Content uploaded by Jennifer L. Piemonte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer L. Piemonte on Aug 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Sexual satisfaction among
individuals in monogamous
and consensually non-
monogamous relationships
Terri D. Conley
Jennifer L. Piemonte
Staci Gusakova
Jennifer D. Rubin
University of Michigan, USA
Abstract
Monogamous individuals are believed to have better sex lives than those who are
consensually non-monogamous (CNM). We compared the sexual satisfaction of CNM
and monogamous individuals and also considered the relationship satisfaction of par-
ticipants utilizing a non-targeted sample of CNM participants. We found that mono-
gamous people reported slightly lower sexual satisfaction and lower orgasm rates than
those who are CNM. Moreover, the type of CNM in which a person engages is
important: swingers consistently reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous
individuals, whereas those in open relationships had equivalent levels of satisfaction to
those in monogamous relationships. Relationship satisfaction did not differ between
CNM and monogamous groups. These findings do not support the perception that
people in monogamous relationships have better sex than CNM individuals.
Keywords
Consensual non-monogamy, monogamy, relationships, sexual satisfaction
From the legal realm to media representation, from political discourse to psychological
research, monogamy is heralded as favorable and advantageous for both individuals and
Corresponding author:
Terri D. Conley, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA.
Email: conleyt@umich.edu
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships
2018, Vol. 35(4) 509–531
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0265407517743078
journals.sagepub.com/home/spr
J S P R
society (Barker & Langdridge, 2010; Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017; Conley,
Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2013; Kipnis, 2004). Moreover, monogamous
relationships are praised for their presumed sexual health benefits, such as decreasing the
spread of sexually transmitted diseases (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013). However, alterna-
tives to monogamous relationships are beginning to emerge in the public consciousness
(King, 2017; Moors, 2016). In the current research, we specifically consider how some of
these relationship alternatives, which fall under the umbrella term consensual non-
monogamy (CNM), compare to monogamous relationships on sexual satisfaction, orgasm,
and frequency of sex.
Consensual non-monogamy
CNM relationships are those in which all partners have established an agreement to
allow extradyadic sexual and/or romantic partners (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler,
2013; Moors, Edelstein, & Conley, 2012). Research is mounting to suggest that CNM
relationships are equally as satisfying as monogamous relationships (Conley et al., 2017;
see Rube1 & Bogaert, 2015, for a review of prior research). However, to our knowledge,
the sexual satisfaction of people in CNM versus monogamous relationships has not been
systematically compared. Even research addressing sexual frequency has only been
compared among gay male samples (Blasband & Peplau, 1985). Thus, we considered the
sexual satisfaction and frequency of people in (various types of) CNM relationships,
compared to those in monogamous relationships.
Approximately 4–5%of partnered people identify their relationships as CNM (Conley,
Moors et al., 2013; Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Conley, 2014). National samples of
single Americans demonstrate that approximately 20%of single people have been involved
in a CNM relationship at some point in their life (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher, &
Garcia, 2016). In the present research, we considered three types of CNM: (1) swinging,in
which a couple mutually engages in extradyadic sex, usually at parties or other social set-
tings; (2) polyamory, in which partners may have loving, romantic relationships with more
than one person simultaneously; and (3) open relationships, in which members of a couple
independently pursue sex-based relationships outside of theirprimary dyad. We did nothave
specific hypotheses about differences between these groups but reasoned that the disparate
approaches to CNM might manifest in the individuals’ experiences with sexuality.
The central question in the current research is whether people in CNM relationships
experience similar sexual satisfaction to those in monogamous relationships. We con-
sider hypotheses about the sexuality of monogamous and CNM individuals derived from
three sets of literatures: (1) lay perceptions of CNM sexuality, (2) quantitative research
addressing general relationship satisfaction among CNM and monogamous people, and
(3) qualitative and limited quantitative research addressing sexual satisfaction of indi-
viduals in CNM relationships.
Lay perceptions
Monogamous relationships and people in monogamous relationships are rated more
positively than CNM relationships and people in CNM relationships (Burris, 2014;
510 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
Conley et al., 2013; Grunt-Mejer & Campbell, 2016; Matsick, Conley, Ziegler, Moors, &
Rubin, 2014). This preference for monogamy is evident on dimensions related to rela-
tionship quality (e.g., trust in one’s partner) as well as on arbitrary measures irrelevant to
relationships (e.g., commitment to recycling; Conley et al., 2013). People also associate
monogamous (but not CNM) relationships with commitment (Barker, 2005), sexual
health (Hutzler, Giuliano, Herselman, & Johnson, 2016), trust (Ritchie & Barker, 2006),
and passion (Conley, Moors et al., 2013).
Further, people believe that monogamous couples have better and more frequent sex
and more satisfying sex lives than those involved in CNM (Conley, Moors et al., 2013).
Participants perceived that individuals engage in CNM relationships because they are not
fulfilled by their primary partner (Conley et al., 2013; Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, Rubin, &
Conley, 2013). Likewise, non-swingers believe couples choose to swing because they
are no longer attracted to their partners (Anapol, 1997; Easton & Hardy, 2011; Jenks,
1985). Ultimately, CNM relationships are considered both lower in relationship quality
and in sexual satisfaction.
The central question of the current research is whether these perceptions of CNM
people and relationships are accurate. Understanding people in CNM relationships seems
especially important now, as CNM relationships are growing in popularity (King, 2017;
Moors, 2016). In essence, the main point of our research is to determine whether ste-
reotypes about people in CNM relationships as being less than sexually satisfied and
having less frequent sex can be supported by empirical data.
Little research exists to address questions of quality and character of CNM sexuality.
However, we draw on two sources of information below—assessments of relationship
quality of CNM and monogamous relationships, and interviews with CNM people about
their sexual relationships—both of which appear to contradict public perceptions of
CNM relationships.
Quantitative research addressing relationship quality
A strong, positive association exists between sexual satisfaction and relationship satis-
faction (Byers, 2005; Schoenfeld, Loving, Pope, Huston, & Stulhofer, 2017). That is,
people who are sexually satisfied in their relationship are likely to have a high level of
satisfaction with their relationship overall (Byers & Wang, 2004; Christopher &
Sprecher, 2000; Fallis, Rehman, Woody, & Purdon, 2016). Therefore, to predict whether
CNM people would report higher levels of satisfaction than monogamous individuals,
we looked for research on general relationship satisfaction. Conley et al. (2017) found no
major differences between monogamous and CNM people on ratings of satisfaction,
commitment, and passion; both groups reported high relationship quality. Furthermore,
CNM people reported less jealousy and greater trust in their partners compared to people
in monogamous relationships.
Other studies corroborate findings that CNM people are satisfied in their relation-
ships, utilizing general quantitative measures of relationship satisfaction and samples of
participants who are in at least one type of CNM arrangement (Aumer, Bellew, Hatfield,
& Heck, 2014; Dixon, 1985; Mogilski, Memering, Welling, & Shackelford, 2017;
Ramey, 1975; Rubin & Adams, 1986; see Rubel & Bogaert, 2015, for a review). For
Conley et al. 511
example, swingers and people in open relationships rate their relationships as happier
than do married monogamous couples (Bergstrand & Williams, 2000; Fleckenstein &
Cox, 2015). Additionally, polyamorous individuals rate their relationships as having
higher intimacy and trust than do members of monogamous relationships (Morrison,
Beaulieu, Brockman, & Beaglaoich, 2013).
Although recent work has demonstrated equivalent ratings of relationship satisfaction
among members of monogamous and CNM relationships in general, differences emerged
when researchers compared monogamous relationships to specific types of CNM rela-
tionships (Conley et al., 2017). Specifically, polyamorous people reported higher levels of
relationship quality than monogamous people, whereas swingers reported levels similar
to those of monogamous people. However, people in open relationships reported sig-
nificantly lower levels of relationship quality than monogamous people. To further
explore how these differences in relationship adjustment may translate to sexual satis-
faction, in the current research, we investigated how sexual satisfaction differs between
people in monogamous relationships and those in various forms of CNM relationships.
Previous findings suggest that, overall, people in CNM arrangements are equally as
satisfied in their relationships as monogamous people. Given that sexual satisfaction and
relationship satisfaction are highly correlated, it is reasonable to predict that people in
CNM and monogamous relationships would also be equally sexually satisfied (Byers,
2005; Fallis et al., 2016). In sum, we aim to supplement work on CNM relationship
satisfaction by specifically addressing sexual satisfaction.
We have one concern about research on relationship satisfaction among monogamous
and CNM groups: To our knowledge, all research comparing the relationship satisfaction
of monogamous and CNM individuals has relied on samples who were recruited because
of their association with a CNM-related group. This introduces the possibility that people
in CNM groups may feel pressured to frame their relationships positively when
answering surveys (Conley et al., 2017). In this research, we address this issue by
examining relationship satisfaction among a sample of people who were not recruited
because of their CNM identity.
Qualitative and quantitative research on sexual satisfaction among CNM people
To derive predictions about sexual satisfaction of monogamous and CNM people, we
can also look to qualitative research from members of these communities. Polyamorous
individuals indicate that their relationships allow them to express their sexuality (Barker,
2005). In Barker and Ritchie’s (2007) interviews with polyamorous women, participants
reported feeling free to explore their sexuality and feeling empowered as a consequence
of being able to experience sex with multiple partners. These data suggest that poly-
amorous relationships provide a context in which people can foster their own sexual
fulfillment.
CNM relationships may also provide a context for individuals to participate in a
variety of sexual activities—particularly among swingers. Interviews with heterosexual
swingers revealed that many swinging couples see swinging as a way to enhance their
sexual satisfaction (Kimberly & Hans, 2015). Some swingers mentioned that swinging
allowed them to participate in sexual activities that may otherwise go unexplored in
512 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
their relationship due to different sexual preferences (Kimberly & Hans, 2015). Limited
quantitative data with swinging couples support this conclusion. For example, swinging
couples expressed that being able to engage in swinging with their partner increased
their sexual fulfillment (de Visser & McDonald, 2007). In older research, swingers
reported more liberal sexual attitudes and believed they were more satisfied with their
sex lives than non-swingers (Dixon, 1984, 1985; Jenks, 1985). However, available
quantitative research examining sexual satisfaction in CNM relationships has exclu-
sively addressed swingers (Jenks, 1985) and has not compared swingers to mono-
gamous people (Fernandes, 2009).
Note that the research in this area has generally focused on only one type of CNM
relationship (e.g., only swingers or only polyamorous individuals) but the findings are
consistent across different CNM groups. Overall, these qualitative data, and some
initial quantitative data, suggest that CNM individuals (based on studies of both
swingers and polyamorous people) are likely to report experiencing high levels of
sexual satisfaction.
We advanced existing research using larger samples, quantitative approaches, and by
including comparison groups of monogamous people—that is, we compared the sexual
satisfaction of people in monogamous and CNM relationships. In addition, we provided
conceptual replication of findings across two samples. Finally, to our knowledge, all
prior research on relational adjustment in CNM and monogamous groups has relied on
recruitment methods that garner CNM participants from sources associated with their
particular CNM group (e.g., websites for swingers). Therefore, participants may have
felt pressured to portray their relationships more positively than they might otherwise
(Conley et al., 2017). We addressed this lacuna by including one study in which parti-
cipants were recruited via general, non-CNM-related sources.
Summary of current research
We assessed sexual satisfaction and frequency among CNM and monogamous
groups, utilizing several different measures across two studies. We also compared
three different types of CNM groups—swingers, those in open relationships, and
those who are polyamorous—to monogamous individuals to determine whether any
of these groups experience higher or lower sexual satisfaction than monogamous
people. The literature provided competing predictions about CNM and monogamous
individuals’ sexual satisfaction. If lay perceptions of these relationships are accurate,
we would predict that people in CNM relationships would be less sexually satisfied
than people in monogamous relationships. The main purpose of this study is to
determine whether laypeople’s presumptions about the sexual quality of CNM
relationships are valid.
By contrast, based on quantitative research on relationship satisfaction, we would
predict that people in CNM relationships would report equivalent levels of sexual
satisfaction to those in monogamous relationships. Finally, based on limited quantitative
and ample qualitative reports of sexual satisfaction from members of CNM communities,
we would predict generally higher levels of sexual satisfaction among those who identify
Conley et al. 513
as CNM, because members of these communities report high levels of happiness with
their sex lives.
We measured sexual satisfaction in two ways: First by directly asking participants
to report on their satisfaction and second by including questions specifically about
whether the participants had orgasmed; orgasm is strongly associated with sexual
satisfaction for both women and men (Armstrong, England, & Fogarty, 2012; Sprecher
& Cate, 2004; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993; Young, Denny, Luquis, & Young, 1998).
We also measured sexual frequency. These constructs reflect established stereotypes
about CNM relationships, which we seek to examine.
Study 1
In Study 1, we assessed sexual satisfaction among monogamous and CNM individuals.
We also compared monogamous individuals to those who were swingers, polyamorous,
or in open relationships.
Method
Participants and procedure
Full details about participants and procedure are available in Conley et al. (2017).
Participants were recruited through Internet sources, including craigslist (volunteers
section) and websites and listservs directed toward people in CNM relationships—
thus, we over-recruited for members of CNM groups. Participants completed an
anonymous survey online, which included questions about sexual satisfaction and
sexual frequency.
Identifying participants’ relationship and monogamy status. Participants were first asked,
“Right now, are you romantically or sexually involved with one or multiple partners?” If
they responded affirmatively, they were then asked
Have you and your partner agreed to be monogamous? By monogamy, we mean that you
have agreed to have a sexual and romantic relationship with only one person. This may
include a specific conversation about monogamy or may be implied in your relationship.
Participants who indicated that they were not monogamous were provided with three
CNM relationship types (i.e., open relationship, polyamory, and swinging; Conley et al.,
2017) and asked to choose the one that best described their relationship situation. Those
who indicated any of these types of three relationships were identified as CNM. Finally,
we only retained CNM participants who reported having a primary partner—that is, one
partner to whom they are substantially more committed than any others. This was done to
ensure that we had an appropriate comparison to monogamous relationships. If we
included those who have no primary partner or who have more than one primary partner,
it would be difficult to determine which partner to compare with; this choice does mean
we are in essence examining participants whose approach to CNM is most similar to
monogamy (see Conley et al., 2017).
514 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
Additional inclusion criteria. We retained only participants whose primary partner was of a
different gender than they were. We also examined only those over 25 because so few
people in the sample who were under 25 identified as being CNM.
1
Final sample. The final sample included 1,507 monogamous individuals and 617 CNM
individuals (see Table 1 for breakdown of demographics by monogamy status). About
63%of participants identified as female and 83%identified as White/European Amer-
ican, with an average age of 39. Among CNM participants, 51%of were polyamorous,
25%were in swinging relationships, and 25%were in open relationships. Participants
had been in their relationships for an average of about 10 years (121 months).
Measures
We asked participants about their sexual experiences in their relationships; all questions
referenced one person. For monogamous participants, this person was their monogamous
partner. For CNM participants, it was their primary partner. To promote engagement with
the survey, we developed survey logic so that the participant’s partner’s initials were piped
into many items on the questionnaire instead of “my partner,” or similar phrases.
Sexual satisfaction with partner. We asked participants to indicate sexual satisfaction vis-a`-
vis their partner. When the data were collected, we were unable to identify a sexual
satisfaction scale that was (a) appropriate for both CNM and monogamous populations
and (b) satisfied concerns outlined by McClelland (2011) about different scale anchor
usage by different populations. Therefore, we wrote our own items. Participants indi-
cated their satisfaction by answering items about the four dimensions of their sexual
experience with their partner: How frequently the two of us have sex together; How much
physical pleasure I experience during our sexual encounters, How much physical
pleasure (partner) experiences during our sexual encounters; How I feel after the sexual
Table 1. Demographics, Study 1.
Variable Monogamous CNM
Participants N
Age M(SD)
Relationship length in months M(SD)
Gender (%)
1,507
39.82 (11.51)
98.55 (109.76)
617
40.41 (11.20)
110.09 (109.83)
Female 66.9 52.4
Male 33.1 47.6
Race/ethnicity (%)
African American/Black 3.4 3.9
Asian American 2.4 1.3
European American 82.4 83.6
LatinX 5.1 6.0
Other 6.7 5.0
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Conley et al. 515
encounter with (partner). Participants indicated their satisfaction with each of these
dimensions on 7-point scales, ranging from 1 ¼Very Dissatisfied to 6 ¼Very Satisfied,
a¼.97.
Sexual satisfaction with partner (last encounter). We also asked about sexual satisfaction
with the last encounter with the participant’s (primary) partner. Specifically, participants
indicated whether: The sex was absolutely mind blowing, I was thoroughly physically
satisfied, (Partner) was thoroughly physically satisfied, I was in a good mood after the
encounter. Participants indicated agreement with each of these items on scales ranging
from 1¼Strongly Disagree to 5¼Strongly Agree,a¼.96.
Orgasm during last encounter. Participants responded to the item: The last time I had sex
with (my partner) I had an orgasm. They were given response items of yes,no,andunsure.
Due to the difficulty of interpreting unsure responses, they were coded as missing data.
Frequency of sex with partner scale. We created a scale including two questions about
sexual frequency: In the previous 7 days, how many times have you engaged in sex with
(partner)? and in an AVERAGE week, how many times do you engage in sex with
(partner)? (a¼.89).
Results
The goal of these analyses was to determine whether monogamous relationships are
associated with higher sexual satisfaction or more frequent sex than CNM relationships.
First, we compared CNM individuals as a group to monogamous individuals, then we
examined individuals in different types CNM relationship styles (swingers, polyamorous
individuals, and people in open relationships) to people in monogamous relationships.
These effects were not moderated by age, gender, or relationship length (see online
supplementary analyses); therefore, we did not control for any of those variables in the
present analyses. To control for the experiment-wise error in each study, we utilized
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for continuous variables and Holm’s
sequential correction for w
2
analyses. Correlations among continuous measures are
presented in Table 2.
Comparisons of Monogamous Versus CNM Participants
First, we conducted a MANOVA comparing monogamous and CNM participants on their
sexual satisfaction overall, during the last encounter, and sexual frequency. Significant
differences emerged between the monogamous and CNM groups, F(3, 1495) ¼8.20,
p<.0005,Z
2
¼.02. Both measures of sexual satisfaction contributed significantly to this
difference, but sexual frequency did not. Notably, participants’ reported rates of sexual
frequency appear to be higher than expected for all groups, averaging 12 times in the last
month, whereas the literature on sexual frequency among adults, especially studies using
diary methods, indicates an average of about 8 times a month (Graham, Catania, Brand,
Duong, & Canchola, 2003; Leigh, Gillmore, & Morrison, 1998; Rubin & Campbell, 2011).
516 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
This suggests that participants might be inclined to remember more sex than actually
happened, an issue to which we will return in the next study.
We used t-tests to determine whether monogamous people as a group reported higher
levels of satisfaction than CNM people as a group; by contrast, CNM people reported
higher levels of sexual satisfaction than those who are monogamous (Table 3).
Next, we conducted a w
2
analysis to determine whether more monogamous people or
CNM people orgasmed during their last sexual encounter with their (primary) partner.
Significantly, more CNM people orgasmed during their last encounter (83%) than
monogamous people (72%), w
2
(1) ¼19.76, p< .0005, j¼.12.
In sum, CNM individuals reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction on various mea-
sures (sexual satisfaction overall, in last encounter,and orgasm) but not in sexual frequency.
Comparison of Polyamorous, Swinging, and Open Relationships to
Monogamous Relationships
Although people in polyamorous, swinging, and open relationships are all CNM, these
relationships may take different forms. We were curious as to whether these various
Table 3. Comparisons of monogamous versus CNM participants in sexual satisfaction with
partner/primary partner, Study 1.
Dependent variable
Mono
M(SD)
CNM
M(SD)tdfpd
Sexual satisfaction: overall 5.36 (1.41) 5.60 (1.27) –3.12 873 .002 .17
Sexual satisfaction: last encounter 3.73 (0.96) 3.99 (0.86) –5.09 882 .000 .29
Frequency of sex 3.25 (2.26) 3.41 (2.36) –1.16 763 .25 .07
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Table 2. Correlations, Study 1.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5
Monogamous
1. Sexual frequency —
2. Sexual satisfaction with partner .402** —
3. Sexual satisfaction with partner (last encounter) .336** .922** —
4. Age –.196** –.118** –.118** —
5. Relationship length (months) –.250** –.142** –.140** .500** —
CNM
1. Sexual frequency —
2. Sexual satisfaction with partner .292** —
3. Sexual satisfaction with partner (last encounter) .318** .830** —
4. Age –.091 –.033 –.051 —
5. Relationship length (months) –.151** –.043 –.051 .396** —
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
**p< .01, two tailed.
Conley et al. 517
approaches to CNM yielded differences in the participants’ sexual satisfaction, orgasm
occurrence, and sexual frequency relative to people in monogamous relationships. A
MANOVA revealed group differences in the continuous variables, F(9, 4485) ¼4.44,
p< .0005, Z
2
¼.009. Both sexual satisfaction and sexual frequency contributed signif-
icantly to this result.
We conducted one-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) to ascertain differences among
these groups, following up with planned contrasts when ANOVAs were significant (see
Table 4). One-way ANOVAs testing (1) sexual satisfaction with a partner, (2) sexual
satisfaction in the last encounter, and (3) sexual frequency were each significant—indicating
differences among the groups on each of these dependent variables. Likewise, overall,
differences emerged between the monogamous and CNM groups in the superordinate w
2
addressing differences in orgasm rates across groups, w
2
(3) ¼20.20, p<.0005,j¼.12.
Next, we compared each CNM group to the monogamous group individually. Notably,
we only conducted planned contrasts and follow-up w
2
analyses that compared mono-
gamous individuals to each of the three CNM groups (That is, we did not test whether
polyamorous individuals differed from swingers, for example, given that the focus of the
current research was to ascertain whether the lay perception of CNM individuals as having
lower satisfaction than monogamous individuals can be empirically supported.)
2
Polyamorous versus monogamous sexual satisfaction. Polyamorous people reported signifi-
cantly higher sexual satisfaction overall, as well as higher sexual satisfaction after the most
recent sexual encounter, than did monogamous individuals (Table 5). More polyamorous
people reported orgasming in their last encounter (84%) than monogamous people (72%),
w
2
(1) ¼14.81, p<.0005,j¼.12. No differences in sexual frequency emerged.
Open versus monogamous sexual satisfaction. People in open relationships and mono-
gamous people reported equivalent levels of sexual satisfaction. However, more people
in open relationships reported orgasming during their last encounter (83%) than those in
monogamous relationships (72%), w
2
(1) ¼5.32, p¼.02, j¼.07 (Table 5). Sexual
frequency levels were equivalent among people in monogamous and open relationships.
Swingers versus monogamous sexual satisfaction. Finally, swingers reported greater satis-
faction both with their sex lives overall and in their most recent encounter than
Table 4. One-way ANOVA comparing monogamous and various CNM groups, Study 1.
Measure
Mono
M(SD)
Poly
M(SD)
Swing
M(SD)
Open
M(SD)df F p Z
2
Sexual satisfaction:
overall
5.36 (1.41) 5.56 (1.26) 5.78 (1.38) 5.46 (1.19) 3, 1,498 3.80 .01 .01
Sexual satisfaction:
last encounter
3.73 (.96) 4.02 (.83) 4.04 (.92) 3.88 (.87) 3, 1,498 8.44 .000 .02
Frequency of sex 3.26 (2.26) 3.18 (2.27) 4.15 (2.43) 3.31 (2.41) 3, 1,498 4.47 .004 .01
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
518 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
monogamous people (Table 5). Swingers were equally as likely to have orgasmed in
their most recent encounter as monogamous individuals, w
2
(1) ¼2.94, p¼.09. Swingers
reported more frequent sex than did monogamous individuals.
Of subsidiary interest in the current research is relationship satisfaction. CNM groups
in this sample have previously been demonstrated to be equivalent in relationship
satisfaction (Conley et al., 2017); we will consider the relationship satisfaction of par-
ticipants recruited from non-CNM venues in Study 2.
Discussion
This study supported the hypothesis drawn from qualitative research on sexual satis-
faction and contradicted the perceptions of laypeople concerning the sex lives of CNM
people: overall, CNM people were significantly more satisfied than individuals in
monogamous relationships, rather than vice versa.
Likewise, the lay stereotype that monogamous couples have more frequent sex than
CNM couples was not supported—overall levels of frequency were about the same in
CNM partnerships as in monogamous ones. In fact, among one group—swingers—
sexual frequency was higher than among monogamous individuals.
However, this study is based on samples that were recruited from CNM organizations,
websites, and listservs. This recruitment method could introduce a bias such that CNM
people feel obligated to present the most positive aspects of their relationships to
researchers. Therefore, in the next study, we utilized recruitment techniques that did not
emphasize the CNM participants’ relationship identity.
Study 2
We conducted Study 2 to determine whether we could replicate the findings of Study 1
with a non-targeted sample of CNM participants. We again asked about sexual satis-
faction and orgasm. In terms of sexual frequency, we improved on the prior items that
Table 5. Results of planned contrasts between CNM and monogamous groups, Study 1.
Measure df t p d
Polyamorous (P) and monogamous (M) MP-M
Sexual satisfaction: overall .22 395 2.42 .016 .15
Sexual satisfaction: last encounter .29 407 4.71 .000 .31
Frequency of sex –.07 362 –0.44 .658 .00
Open (O) and monogamous (M) MO-M
Sexual satisfaction: overall .10 123 0.79 .43 .08
Sexual satisfaction: last encounter .15 120 1.59 .12 .16
Frequency of sex .06 114 0.22 .83 .04
Swinger (S) and monogamous (M) MS-M
Sexual satisfaction: overall .42 103 2.71 .008 .30
Sexual satisfaction: last encounter .31 103 2.99 .003 .32
Frequency of sex .89 100 3.52 .001 .42
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Conley et al. 519
may have been influenced by memory bias by asking participants if they had sex today or
yesterday.
We recruited participants from general sources rather than CNM venues and did not
indicate that we were specifically investigating CNM relationships. Based on prior
research (Conley et al., 2017), we know that participants in the first Study 1 had gen-
erally high levels of relationship satisfaction, which is associated with sexual satisfac-
tion. Participants in this study responded to a scale addressing general relationship
satisfaction—which allowed us to assess the relationship satisfaction of an untargeted
sample of CNM participants in comparison to monogamous participants.
The hypotheses concerning differences in sexual satisfaction for CNM and mono-
gamous participants in Study 2 were preregistered with the Open Science Framework.
The link is: https://osf.io/79j3n/? view_only¼3d740e6abf17498699abf5cb0bd0aa99.
We preregistered after the data had been collected (but not yet analyzed).
We hypothesized, based on Study 1, that CNM participants would report higher
sexual satisfaction than monogamous participants. The remainder of our analyses were
conducted to determine whether we could replicate the findings from Study 1 in a new
sample—we were not certain what hypotheses to make about sexual frequency given that
the findings from Study 1 were inconclusive. Also, at the time of preregistration, we had
not analyzed the orgasm data from Study 1. Finally, many of the preregistered
hypotheses pertain to a manuscript in preparation, rather than the current research. We
had not made the decision that these would be separate manuscripts at the time of
preregistration.
Method
As in Study 1, participants in the CNM and monogamous groups responded to parallel
questionnaires. CNM participants answered questions about their “primary” partner,
whereas monogamous participants answered questions about their partner. We used
Amazon’s MTurk and Qualtrics’ recruitment services to recruit participants for a study
directed toward people who identify as being in a relationship. Unlike Study 1, parti-
cipants were not recruited from sources related to consensual non-monogamy; that is, the
CNM participants were included from a general call for participants who were in rela-
tionships. Note that when we had recruited enough CNM people, the Qualtrics
recruitment service ceased including participants in the study who identified as mono-
gamous (i.e., they were dropped from the study after screening questions)—which is why
the percentage of CNM participants in the sample was so high.
The participants (n¼1,270) included 62%women and 38%men. They were 70%
monogamous and 30%CNM. Among the CNM participants, 52%were polyamorous,
30%were in open relationships, and 18%were swingers. The participants were 72%
White, with the remainder of participants about equally distributed among African
American, Asian American, LatinX, and multiracial categories. The mean age was 35.
The average relationship length was about 5 years (63 months). In this sample, we
retained participants under 25 due to sufficient sample size of the CNM group under 25.
We also retained participants, regardless of the gender composition of the participants’
(primary) dyad (i.e., female–male, male–male, or male–female), because all participants
520 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
were recruited through the same method. Demographics comparing monogamous and
CNM people are summarized in Table 6.
Measures
Identification of monogamy status. As in Study 1, participants were asked whether they
were in a monogamous relationship. Those who identified as monogamous in this
question were considered part of the monogamous group. People who indicated that they
were not monogamous saw descriptions of polyamorous, swinger, and open relationship
styles; if they indicated that their relationship fit one of these descriptions, they were
considered part of the CNM group.
3
General relationship satisfaction. To assess whether participants in the two groups differed
in global relationship satisfaction, we utilized the Relationship Assessment Scale
(Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998), a¼.86.
Sexual satisfaction. We used the same items as we did in Study 1 to assess sexual satis-
faction but also included an item to assess sexual satisfaction more generally. Specifi-
cally, we asked participants: How satisfied are you with your sex life, considering all
facets? Participants responded to each of these items on a scale ranging from 1 ¼Very
dissatisfied to 7 ¼Very satisfied;a¼.86.
Orgasm during last encounter. We assessed orgasm during last encounter with the same
item as Study 1.
Sexual frequency; Sex today/yesterday. In the prior study, we inquired about sex within the
last week. However, given that the frequency of sex reported in Study 1 appears to be
higher than expected for all groups, we reasoned that this may have been an
Table 6. Demographics, Study 2.
Variable Monogamous CNM
Participants N
Age M(SD)
Relationship length in months M(SD)
Gender (%)
1,177
34.46 (12.71)
62.76 (47.25)
510
34.67 (10.80)
66.48 (49.17)
Female 63.0 54.3
Male 36.5 41.8
Race/ethnicity (%)
African American/Black 5.3 5.3
Asian American 5.4 2.5
European American 72.6 72.2
LatinX 6.0 5.9
Other 10.5 14.1
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Conley et al. 521
unrealistically long time frame to expect participants to have kept track of their sexual
encounters without the aid of a daily diary (Graham et al., 2003). In an attempt to combat
memory slips, in this study, we asked participants: Did you have sex with (your partner)
today? and Did you have sex with (your partner) yesterday? Participants who reported
sex with their partner today or yesterday were coded as having had recent sex. Those who
did not have sex today or yesterday were coded as not having had recent sex.
Results
As in Study 1, we probed for moderation of results by gender, age, and relationship
length. Because participants had either a same-gender partner or other-gender partner,
we also considered partner gender. We did find that participant gender moderated the
association between relationship type and sexual satisfaction (such that monogamous
women experienced more satisfaction than CNM women, but monogamous men expe-
rienced less satisfaction than CNM men), but the effect was small and not consistent
across Study 1 and Study 2. We did not consider this effect further. Similarly, we found
an effect of relationship length on the association between relationship type and sexual
frequency, but this effect was neither present in Study 1 nor in another exploratory
measure of sexual frequency within the same study. Finally, the effects of relationship
type on relationship satisfaction were moderated by relationship length, but these effects
were not found in Study 1 (analyzed for Conley et al., 2017). Therefore, these three
effects are presented only in the supplemental analyses. Correlations among the vari-
ables are presented in Table 7.
Comparisons of Monogamous Versus CNM Participants
First, we conducted a MANOVA on sexual satisfaction and general relationship satis-
faction, which demonstrated differences among the groups, F(2, 1330) ¼6.54, p¼.001,
Z
2
¼.01. Sexual satisfaction contributed significantly to this finding: CNM individuals
reported higher sexual satisfaction with their (primary) partner than monogamous
Table 7. Correlations, Study 2.
Measure 1 2 3 4
Monogamous
1. Relationship satisfaction —
2. Sexual satisfaction .617** —
3. Age –.131** –.112** —
4. Relationship length –.089** –.184** .561** —
CNM
1. Relationship satisfaction —
2. Sexual satisfaction .569** —
3. Age –.122* –.091 —
4. Relationship length .129 –.097 .399** —
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
*p< .05, two tailed; **p< .01, two tailed.
522 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
individuals, as shown by t-tests in Table 8. CNM participants were also significantly
more likely to have orgasmed during their last sexual encounter (84%) than mono-
gamous participants (78%), w
2
(1) ¼5.78, p¼.016, j¼07.
In terms of sexual frequency, significantly more CNM participants reported having
sex with their partner today or yesterday (52%) than monogamous participants (37%),
w
2
(1) ¼22.29, p< .0005, j¼12. In sum, we conceptually replicated the findings from
Study 1 in a separate sample. Once again, these effect sizes are quite small.
Consistent with prior research and particularly with the sample for Study 1, there was
no difference between monogamous and CNM participants in their general relationship
satisfaction, t(1,491) ¼–.35, p¼.73, d¼.02. Thus, participants who were recruited
independently of their CNM status were just as satisfied in their relationships as
monogamous participants. This finding suggests that self-selection of participants into
the CNM group does not lead to inflated assessments of satisfaction vis a vis mono-
gamous participants.
Overall, we find, similar to Study 1, that CNM participants had higher levels of sexual
satisfaction than monogamous participants—in terms of stated satisfaction and presence
of orgasm. In this study, CNM people also had more frequent sex than monogamous
participants.
Comparison of Polyamorous, Swinging, and Open Relationships to
Monogamous Relationships
To compare the different CNM groups to the monogamous group, we again conducted
a MANOVA involving relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. Differences
emerged between the groups on the overall MANOVA, F(6, 2,658) ¼7.59, p< .0005,
Z
2
¼.02. As shown in Table 9 via one-way ANOVAs, sexual satisfaction contributed
Table 8. Comparisons of monogamous versus CNM participants in sexual satisfaction with
partner/primary partner, Study 2.
Dependent variable
Mono
M(SD)
CNM
M(SD)tdfpd
Relationship satisfaction 4.75 (.86) 4.77 (.80) –0.72 850 .71 .03
Sexual satisfaction 4.86 (.86) 5.17 (.78) –3.54 612 .000 .22
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Table 9. One-way ANOVA comparing monogamous and various CNM groups, Study 2.
Measure
Swing
M(SD)
Poly
M(SD)
Open
M(SD)
Mono
M(SD)df F p Z
2
Relationship satisfaction 4.83 (.67) 4.92 (.73) 4.50 (.85) 4.75 (.86) 3, 1,492 6.72 .000 .01
Sexual satisfaction 5.36 (.70) 5.17 (.81) 5.00 (.82) 4.86 (.86) 3, 1,332 5.74 .001 .01
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
Conley et al. 523
significantly to this effect. Differences also emerged among the four groups in the
percentage of those who reported sex with their partner today or yesterday,
w
2
(3) ¼55.69, p< .0005, j¼.21.
As in Study 1, we conducted planned contrasts comparing each of the CNM groups to
the monogamous group for sexual satisfaction. We found differences in the percentage
of members of different groups who orgasmed and who had recent sex in the super-
ordinate w
2
; we conducted additional w
2
analyses comparing each of the CNM groups to
the monogamous group.
Polyamorous versus monogamous. As depicted in Table 10, polyamorous individuals reported
higher levels of general relationship satisfaction than monogamous individuals. Poly-
amorous people were also more sexually satisfied. The monogamous and polyamorous
groups reported equivalent levels of satisfaction with their sex life with their (primary)
partner. No differences emerged between polyamorous and monogamous people in the
likelihood of having an orgasm in their most recent sexual encounter, with
78%of monogamous people reporting orgasm compared to 82%of polyamorous people,
w
2
(1) ¼1.89, p¼.20, j¼.04. A significantly higher percentage of polyamorous people
reported recent sex (48%) than monogamous people (37%), w
2
(1) ¼6.05, p¼.014, j¼.07.
Open versus monogamous. Those in open relationships reported lower general relationship
satisfaction than monogamous people (Table 10). Monogamous people and people in
open relationships reported similar amounts of sexual satisfaction and were equally
likely to report having an orgasm during their most recent encounter, w
2
(1) ¼.24,
p¼.62, j¼.02. The two groups were equally likely to report having recent sex,
w
2
(1) ¼.02, p¼.86, j¼–.01.
Swingers versus monogamous. Swingers and monogamous people reported equivalent
levels of general relationship satisfaction. Swingers reported higher levels of sexual
satisfaction (Table 10) and a significantly higher percentage of swingers reported having
an orgasm during their last encounter (92%) than monogamous people (78%),
w
2
(1) ¼8.69, p¼.003, j¼.09. Regarding frequency, a significantly higher percentage
Table 10. Results of planned contrasts between CNM and monogamous groups, Study 2.
Measure df T p d
Polyamorous (P) and monogamous (M) MP-M
Relationship satisfaction .17 311 2.95 .003 .21
Sexual satisfaction .14 195 1.40 .16 .12
Open (O) and monogamous (M) MO-M
Relationship satisfaction –.25 171 –3.20 .000 .30
Sexual satisfaction –.05 134 –0.39 .70 .04
Swinger (S) and monogamous (M) MS-M
Relationship satisfaction .08 109 1.04 .30 .10
Sexual satisfaction .55 97 4.94 .000 .52
Note. CNM: consensually non-monogamous.
524 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
of swingers reported having frequent sex (79%), as compared to monogamous people
(37%), w
2
(1) ¼52.53, p< .0005, j¼.23.
Discussion
In this second study, we utilized a generally recruited sample of CNM participants. We
again found that CNM participants were displaying, overall, slightly higher levels of
sexual satisfaction than those in monogamous relationships. This pattern of results
remained the same across both studies, indicating that CNM participants recruited from
sites specific to CNM are responding to questions about their relationships similarly to
CNM participants who were recruited only because they identified as being partnered.
Additionally, in this study, we determined that CNM participants who were recruited for
the study through non-targeted procedures reported equivalent relationship satisfaction
to monogamous people.
As in Study 1, we found that the largest differences that emerged were between
monogamous people and swingers, the second largest differences were between poly-
amorous and monogamous people, but no differences emerged between monogamous
people and those in open relationships.
General Discussion
Laypeople and therapists alike assume that CNM relationships are inferior to mono-
gamous relationships (Hutzler et al., 2016). By contrast, across the two studies, we
found that monogamous people had slightly lower levels of sexual satisfaction than
CNM individuals overall; they also had less frequent sex in some cases. These differ-
ences were especially pronounced in comparisons between swingers and monogamous
individuals. Both polyamorous people and swingers reported significantly higher sexual
satisfaction than monogamous people in each study. We will now consider these
findings in greater depth.
Differences Between CNM and Monogamous Individuals
In measures of actual sexual satisfaction (reported satisfaction and orgasm), the differ-
ences in favor of the CNM group are consistent across the two studies. Thus, we may
conclude that overall, CNM individuals are slightly more sexually satisfied than those
who are monogamous.
Another main theme that emerges in the current research is the importance of CNM
style for the sex lives of the relationship parties. Swingers, in particular, reported better
and more frequent sex than did monogamous people. Further, in contrast to the small
differences between the monogamous and CNM groups, the differences between
swingers and monogamous people tended to be medium-sized, favoring swingers.
Clearly, the ways in which people practice CNM make a difference. Some types of CNM
appear to be associated with more positive sexual experiences than monogamy, but not
other types.
Conley et al. 525
Importantly, participants from all groups generally reported high levels of sexual
satisfaction—that is, the means for each group were above the midpoint of the sexual
satisfaction scales. Monogamous people in this sample did not appear to be dissatisfied
with their sexual relationships—they just had slightly lower levels of sexual satisfaction.
Finally, in addition to addressing sexual satisfaction, a secondary purpose of this
research was to assess general relationship satisfaction. We were curious whether gen-
eral relationship satisfaction would be the same among the groups if we utilized a sample
that was not recruited based on their CNM status. We reduced concerns about social
desirability by recruiting participants who were not from CNM-related sources (and are
to our knowledge the first to do this). We still found similar levels of relationship
satisfaction among monogamous and CNM groups.
Social Desirability Among CNM Respondents?
One issue of concern is social desirability, such that those who are in CNM relationships
would feel more pressure to portray their relationships positively than would people in
monogamous relationships. A more extensive discussion of this issue, and why we do not
believe this is a major problem, is available in Conley et al. (2017). For example, we
suspect, if anything, that those who frequent polyamory listservs are often less satisfied
because they are newcomers to polyamory seeking advice or searching for partners.
We also addressed social desirability by selecting participants in Study 2 from general
Internet samples instead of from organizations related to CNM. We found that even
participants who were not selected from CNM-related sources reported higher levels of
sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals. Of course, these precautions do not
entirely eliminate the potential problems of socially desirable reporting. Future research
should focus on obtaining implicit measures of sexual satisfaction for all couples.
Representative Samples and Conclusions About Group Differences
Although we would ideally be able to claim that people in CNM relationships experience
at least equivalent relationship and sexual satisfaction to people in monogamous rela-
tionships, we utilized convenience samples and are not representative of the U.S. pop-
ulation. Therefore, we do not know how people who are uninterested in surveys about
relationships would respond to the questions. Likewise, we do not know how people who
are not well-represented in Internet samples (e.g., people from lower-SES backgrounds,
those with less education, and people of color) experience sexuality in CNM and
monogamous relationships. This issue would be easy to address with access to repre-
sentative samples. We would encourage researchers in large-scale, representative studies
to incorporate questions about relationship configurations into their future research.
Explaining Differences Among Monogamous and CNM Groups
This research indicates that there are slight differences between monogamous and CNM
individuals overall, with larger differences emerging between monogamous people and
swingers. We consider explanations for two sets of results. First, why would there be
526 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
slight differences between monogamous and CNM individuals? Second, why would
larger differences emerge between monogamous people and swingers?
Why did CNM people report slightly higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous people? The
most straightforward possibility is that CNM people are less subject to normal habi-
tuation processes that occur in the sexual relationships of monogamous people. Perhaps
the introduction of additional partners provides enough variety to effect higher levels of
satisfaction in the primary relationship. To ascertain whether this dynamic is operative, it
would be useful to study long-term monogamous relationships as they transition to
CNM, using a longitudinal design. Can the addition of partners sometimes revive a
struggling sexual partnership? If so, what factors contribute to increased satisfaction
(e.g., does this work only for people who find thoughts of their partners having sex with
others non-threatening?).
A second, related, possibility is that CNM participants experienced more sexual
satisfaction than monogamous participants simply because they feel less reactance
(Brehm, 1966). Psychological reactance occurs when people perceive that their free will
is threatened—when someone else is making choices for them or trying to induce them
into a particular course of action. The recognition that another person is trying to exert
control over the actor causes the actor to take a different course of action to reassert her
sense of control. For example, romantic couples who experience parental interference in
their relationship reported loving each other more and thinking more about marriage than
couples who did not have parental involvement (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972).
Monogamous individuals have usually made a very explicit commitment to having
sexual contact with and oftentimes sexual interest in (i.e., attraction to or sexual fantasies
about) only their partner (Frank & Delamater, 2010). This commitment to only one
person may threaten their sense of free will; that is, they believe that they are being
pressured to restrict themselves to one partner (by that partner, or society, or the insti-
tution of monogamy). This sense of restriction induces them to assert their free will by
desiring other partners. In other words, the knowledge of an exclusive commitment
makes alternatives to that commitment more appealing. This possibility is corroborated
by Perel’s (2007) observation that within her clinical practice, having members of
monogamous couples simply discuss non-monogamy can increase their attraction
toward one another.
Finally, it is possible that CNM people simply devote more effort to increase sexual
satisfaction. As a result, they may be more sexually skilled or more persistent in seeking
sexual pleasure, on average, than monogamous people.
Why would swingers have heightened sexual satisfaction vis a vis, monogamous individuals? We
also found that one CNM type—swingers—scored moderately higher on our measures
than monogamous people. Being a swinger has not been associated with increased
general relationship satisfaction in prior research (Conley et al., 2017). Thus, our current
best understanding is that swinger status may be uniquely associated with sexual
satisfaction. We suggest that swingers may put more time and effort into their sexual
relationships than members of other relationship styles. This would be evidenced by a
Conley et al. 527
swingers’ tendency to organize their social lives around sex (e.g., attending parties in
which sex is expected to occur).
Conclusion
This research corresponds to ample existing research indicating that people in CNM
relationships are reporting satisfying partnerships and extends this research to include
their sex lives. These findings suggest that a variety of alternatives to monogamy may
yield sexually satisfying relationships.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. We did not include lesbians and gay men in this sample because the methods of recruitment
were different for lesbians and gay men, see Conley et al. (2017) for a description. The
participants who were under 25 were excluded before any analyses were conducted due to the
very disproportionate distribution of consensually non-monogamous (CNM) by age in that
sample (such that not enough participants under 25 were identified with the CNM categories
to be able conduct analyses among that group). The findings presented in this study include the
same sample as was utilized in Conley et al. (2017).
