013;13:1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grunt-Mejer K, Campbell C. Around consensual nonmonogamies: assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. J Sex Res. 2016;53:45–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sizemore KM, Olmstead SB. A systematic review of research on attitudes towards and willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy among emerging adults: methodological issues considered. Psychol and Sex. 2017;8:4–23.

  12. Lebowitz S. 10 things everyone wants to know about their relationship, according to Google. Bus Insid. 2017; Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/10-things-everyone-wants-to-know-about-their-relationship-according-to-Google/articleshow/62058008.cms. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  13. Moors AC. Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “the couple” increased over time? J Sex Res. 2016;54:677–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Khazan O. OkCupid adds a feature for the polyamorous. The Atlantic. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/ok-cupid-is-opening-up-to- polyamorous-relationships/423162/. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  15. Rubel AN, Bogaert AF. Consensual nonmonogamy: psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. J Sex Res. 2015;52:961–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barker M, Langdridge D. Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities. 2010;13:748–72.

    Google Scholar 

  17. • Balzarini RN, Dharma C, Kohut T, Campbell L, Lehmiller JJ, Harman JJ, et al. Comparing relationship quality across different types of romantic partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48:1749–67. This article presents research demonstrating differences in reports of relationship quality for partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Balzarini RN, Dharma C, Muise A, Kohut T. Eroticism versus nurturance: how eroticism and nurturance differ in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Soc Psychol. 2019;50:185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell ME, Bartholomew K, Cobb RC. Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. J Sex Res. 2014;51:329–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Muise A, Laughton A, Moors AC, Impett EA. Sexual need fulfillment and satisfaction in consensually nonmonogamous relationships. J Soc Pers Relat. 2019;36:1917–38.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fraley RC. Attachment in adulthood: recent developments, emerging debates, and future directions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;70:401–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fairbrother N, Hart TA, Fairbrother M. Open relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. J Sex Res. 2019;56:695–704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Haupert M, Gesselman A, Moors A, Fisher H, Garcia J. Prevalence of experiences with consensual non-monogamous relationships: findings from two nationally representative samples of single Americans. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;43:424–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lehmiller JJ. Tell me what you want: the science of sexual desire and how it can help you improve your sex life. Boston: DaCapo; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barker M. Monogamies and non-monogamies - a response to: ‘The challenge of monogamy: bringing it out of the closet and into the treatment room’ by Marianne Brandon. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2011;26:281–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Matsick JL, Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC, Rubin JD. Love and sex: polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychol and Sex. 2014;5:339–48.

  27. Klesse C. Polyamory and its ‘others’: contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities. 2006;9:565–83.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Adam BD. Relationship innovation in male couples. Sexualities. 2006;9:5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jenks RJ. Swinging: a review of literature. Arch Sex Behav. 1998;27:507–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Easton D, Hardy JW. The ethical slut. 2nd ed. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Taormino T. Opening up. San Francisco: Cleis Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Veaux F. Care and feeding of polyamorous secondary relationships. More than two. 2011. Retrieved from https://www.morethantwo.com/primarysecondary.html. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  33. • Balzarini RN, Campbell L, Kohut T, Holmes BM, Lehmiller JJ, Harman JJ, et al. Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0177841. This article presents research demonstrating differences in reports of relationship quality across primary and secondary partners in polyamorous relationships.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Buchanan DR, Poppen PJ, Reisen CA. The nature of partner relationship and AIDS sexual risk-taking in gay men. Psychol Health. 1996;11:541–55.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Poppen PJ, Reisen CA, Zea MC, Bianchi FT, Echeverry JJ. Predictors of unprotected anal intercourse among HIV-positive Latino gay and bisexual men. AIDS Behav. 2004;8:379–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moors AC, Matsick JL, Ziegler A, Rubin J, Conley TD. Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual non-monogamy: robust and worthy of additional research. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2013;13:52–69.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fleckenstein J, Bergstrand CR, Cox DW. What do polys want? An overview of the 2012 loving more survey. Loving more. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.lovemore.com/polyamory-articles/2012-lovingmore-polyamory-survey/. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  38. Balzarini RN, Shumlich E, Kohut T, Campbell L. Dimming the “halo” around monogamy: re-assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships as a function of personal relationship. Front Psychol. 2018;894.

  39. Johnson SM, Giuliano TA, Herselman JR, Hutzler KT. Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychol and Sex. 2015;6:325–39.

