sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anonymous sex, Dating, Open relationship, Polyfidelity, Sexology

Running Head: COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

This manuscript has been accepted for publication at Archives of Sexual Behavior. Please find the peer-reviewed version of this article at:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-020-01865-x

Comparing psychological characteristics of monogamous and non-monogamous

practitioners: Personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and

Oscar Lecuona a, d

Mar Suero b

Tobias Wingen c

Sara de Rivas a

a Faculty of Health Sciences, King Juan Carlos

b University Institute of , Camilo José Cela University

c Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne

d Faculty of , Autonomous University of Madrid

Oscar Lecuona is Adjunct Professor in the area of Methods and Social Psychology at

King Juan Carlos University and PhD candidate at Autonomous University of Madrid.

His research main topics are mindfulness, latent variable models, positive psychology and non-monogamies. COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2

Mar Suero is BA in Psychology by University of Cádiz and MPhil in Sexual Studies by

Camilo José Cela University. Her professional practice is regarding non-monogamies and alternative sexualities.

Sara de Rivas, PhD is Assistant Professor in the area of Personality, Assessment and

Psychological Treatment at King Juan Carlos University. Her research main topics are personality, self-regulation, positive psychology and third generation therapies.

Tobias Wingen is a PhD Candidate at the University of Cologne. His research focusses on social cognition, social hierarchies, and stereotypes.

Corresponding author: Oscar Lecuona, Department of & Surgery,

Psychology, Preventive Medicine & Public Health, Immunology & Medical

Microbiology, Nursing and Stomachology, King Juan Carlos University, Campus of

Aranjuez, Capitán Angosto Gómez Castrillón St., 28300 Aranjuez, Madrid. e-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Poliamor Madrid association for supporting the study in recruitment and disclosure of results for participants, and

Poliamor Catalunya and Golfxs con Principixs associations for supporting the study.

COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3

Abstract

Romantic relationships are changing in Western culture. The recent rises of alternative relationship models called consensual non-monogamies (CNMs) like , relational anarchy or open relationships have drawn some recent attention.

However, the psychological characteristics of CNMs have not yet been investigated mainly for being a hard to reach population. In this study, 372 participants (with 193 hard-to-reach non-monogamous practitioners) were assessed in their relational style and compared in personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance, and jealousy. On most investigated dimensions, monogamous and non-monogamous participants did not significantly differ from each other. However, non-monogamous practitioners were significantly more open but less conscientious, which provided mixed evidence to the study hypotheses. Possible psychological and methodological explanations were outlined. In addition, these significant differences were small, thereby needed to be taken with caution. These differences could not be explained by differences in age, , , marital status, or other measured variables. Since only a few small differences between monogamous and non-monogamous participants were found, this study suggests that monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners are psychologically not different overall. Methodological limitations and future recommendations were assessed and provided, with particular emphasis on replication studies.

Keywords: non-; polyamory; personality; sexual satisfaction; jealousy; dominance COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 4

Comparing psychological characteristics of monogamous and non-monogamous

practitioners: Personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy

A primary belief in is that human beings are, in general, monogamous. This belief is defined, roughly, as two human beings who share a romantic relationship developing emotional and sexual intimacy exclusively with one partner (Treas & Giesen, 2000). Popular culture support this belief by institutions and legal frameworks (e.g., ), religious values primarily influenced by

Christianism, and highly influential tropes in art forms such as the romantic narrative. Examples of media promoting romantic monogamous love as the only existing alternative (or, in some cases, the only valid alternative) can be found, for example, in Disney cinematographic adaptations (Tanner, Haddock, Zimmerman, &

Lund, 2003) or popular romantic films (Hefner & Wilson, 2013). Overall, three main components of the monogamy narrative are proposed (according to Barrón, Martínez-

Íñigo, De Paul, & Yela, 1999): (1) The belief that heterosexual monogamous couples are biologically natural and universal to all cultures and all historical ages; (2) the belief that, if a person truly another, all sexual and emotional desires will be completely satisfied; and (3) the belief that is impossible to love (romantically) more than one person at the same time.

However, this ideology received questioning by and psychology.

Apart from classic contributions (see Barash & Lipton, 2002, for details), recent findings suggest not only that most cultures are not completely monogamous, but also that the assumed biological predisposition to monogamy in humans and non-human animals is doubtful (for a review, see Schimtt, 2005; see also Conley, Ziegler, Moors,

Matsick, & Valentine, 2013). In addition, many alternatives to monogamy were COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5 proposed along history, like the movement (Blow & Hartnett, 2005).

“Consensual Non-Monogamy" (CNM) has been proposed recently as an umbrella term to englobe many different alternatives to traditional standard monogamy and defined as romantic relationships without emotional or sexual exclusivity (Grunt-Mejer &

Campbell, 2016). Some types of CNMs are , , , swinging, open relationships, polyamory (Veaux, Hardy, & Gill, 2014), , and agamy (see Barker, 2012, for a review).

CNMs have received increased public popularity and attention in recent years, and a variety of reasons for this were proposed (Weitzman, Davidson, & Phillips,

2012): (1) An increased global life expectancy, where decades of sexual and emotional exclusivity can become increasingly difficult to maintain, (2) high and rates in monogamous couples —around 40 to 50% for divorce (Ec.europa.eu, 2017;

Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2000), and 20 to 25% for declared infidelity (Blow &

Hartnett, 2005), (3) general lack of satisfaction with the contemporaneous serial monogamous model (i.e. replacing partners iteratively attempting to develop a monogamous couple relationship), (4) increasing economic and social equality between men and women, allowing for higher empowerment among intimate relationships

(Sheff, 2005), and (5) expansion and liberalization of information and communication

(mainly through and ), giving visibility and accessibility to new intimacies and sexualities. Nevertheless, it is frequent to associate non-monogamy with casual anonymous , infidelity, bohemian lifestyles and unstable love relationships (Klesse, 2006). Recent studies (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2013;

Conley, Ziegler, et al., 2013; Matsick, Conley, Ziegler, Moors, & Rubin, 2014) explored social perceptions of CNMs and confirmed stigma: Monogamy was viewed systematically and significantly more beneficial than CNMs, but interestingly, a halo COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 6 effect (i.e., positive bias) over monogamy was also confirmed. Thus, those studies suggest that CNMs suffer stigma, which can lead to reduced life satisfaction and well- being, as measured broadly among sexual minorities (Pachanakis & Bränström, 2018).

For example, stigma is (among other issues) a major risk for therapeutic efficacy

(Weitzman, 2006) due to prejudice or even hostility from mental health professionals.

Moreover, in some divorce cases, children care was denied to which showed non-monogamous behaviors, even with positive mental health assessments (Cloud,

1999).

Therefore, the study of CNMs is highly interesting given recent social relevance, possible stigma and implications for psychological research (Mittchell, Bartholomew, &

Cobb, 2014). It also seems relevant to provide scientific evidence to build a more solid view of CNMs going beyond stereotypes and prejudice. Moreover, contrary to displayed stereotypes, several past studies show the viability of CNMs in a variety of contexts (see Rubel & Boggaert, 2015, for a review) and suggests negligible differences between monogamous and non-monogamous people in personality, psychopathology or relationship satisfaction (see Conley, Ziegler, et al., 2013, for a review). However, studies comparing psychological characteristics of monogamous and non-monogamous people are lacking. This is little surprising since non-monogamous people constitute a hard-to-reach population (Flanagan & Hancock, 2010). Not only is the percentage of non-monogamous people in the population relatively small (around 5% according to

Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Conley, 2014), but moreover due to fear of discrimination, non-monogamous people might not publicly communicate their group membership. Thus, so far relatively few studies have quantitatively investigated CNMs.

An interesting proposal and review (Conley, Ziegler, et al., 2013) proposes differences in personality (higher extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience), higher COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 7 sexual satisfaction, and less jealousy, among other psychological constructs. A more recent study (Wood, Desmarais, Burleigh, & Milhausen, 2018) provided evidence of non-significant differences in overall sexual satisfaction between CNMs and monogamy, but encountering differences in underlying motivational dynamics. In addition, CNMs research was only centered in certain types of non-monogamy instead of comprehensive assessment (see Barker & Langdrige, 2010). Therefore, a more throughout research is needed to include CNMs in their whole spectrum. In addition,

CNMs do not sympathize with infidelity, and therefore cheating monogamous people are excluded. However, since infidelity seems common in most societies, it seems worth for scientific study including cheating monogamous in the spectrum to explore their differences with other relational styles. Thus, from now on we will refer as “non- monogamous” as strictly all styles that differ from standard monogamy (including infidelity), while CNMs will be used when infidelity is excluded.

In this study, we aim to address this gap in the literature by investigating general dispositional characteristics (e.g. personality traits, sexual satisfaction, jealousy, and dominance) of people identified as non-monogamous. As suggested by Conley, Ziegler et al. (2013) we expect differences in extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience (with CNMs showing higher scores), while no differences in neuroticism and conscientiousness. This is, we expect CNM practitioners to be more open-minded and pro-social (extraverted and agreeable). We do not expect differences in sexual satisfaction (following Wood et al., 2018), but we expect differences in jealousy and dominance (with CNMs showing lower levels). This is, we expect CNM practitioners to be roughly equal to monogamous practitioners in sexual satisfaction, but less jealous or dominant. We also expect that those differences (or lack thereof) will not be explained by demographics (i.e., age, level of education, marital status, gender, and sexual COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 8 orientation). Finally, we expect our results to remain stable when cheating monogamous people are excluded.

Method

Design

A cross-sectional correlational design was implemented. Participants completed several validated instruments and demographic questions online (see Procedure for details). Based on their responses, participants were classified in their corresponding groups, concretely: Monogamous, cheating monogamous, or consensual non- monogamous (i.e. “don’t ask don’t tell,” swinger, , polygamy, , hierarchical polyamory, egalitarian polyamory, single polyamory, relationship anarchy, or other). People who identified with cheating monogamy were considered into the group of monogamous people for several reasons: Firstly, because the category of “cheating monogamy” was explained as “one main couple but undisclosed occasional or permanent ,” which relies mainly on a monogamous style. Secondly, such category does not share some values or components considered essential in the rest of CNM styles, such as honesty, disclosure, and orientation to emotional care for couples and the self. Thirdly, this relationship style seems to align more closely with social narratives and values more in common with normative monogamy than other styles. Regardless, all analyses were performed including and excluding this relationship style.

Sample

A total amount of 372 Spanish persons participated in the study. While we had no target sample size and instead aimed to recruit as many participants as possible, this sample size was large enough to detect small effects (for details, see Data analyses). No COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 9 participants were excluded from the main analyses. Demographic variables are displayed in Table 1. Dispersion in discrete variables was measured with the variation ratio (VR) for nominal variables and qualitative variation index (QVI)1 for ordinal variables. Most of the sample was cis-female (70.7%), young (median of age = 23,

SD=8.49), with a degree or above (72.4%), heterosexual (54.3%) and had at least one existing (49.5%). Monogamous (42.5%) and non- monogamous people (58.5%) were approximately balanced, with cheating monogamous being a minority (4.8%).

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for demographic variables

Variable Frequency Central Dispersion

(%) Tendency

Age Md = 23 SD = 8.49

Level of education Mdn = 4 QVI = 1.75

1. Elementary 1 (0.3)

2. High School 9 (2.4)

3. High School Diploma 83 (22.3)

4. Undergraduate Degree 142 (38.2)

5. Graduate Degree 122 (32.8)

6. Ph.D. or higher 9 (2.4)

7. Other 6 (1.6)

Marital Status Md = 4 VR = 0.50

1. Single 122 (32.8)

2. Widowed 1 (0.3)

3. Divorced 8 (2.2) COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 10

4. Coupled 184 (49.5)

5. Married 36 (9.7)

6. Other 21 (5.6)

Gender Md = 3 VR = 0.29

1. Male 91 (24.5)

2. Non-Binary 18 (4.8)

3. Female 263 (70.7)

Sexual Orientation Md = 3 VR = 0.45

1. Homosexual 32 (8.6)

2. Bisexual 135 (36.3)

3. Heterosexual 202 (54.3)

4. Asexual 1 (0.3)

5. Other 2 (0.5)

Relationship Style Md = 9 VR = 0.47

1. Monogamy 158 (42.82)

2. Cheating monogamy 18 (4.9)

3. Swinger 14 (3.8)

4. Open relationships 42 (11.4)

5. Hierarchcal Poliamory 42 (11.4)

6. Egalitarian Polyamory 33 (8.9)

7. Relationship Anarchy 44 (11.9)

8. Non-Monogamy* 18 (4.9)

9. Non-Monogamy 193 (52.3)

(total) COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 11

Mdn = Median; Md = Mode; SD = Standard Deviation; VR = Variation Ratio. QVI =

Qualitative Variation Index. *Participants who received the standard form and identified with non-monogamy.

Instruments

Short form of the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI-SF): This instrument measures personality traits following the big five personality model (Costa

& MacCrae, 1992, validated to Spanish population by Martínez-Uribe & Cassaretto-

Bardales, 2011). It consists of 60 self-report items with a Likert response format from 1

(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Latent structure consists of five factors of personality: Neuroticism (tendency to emotional instability), extraversion (tendency to be socially oriented and likely to interact with others), agreeableness (tendency to interact positively and care for others), conscientiousness (tendency to organize, plan and execute goal-directed behavior) and openness to experience (tendency to be intellectually curious and having aesthetic sensibility). Reliability ranged from α = .77 to .86.

New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS). This instrument measures the degree of satisfaction of sexual needs of its respondents and their last partner in the last six months (Štulhofer, Buško, & Brouillard, 2010), and defining satisfaction as obtaining what is desired or needed. It consists of 20 self-report items with a Likert response format from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied). The latent structure consists of two factors: Personal satisfaction, and partner’s satisfaction. Reliability ranged from α = .93 to .96. COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 12

Dominance and Jealousy Tactics Scale (DJTS). This instrument measures the tendency of the respondent or their corresponding partner to engage in dominance or jealousy behaviors (Cano, Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, & O’Leary, 1998; Kasian & Painter,

1992, validated to Spanish population by González, 2008). It consists of 11 bidirectional self-report items (asking for the respondent’s behavior and their partner’s, obtaining two separated measures), with a Likert response format from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The latent structure consists of two factors: Dominance tactics (tendency to coerce or control your couple’s behavior) and Jealousy tactics (tendency to behave possessively and territorial with your couple). Reliability was α = .72 for dominance and .76 for jealousy.

Procedure

Two versions of the online survey were generated, one for presumably monogamous and another for non-monogamous communities. The difference between the versions was the addressing of relationship styles, being a general assessment (with

“non-monogamy” as a general category) in the standard version, and a more complex assessment (with several categories such as “hierarchical polyamory,” “relationship anarchy” or related) for the non-monogamous communities. The reason to implement two different forms was to avoid confusion or bias in standard communities regarding non-monogamous terms. All participants signed the informed and were informed about the privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality of the treatment of their data, following the Helsinki protocol. An e-mail address was provided for feedback and questions.

Both versions were distributed on and other social networks. For the standard communities, the form was posted in several profiles. For the non- monogamous communities, three associations were contacted (Poliamor Madrid

[Polyamory Madrid], Poliamor Catalunya [Polyamory Catalonia], and Golfxs con COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 13

Principixs [Ethical ]). Moderators were contacted asking for permission to post the survey and informing them of the research project and objectives, which all agreed. In addition to posting in their respective Facebook groups, moderators posted the survey in their respective Facebook pages. In all cases, participants were invited to share the study in their profiles and any other virtual media they preferred to facilitate snowball sampling effects. Participants received no compensation, and thus verbal rewarding emphasizing the importance of their participation was provided.

Afterward, they were instructed on how to respond to the instruments, this is, presenting the Likert response format, the meaning of each of the scale, that there are no right or wrong answers but personal preferences, and not to overthink the response. Data and other supplementary materials are available at https://osf.io/gc5bq/.

Data Analyses

Factor scores were calculated as the mean of their respective items. Then, univariate descriptive statistics were obtained for them (Table 2) alongside an examination of their histograms. Correlations were obtained (Pearson’s r when all assumptions were met, Spearman’s rho when not) and scatterplots examined. Significant medium-to-large correlations were flagged to select potential covariables (criteria as r

>.3). Finally, group comparisons were performed using one-factor analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) with independent variable as monogamous vs. CNM participants (one version excluding and other including cheating monogamous participants). Dependent variables were all self-report means for their respective dimensions. Covariables were selected as all demographic variables (age, level of education, marital state, gender, and sexual orientation) and previously selected variables from correlation analysis. Statistical models for the ANCOVAs were linear for most variables except for dominance and jealousy variables, which implemented frequency-based Likert response formats COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 14 producing non-normal distributions. Generalized Linear Models (GzLM, Rubin et al.,

2014) were implemented instead of linear ones, more concretely, tweedie with logarithmic link (since Poisson or negative binomial distribution was not applicable due to continuous variables). Other alternatives such as Kruskal-Wallis test, standard

ANCOVAs or logarithmic transformation were discarded for not including covariables, increasing type I error rate, or persistent skewness after transformation, respectively.

Normality assumptions were assessed with univariate normality tests but given sample size was higher than 30 in all groups, it was considered relevant although not essential.

G-power sensitivity analyses for ANCOVAs with two-groups and up to five covariates indicated that the present sample (n = 375) could potentially detect a small effect size (η2

= .021) for α = .05 with a statistical power of 1 – β = .80. Analyses were computed with

JASP (JASP team, 2017) except for the GzLMs, which were computed with SPSS.

Results

Descriptive statistics, normality tests, and correlations

Intermediate scores were obtained in personality variables, while high scores were present in sexual satisfaction and low scores in dominance and jealousy behaviors

(Table 1). Since strong skewness and leptokurtosis appeared in sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy, alternatives to the mean and statistical deviation were obtained. Normality tests, coherently with descriptive statistics, rejected all variables as normally distributed except for conscientiousness (all p-values <.05), while other personality variables showed mixed results. Therefore, the use of GzLM was reinforced.

COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 15

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for instrument scores

Variable Central Dispersion Skewness Kurtosis

Tendency (SD = (SD =

0.126) 0.252)

Personality

Neuroticism M = 2.914 SD = 0.770 0.217 -0.379

Extraversion Md = 3.910 MD = 0.36 -0.599 0.250

Openness M = 3.977 SD = 0.585 -0.617 0.517

Agreeableness M = 3.592 SD = 0.545 -0.591 0.688

Conscientiousness M = 3.479 SD = 0.650 -0.285 0.106

Sexual Satisfaction

Personal Mdn = 4.100 MD = 0.5 -1.202 1.789

Couple M = 3.816 SD = 0.894 -0.920 0.562

General M = 3.904 SD = 0.755 -0.917 0.847

Dominance

Inflicted Md = 1 MD = 0.280 1.897 5.517

Received Md = 1 MD = 0.140 2.020 4.798

Jealousy

Inflicted Md = 1 MD = 0.500 1.385 2.372

Received Md = 1 MD = 0.500 1.395 1.878

Mdn = Median; Md = Mode; SD = Standard Deviation; MD = Median of Deviations

(median of absolute differences between scores and their median)

COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 16

Correlations were subsequently computed as displayed in Table 3. Regarding within-instrument associations, expected associations appeared (see Discussion). This is, moderate negative (inverse) relations between neuroticism and extraversion, and between agreeableness and conscientiousness, moderate positive (direct) relations between extraversion and openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and openness and agreeableness. Sexual satisfaction also showed expected relations, this is, personal sexual satisfaction displayed an intense and positive relation with partner’s sexual satisfaction. Finally, dominance and jealousy displayed positive relations between each other in any dimension (inflicted or received), which was also expected (see

Discussion). Regarding between-instrument associations, neuroticism showed negative relations with all sexual satisfaction dimensions, while also showing positive relations with inflicted and received dominance and inflicted jealousy, but not with received jealousy. Extraversion, on the contrary, shows positive relations with all sexual satisfaction dimensions but does not show significant relations with dominance and jealous behaviors of any kind. Agreeableness shows positive relations only with the couple dimension of sexual satisfaction but also showed negative relations with dominance and jealousy in both inflicted and received dimensions. Openness showed positive relations with personal and general sexual satisfaction, but not with couple’s, and also did not displayed significant relations with dominance and jealousy.

Conscientiousness displayed positive relations with all sexual satisfaction dimensions and showed negative relations with inflicted and received dominance and inflicted jealousy, but not with Received jealousy. Finally, only inflicted and received dominance present negative significant relations with all sexual satisfaction dimensions, with the most intense relations with both dominance dimensions. In addition, age only presented related positively with agreeableness and negatively with conscientiousness, although COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17 lightly. A criterion of >.30 was applied for selecting correlations as covariables for the

ANCOVAs, thus when a correlation passed the criterion, was selected as a covariable).

Selected correlations were between extraversion and neuroticism (r = .359, p < .001), agreeableness and extroversion (r = .332, p < .001), personal and couple sexual satisfaction (r = .684, p < .001), inflicted and received dominance behaviors (ρ = .673, p

< .001), received dominance and received jealousy (ρ = .404, p < .001), and inflicted and received jealousy behaviors (ρ = .392, p < .001).

COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 18

Table 3: Correlations between factor scores and age.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Neuroticism -

2. Extraversion -.358** -

3. Openness .007 .268** -

4. Agreeableness -.238** .316** .118* -

5. Conscientiousness -.292** .135** .027 .055 -

6. Sexual Satisfaction - -.273** .254** .147** .085 .135** - Personal

7. Sexual Satisfaction - -.126* .173**ρ .053 .142**ρ .168**ρ .662** - Couple

8. Sexual Satisfaction - -.212** .202** .106* .092 .130* .896** .926** - General

9. Dominance - Inflicted - .196** .029 .026 -.125* -.180** -.310** -.258** - .255**ρ COMPARING PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 19

10. Dominance - Received - - .114* -.063 -.016 -.114* -.177**ρ -.183** .673**ρ - .142**ρ .177**ρ

11. Jealousy - Inflicted .270** -.039 .084 -.131* -.162** -.058ρ .027 .009 .266**ρ .230**ρ -

12. Jealousy - Received .088 .025 .056 -.120* -.062 -.071ρ -.093ρ -.090ρ .283**ρ .404**ρ .392**ρ -

13. Age -.100 ρ .027 .048 .103* -.112* -.043 .026 -.007 .079 .059 .014 -.029

ρSpearman’s rho. *p < .05; **p < .01

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 21

Group comparisons (ANCOVAs)

All contrasts and effect sizes are displayed in Table 4, while group means with confidence intervals are displayed in Table 5. Regarding personality traits, no significant differences were found for neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness, which was in contrast to our hypotheses. However, significant differences appeared in openness to experience, which was in line with our hypothesis, with roughly 18% of common variance explained by identifying as monogamous or non-monogamous (ω² =

.016 when cheating monogamous included, ω² = .021 when excluded). Marginal means indicate non-monogamous participants were more open (around 3.79 when monogamous and around 4.13 when non-monogamous), although this is a small effect, with a difference of .34. Significant differences also appeared in conscientiousness, which was contrary to our hypothesis, with roughly 19% of common variance explained by identifying as monogamous or non-monogamous (ω² = .014 when cheating monogamous included, ω² = .024 when excluded). Marginal means indicate that non- monogamous were less conscientious (around 3.69 when monogamous and around 3.31 when non-monogamous), although this was again a small effect, with a difference of

.38. The extraction of cheating monogamous participants seemed to intensify the effect sizes lightly.

Table 4: ANCOVA’s statistics. p-values and effect sizes for each group

comparison

Monogamous (cheating monogamous included) vs. CNMs

F(df1;df2) p η² ω²

Personality PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 22

Neuroticism 0.021(1;363) .885 .000 .000

Extraversion 1.947(1;362) .164 .004 .002

Openness 7.014(1;364) .008 .018 .016

Agreeableness 0.068(1;364) .794 .000 .000

Conscientiousness 6.177(1;364) .013 .016 .014

Sexual Satisfaction

Personal 0.078(1;364) .780 .000 .000

Couple 0.232(1;363) .630 .001 .000

General 0.109(1;363) .742 .000 .000

Wald’s χ2 (df) p B IC95%

Dominance

Inflicted 0.094(1) .759 -.009 (-.067 ; .049)

Received 0.005(1) .941 -.003 (-.070 ; .065)

Jealousy

Inflicted 0.099(1) .753 -.012 (-.089 ; .064)

Received 0.024(1) .592 .038 (-.100 ; .176)

Monogamous (cheating monogamous excluded) vs CNMs

F(df1;df2) p η² ω²

Personality

Neuroticism 0.023(1;344) .878 .000 .000

Extraversion 3.429(1;345) .065 .008 .006

Openness 8.646(1;346) .003 .023 .021

Agreeableness 1.205(1;346) .273 .003 .001

Conscientiousness 9.761(1;346) .002 .026 .024

Sexual Satisfaction PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 23

Personal 0.101(1;346) .751 .000 .000

Couple 0.351(1;345) .554 .001 .000

General 0.104(1;345) .747 .000 .000

Wald’s χ2 (df) p B IC95%

Dominance

Inflicted 0.100 .752 -.010 (-.069 ; .050)

Received 0.451 .502 -.024 (-.094 ; .046)

Jealousy

Inflicted 0.508 .478 -.029 (-.109 ; .051)

Received 0.146 .702 -.016 (-.100 ; .067)

CNMs = Consensual Non-Monogamies.

Regarding sexual satisfaction, no significant differences were found regarding overall satisfaction nor personal and couple subdimensions, confirming our hypothesis.

Excluding cheating non-monogamous participants did not change those results.

Regarding dominance and jealous behaviors, results were mixed. Inflicted and received dominance behaviors showed no significant differences between monogamous and non- monogamous participants, which countered our hypothesis. Regarding jealousy, non- significant differences were obtained in both inflicted and received dimensions, which was in contrast to our hypothesis. Given the pronounced positive skewness of these variables, a potential floor effect could be mitigating this and other plausible differences. The extraction of cheating monogamous participants also seemed to intensify the effect sizes lightly.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 24

Table 5: Marginal Means with 95% confidence intervals for each ANCOVA

Monogamous (cheating monogamous included) vs. CNMs

Mean 95%CI Mean 95%CI

Personality

Neuroticism 2.902 (2.731 ; 3.074) 2.924 (2.767 ; 3.081)

Extraversion 3.449 (3.323 ; 3.574) 3.603 (3.487 ; 3.718)

Openness 3.809 (3.672 ; 3.946) 4.128 (4.002 ; 4.253)

Agreeableness 3.634 (3.507 ; 3.761) 3.555 (3.439 ; 3.671)

Conscientiousness 3.657 (3.502 ; 3.812) 3.318 (3.176 ; 3.461)

Sexual Satisfaction

Personal 4.034 (3.846 ; 4.222) 3.954 (3.782 ; 4.127)

Couple 3.791 (3.628 ; 3.954) 3.838 (3.689 ; 3.988)

General 3.928 (3.742 ; 4.114) 3.882 (3.712 ; 4.053)

Dominance

Inflicted 1.341 (1.288 ; 1.397) 1.354 (1.303 ; 1.406)

Recieved 1.360 (1.297 ; 1.426) 1.363 (1.304 ; 1.425)

Jealousy

Inflicted 1.570 (1.488 ; 1.656) 1.589 (1.511 ; 1.671)

Recieved 1.626 (1.533 ; 1.723) 1.652 (1.564 ; 1.746)

Monogamous (cheating monogamous excluded) vs CNMs

Personality

Neuroticism 2.900 (2.714 ; 3.086) 2.924 (2.768 ; 3.080)

Extraversion 3.411 (3.278 ; 3.544) 3.619 (3.507 ; 3.731)

Openness 3.780 (3.635 ; 3.925) 4.140 (4.018 ; 4.262)

Agreeableness 3.719 (3.587 ; 3.85) 3.528 (3.418 ; 3.638) PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 25

Conscientiousness 3.729 (3.568 ; 3.89) 3.306 (3.171 ; 3.441)

Sexual Satisfaction

Personal 4.035 (3.888 ; 4.182) 3.961 (3.838 ; 4.085)

Couple 3.795 (3.622 ; 3.968) 3.842 (3.696 ; 3.987)

General 3.937 (3.738 ; 4.136) 3.884 (3.717 ; 4.05)

Dominance

Inflicted 1.336 (1.280 ; 1.394) 1.349 (1.298 ; 1.400)

Recieved 1.331 (1.266 ; 1.400) 1.364 (1.305 ; 1.425)

Jealousy

Inflicted 1.553 (1.467 ; 1.645) 1.599 (1.520 ; 1.682)

Recieved 1.547 (1.455 ; 1.645) 1.657 (1.571 ; 1.748)

CNMs = Consensual Non-Monogamies.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore and compare the psychological characteristics of

non-monogamous practitioners and monogamous practitioners. Descriptive analyses

revealed expectable patterns in all variables. Within-instrument correlations for

personality traits, sexual satisfaction, dominance, and jealousy were in line with prior

literature (Costa & MacCrae, 1992; Kasian & Painter, 1992; Štulhofer et al., 2010).

Several between-instrument correlations were also supported by previous studies.

Sexual satisfaction displayed negative relations with neuroticism and positive with

agreeableness, extraversion, and agreeableness (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997;

Farley & Davis, 1980). Dominance and jealousy showed positive relations with

neuroticism while they showed negative relations with agreeableness and

conscientiousness (e.g., Buss, 1991; Buunk, 1997; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 26

Nevertheless, the negative relations of dominance and jealousy behaviors with sexual satisfaction was relatively novel, with only one study showing opposite conclusions

(Yela, 2000). A more in-depth analysis2 of these associations revealed them to be constant across monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners when cheating monogamy was included or excluded (all ps < .05).

Comparisons between monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners

Regarding the hypothesized differences in personality traits, mixed evidence arose. As expected, non-monogamous practitioners were more open to experiences than monogamous practitioners and did not differ regarding their neuroticism. At the same time, and in contrast to our hypotheses, non-monogamous practitioners were less conscientious, and did not differ regarding their extraversion and agreeableness.

Overall, non-monogamous practitioners thus seem to be less conscientious but more open to experiences, though both effects were small. Due to the correlational nature of the data, many explanations for these findings are possible. Regarding openness, it could be that CNMs reinforce more intellectual and experiential curiosity and stimulation than monogamous relationships. For example, polyamory and other consensual non-monogamy styles frameworks include elaborated processes of self- reflection and deconstruction from cultural trends, like narratives and moral values of romantic love (Veaux et al., 2014); Thus, people with high openness would resonate with these values. This could also mean that with enough time to culturally integrate

CNMs, differences in openness and conscientiousness would be reduced. One possible explanation regarding conscientiousness differences could be based on the complexity of CNMs. It is heavily stressed in CNMs that these relational styles are inherently complicated, with multiple sources of attention, compromise, and care (Barker, 2012;

Veaux et al., 2014). Thus, non-monogamous practitioners could self-regard themselves PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 27 as somewhat less conscientious (this is, self-viewed as less organized or disciplined for long-term goals) than their monogamous counterparts. For example, in a CNM setting, is more challenging to find a and start a plan while in monogamy is smoother given the cultural background supporting expectations, roles, and valid compromises. In addition, conscientiousness is also composed of norm-oriented components (e.g. traditionalism, moral integrity, etc.) although not measured by the

NEO-FFI (see Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005). Consequently, these components of conscientiousness could mediate these results, as it makes more theoretical sense for CNM practitioners to distance themselves from traditions and norm-oriented behavior than to just present themselves as less organized or disciplined.

Finally, it seems important to be aware that, as factor scores were calculated as item means, the same scale than the Likert format can be applied. Regarding openness differences, they shift between categories 3 to 4 in, while conscientiousness differences stay around 3 (Table 5). Thus, CNM people seem to have more probabilities to score 4 in openness items, while monogamous people tend to score between 3 and 4, making a subtle but meaningful difference. Moreover, both monogamous and non-monogamous people tend approximately to score between 3 and 4 in conscientiousness items, not presenting such a subtle difference. All in all, it could be held that openness differences are lightly more pronounced that conscientiousness differences.

Regarding sexual satisfaction, evidence suggested a null effect in all dimensions, confirming the hypothesis. This suggests that although one possible conception of consensual non-monogamies as highly sexualized lifestyles (and therefore, higher sexual satisfaction) is false, sexual satisfaction levels seems to be roughly equal when compared to monogamy. However, as literature has suggested (Wood et al., 2018), a more profound exploration of these constructs reveals a more complex behavior (e.g. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 28 motivational dynamics, mediators, etc.) of sexualities in CNMs in contrast with monogamy. Nevertheless, this replicated null finding can be interpreted as a normalization of CNMs, displaying comparable levels of sexual health to monogamy.

Regarding dominance and jealousy, evidence also suggested null effects. This would suggest that the conception of consensual non-monogamous people as highly less jealous (or no jealous at all) than their monogamous counterparts is not shared by self- reports of non-monogamous people. Therefore, jealousy and dominance would be equally present in both groups. Two possible explanations arise for this topic: First,

CNM communities encourage self-reflection of assumed roles in loving relationships, thus improving self-awareness on possessive attitudes such as jealousy and dominance.

Therefore, they would self-report more precisely than monogamous people as they are somewhat trained to recognize these behaviors, thus making comparison difficult (for an example, see Belzer et al., 2013). Second, CNM communities train themselves to deal with jealousy and dominance, pursuing self-regulation of such processes to achieve

CNM schemes. Thus, jealousy would not be automatically disregarded but analyzed if it is a plausible alarm of abandonment or a biased reaction, and self-regulated following that conclusion. Thus, consensual non-monogamous practitioners might not feel less jealous but deal differently with jealousy. Nevertheless, potential floor effects were also found, so results need to be regarded with some skepticism, while a more profound study of dominance and jealousy is necessary.

Regarding the hypothesized null influence of demographics, results confirmed that our results were indeed not influenced by sample demographics. This is important, as it suggests that the found differences and similarities are not due to demographic differences between monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners. Interestingly, results showed a relevant influence in the presence of cheating monogamous PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 29 participants. Across all significant differences, when cheating monogamous participants were excluded, distances between strict monogamy and CNMs were intensified. This could suggest that cheating monogamy can be viewed as an intermediate or hybrid state between monogamy and CNMs, thus mitigating distance between them when included in monogamy.

Finally, is important to note that power sensitivity analyses reported lack of precision (see Data Analyses section) due to sampling error for all significant effect sizes in this study. Therefore, found significant differences between non-monogamous and monogamous communities need to be taken with caution and aim for replication studies with larger sample sizes.

Overall, our results indicate that monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners have mostly similar characteristics, with only small differences related to openness and conscientiousness.

Limitations

The first and most important is the correlational design of the study. Since relationship styles were measured, differences between monogamous and non- monogamous practitioners cannot be interpreted in a causal way. However, the main scope of this paper was to investigate potential differences, instead of explaining them.

Future studies focusing on the causal effects of monogamous and non-monogamous relationship styles should rather rely on longitudinal or experimental designs. Another issue is that the sample, although large, had representativeness issues, and especially young and female participants were overrepresented. Moreover, since only Spanish- speaking members of Spanish communities participated, possible cultural influences and differences were not observed. In addition, the statistical power of this study was PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 30 not large enough to reliably detect very small differences between monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners. Therefore, larger, more representative samples are needed. Another important limitations rely on the use of self-reports: Possible single- method bias (as only self-reports were implemented), influence of social desirability

(van de Mortel, 2008), few items in some constructs (e.g., jealousy) could explain the lack of precision and large confidence intervals, although reliable and valid measurement.

Future directions

Given this study is one of the first comparing monogamous and non- monogamous practitioners, the first and most important recommendation is developing more studies to replicate and explore our conclusions. First, larger, more representative samples should be aimed for, along with replication studies in order to provide additional evidence regarding the potential differences between monogamous and non- monogamous practitioners. In addition, cross-cultural studies could observe if cultures influence these results. Also, a more in-depth exploration of these variables is needed with more elaborated instruments or construct adaptation to non-monogamies to help improve measurement. For example, non-monogamous practitioners might not differ in how often they experience jealousy, but in how they deal with jealousy. Thus, new measures would be needed to capture this potentially important aspect of jealousy. This also resonates with the recommendation to use diverse methods to remove bias (e.g., interviews or observational evidence). Finally, another recommendation is exploring additional relevant variables to improve conclusions, for example, attachment styles, machiavellianism, tolerance to ambiguity, or sensation seeking, and expanding them

(e.g., psychopathology and psychological well-being).

Conclusion PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 31

This study aimed for exploring possible psychological differences between monogamous and consensual non-monogamous people. In general, no differences were found in personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy behaviors between monogamous and non-monogamous people, and differences that arose were small.

These differences could not be explained by several demographics. This suggests, contrary to the stigmatic view of non-monogamy, that consensual non-monogamous practitioners are not that different from monogamous practitioners. This supports the idea of normalizing consensual non-monogamies as valid relational styles.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 32

Endnotes

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

2Correlations 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 & Sirois (2006).

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 33

References

Barash, D., & Lipton, J. (2002). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in

animals and people. New York, NY (US): Macmillan.

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

relationships. , UK: Routledge.

Barker, M., & Langdrige, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical

reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.

Barrón, A., Martínez-Íñigo, D., De Paul, P., & Yela, C. (1999). Romantic beliefs and

myths in Spain. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2, 64–73.

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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0165-7

Blow, A., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: a Substantive

Review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 217–233.

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. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x

Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in Married Couples: Personality Predictors of Anger and

Upset. Journal of Personality, 59(4), 663–688. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1991.tb00926.x

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. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 34

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00136-0

Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. (1998). in two

high school samples: Discriminating variable. The Journal of Primary

Intervention, 18, 431–446.

Cloud, J. (1999). Henry & Mary & Janet & : Is your marriage a little dull?: The

“polyamorists” say there’s another way. Time, (90).

Conley, T., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?:

Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non monogamous romantic

relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.

Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical

examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of

monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2),

124–141.

Costa, P. T., & MacCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R)

and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological

Assessment Resources, Incorporated.

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.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.008

Ec.europa.eu. (2017). Eurostat: Marriage and divorce statistics. Retrieved November 9,

2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Marriage_and_divorce_statistics#Fewer_marriages.2C_more_

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 35

Farley, F. H., & Davis, S. A. (1980). Personality and sexual satisfaction in marriage.

Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 6(1), 56–62.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00926238008404246

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. http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-92

González, M. (2008). Violencia en las relaciones de noviazgo entre jóvenes y

adolescentes de la comunidad de Madrid. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies:

Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. The Journal of Sex

Research, 53(1), 45–53.

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.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.776697

Hetherington, E., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2000). Divorce. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),

Encylopedia of Psychology: The Personal, Interpersonal, and the Social. New

York and Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association and New

York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4600100.aspx?tab=2

JASP, T. (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.6.0)[Computer software]. Retrieved from

https://jasp.stats.org/

Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological in a PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 36

dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350–364.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy.

Sexualities, 9(5), 565–683.

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.

Matsick, J., Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., & Rubin, J. (2014). Love and sex:

Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open

relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(4), 339–348.

Mittchell, M., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous

relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(3), 329–339.

Mueller, J. H., Schuessler, K. F., & Costner, H. L. (1977). Sfatistical reasoning in

sociology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Myers, L., & Sirois, M. J. (2006). Spearman Correlation Coefficients, Differences

between. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, 12.

http://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.ess5050

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. http://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx187.045

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure

of Conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality

questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 37

6570.2005.00301.x

Rubel, A., & Boggaert, A. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-

being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–

982.

Rubin, J., Moors, A., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. (2014). On the Margins:

Considering Diversity Among Consensually Non-monogamous Relationships.

Journal Für Psychologie, 22(1), 19–37. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/psychology_articles/133/

Schimtt, D. (2005). from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of

sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28,

247–275.

Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3), 251–283.

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.

Tanner, L. R., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., & Lund, L. K. (2003). Images of

couples and in Disney feature-length animated films. American Journal of

Family Therapy, 31(5), 355–373. http://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390223987

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting

Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60. van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking It: Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-report

Research. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 38

Veaux, F., Hardy, J., & Gill, T. (2014). More than two: A practical guide to ethical

polyamory. Thorntree Press, LLC.

Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal

of , 6(1–2), 137–164.

Weitzman, G., Davidson, J., & Phillips, R. (2012). What psychology professionals

should know about polyamory. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom Inc.

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.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743082

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. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-MONOGAMY 39