2. Comparing the sexual satisfaction among swingers, and those in polyamorous and open rela-
tionships is also of interest to us and is the subject of current data analysis (Conley, 2017). The
findings are a bit beyond the scope of the current paper, which focuses on addressing stereo-
types about monogamy’s superiority to CNM. However, we generally are finding that people in
open relationships are less satisfied in their relationships than those identified as being swingers
or polyamorous.
3. Through a mistake in the survey display logic, some of the CNM participants answered ques-
tions about their “partner” versus their “primary partner”; however, the pattern of results was
the same when the participants who received this version of the scale were excluded.
References
Anapol, D. M. (1997). Polyamory: The new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate
relationships. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource Center.
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual
enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review,77, 435–462.
Aumer, K., Bellew, W., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2014). The happy green eyed monogamist: Role
of jealousy and comparison in monogamous and non-traditional relationships. Electronic Jour-
nal of Human Sexuality,17. Retrieved from www.ejhs.org
528 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my ...partner’s partner: Constructing a
polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology,18,
75–88.
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflec-
tions on recent research and theory. Sexualities,13, 748–772.
Barker, M., & Ritchie, A. (2007). Hot bi babes and feminist families: Polyamorous women speak
out. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review,8, 141–151.
Bergstrand, C., & Williams, J. B. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swin-
gers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality,3. Retrieved from www.ejhs.org
Blasband, D., & Peplau, L. (1985). Sexual exclusivity versus openness in gay male couples.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,14, 395–412.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Burris, C. T. (2014). Torn between two lovers? Lay perceptions of polyamorous individuals.
Psychology & Sexuality,5, 258–267.
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of
individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research,42, 113–118.
Byers, E. S., & Wang, A. (2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the social
exchange perspective. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of
sexuality in close relationships (pp. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships: A
decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family,62, 999–1017.
Conley, T. D. (2017). Comparisons of relationship outcomes in individuals participating in dif-
ferent types of consensual non-monogamy. Unpublished raw data.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?:
Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses
of Social Issues and Public Policy,13, 1–30.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical
examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relation-
ships. Personality and Social Psychology Review,17, 124–141.
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually
nonmonogamous relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science,12, 205–232.
de Visser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in
heterosexual “swinging” couples. British Journal of Social Psychology,46, 459–476.
Dixon, J. K. (1984). The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women over age
thirty. The Journal of Sex Research,20, 71–90.
Dixon, J. K. (1985). Sexuality and relationship changes in married females following the com-
mencement of bisexual activity. Journal of Homosexuality,11, 115–134.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: the
Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,24, 1–10.
Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2011). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relation-
ships, and other adventures. New York, NY: Celestial Arts.
Fallis, E. E., Rehman, U. S., Woody, E. Z., & Purdon, C. (2016). The longitudinal association of
relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Journal of Family
Psychology,30, 822–831.
Conley et al. 529
Fernandes, E. (2009). The swinging paradigm: An evaluation of the marital and sexual satisfaction
of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality,12. Retrieved from www.ejhs.org
Fleckenstein, J. R., & Cox, D. W. (2015). The association of an open relationship orientation with
health and happiness in a sample of older US adults. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,30,
94–116.
Frank, K., & DeLamater, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries, identities, and fluid-
ities across relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monoga-
mies (pp. 9–22). New York: Routledge.
Graham, C. A., Catania, J. A., Brand, R., Duong, T., & Canchola, J. A. (2003). Recalling sexual
behavior: A methodological analysis of memory recall bias via interview using the diary as the
gold standard. The Journal of Sex Research,40, 325–332.
Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes
toward nonexclusive relationships. The Journal of Sex Research,53, 45–53.
Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2016). Prevalence
of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national
samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,43, 424–440.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships,15, 137–142.
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.
Jenks, R. J. (1985). A comparative study of swingers and nonswingers: Attitudes and beliefs.
Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns,7, 5–20.
Kimberly, C., & Hans, J. D. (2015). From fantasy to reality: A grounded theory of experiences in
the swinging lifestyle. Archives of Sexual Behavior,46, 789–799.
King, B. J. (2017). A cultural momentfor polyamory. Cosmos andculture. Retrieved fromww.npr.org
Kipnis, L. (2004). Against love: A polemic. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Leigh, B. C., Gillmore, M. R., & Morrison, D. M. (1998). Comparison of diary and retrospective
measures for recording alcohol consumption and sexual activity. Journal of Clinical Epide-
miology,51, 119–127.
Matsick, J. L., Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., & Rubin, J. D. (2014). Love and sex:
Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relation-
ships. Psychology & Sexuality,5, 339–348.
McClelland, S. I. (2011). Who is the ‘self’ in self reports of sexual satisfaction? Research and
policy implications. Sexuality Research & Social Policy,8, 304–320.
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Monogamy
versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralis-
tic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior,46, 407–417.
Moors, A. C. (2016). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships
beyond “the couple” increased over time? The Journal of Sex Research,54, 677–684.
Moors, A. C., Edelstein, R. S., & Conley, T. D. (2012). Avoiding monogamy: Attachment, sex,
love, and consensual non-monogamy. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Inter-
national Association for Relationship Research, Chicago, IL.
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D. (2013). Stigma toward
individuals engaged in consensual nonmonogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,13, 52–69.
530 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4)
Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Beaglaoich, C. O
´. (2013). A comparison of
polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship
well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality,4, 75–91.
Perel, E. (2007). Mating in captivity: Unlocking erotic intelligence. New York, NY: Harper.
Ramey, J. W. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequence of sexually open
marriage. The Family Coordinator,24, 515–530.
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.
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and
relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research,52, 961–982.
Rubin, A. M., & Adams, J. R. (1986). Outcomes of sexually open marriages. The Journal of Sex
Research,22, 311–319.
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2011). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship
passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psycholo-
gical and Personality Science,3, 224–231.
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 fur Psy-
chologie,22, 1–23.
Schoenfeld, E. A., Loving, T. J., Pope, M. T., Huston, T. L., & S
ˇtulhofer, A. (2017). Does sex
really matter? Examining the connections between spouses’ nonsexual behaviors, sexual fre-
quency, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior,46, 489–501.
Sprecher, S., & Cate, R. M. (2004). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of
relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Young, M., Denny, G., Luquis, R., & Young, T. (1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in
marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,7, 115–117.
Conley et al. 531
A preview of this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
This content is subject to copyright.