  40. Lehmiller JJ. A comparison of sexual health history and practices among monogamous and consensually nonmonogamous sexual partners. J Sex Med. 2015;12:2022–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Conley TD, Moors AC, Ziegler A, Karathanasis C. Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1559–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hutzler KT, Giuliano TA, Herselman JR, Johnson SM. Three’s a crowd: public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychol and Sex. 2016;7:69–87.

  43. Greeley A. Marital infidelity. Society. 1994;31:9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wiederman MW. Extramarital sex: prevalence and correlates in a national survey. J Sex Res. 1997;34:167–74.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hinton-Dampf AM. Non-monogamous individuals compared to monogamous individuals: the differences in their relationships, specifically sexual risk behaviors and level of trust. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO; 2011.

  47. Conley TD, Matsick J, Moors AC, Ziegler A. Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: theories, methods, and new directions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12:205–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Balzarini RN, McDonald J, Kohut T, Harman JJ, Lehmiller JJ, Holmes BM. Compersion: when jealousy inducing situations don’t (just) induce jealousy. Arch Sex Behav. in press.

  49. Mogilski JK, Reeve SD, Nicolas SCA, Donaldson SH, Mitchell VE, Welling LLM. Jealousy, consent, and compersion within monogamous and consensually nonmonogamous romantic relationships. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48:1811–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Balzarini RN, Muise A. Does diversifying sexual need fulfilment across partners in polyamorous relationships buffer the detriments of unmet sexual ideals? Arch Sex Behav. conditional acceptance.

  51. Perel E. Mating in captivity: unlocking erotic intelligence. New York: HarperCollins; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Finkel EJ, Hui CM, Carswell KL, Larson GM. The suffocation of marriage: climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychol Inq. 2014;25:1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Conley TD, Moors AC. More oxygen please! How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage. Psychol Inq. 2014;25:56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  54. • Moors AC, Matsick JL, Schechinger H. Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships: a review and insights for moving forward. Eur Psychol. 2017;22:55–71. This article reviews research CNM and monogamous relationships and examines the unique and shared benefits of engaging in either CNM or monogamous relationships, discussing implications and future directions of this research so far.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy AP, Joel S, Muise A. A prospective investigation of the decision to open up a romantic relationship. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2020:194855061989715 advanced online publication.

  56. Mogilski JK, Memering SL, Welling LL, Shackelford TK. Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:407–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cook E. Commitment in polyamorous relationships (unpublished master’s thesis). Regis University, Colorado; 2005.

  58. Sheff E. Polyamorous families, same-sex marriage, and the slippery slope. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2011;40:487–520.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hatfield E, Rapson RL. Companionate love scale. Measurement instrument database for social science. 2013. Retrieved from https://www.midss.org/content/companionate-love-scale. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  60. Hatfield E, Sprecher S. Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. J Adolesc. 1986;9:383–410.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ritchie A, Barker M. Hot bi babes and feminist families: polyamorous women speak out. Lesb and Gay Psychol Rev. 2007;8:141–51.

  62. Sheff E. The polyamorists next door: inside multiple partner relationships and families. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hazan C, Shaver PR. Attachment theory as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychol Inq. 1994;5:1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hazan C, Shaver P. Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:511–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. DeWall CN, Lambert NM, Slotter EB, Pond RS, Deckman T, Finkel, E. J.…Fincham, F. D. So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;101:1302–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hazan C, Campa M, Gur-Yaish N. What is adult attachment? In: Mikulincer M, Goodman GS, editors. Dynamics of romantic love: attachment, caregiving, and sex. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. p. 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hazan C, Zeifman D. Pair bonds as attachments: evaluating the evidence. In: Cassidy J, Shaver P, editors. Handbook of attachment. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 336–54.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Moors AC, Ryan W, Chopik WJ. Multiple loves: the effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Personal Individ Differ. 2019;147:102–10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work has been supported by a Mitacs Accelerate and Elevate Grant awarded to Rhonda Balzarini and an Insight Development Grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) awarded to Amy Muise and Rhonda Balzarini.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 78666, USA

    Rhonda N. Balzarini

  2. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Amy Muise

Authors
  1. Rhonda N. Balzarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Muise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhonda N. Balzarini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Rhonda Balzarini declares the receipt of grants from Mitacs and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council during the preparation of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Female Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balzarini, R.N., Muise, A. Beyond the Dyad: a Review of the Novel Insights Gained From Studying Consensual Non-monogamy. Curr Sex Health Rep 12, 398–404 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00297-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00297-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation