382 - Non-Monogamy Research Roundup Pt 1
Research roundup
There aren’t a lot of studies or research about non-monogamy, but what there has been done we have compiled together at multiamory.com/sources.
Today, we’re looking at some of the most recent studies done that focus on polyamory and ethical non-monogamy, specifically studies about who practices non-monogamy, what studies have found motivates people to pursue it, and how healthy non-monogamous relationships are in general.
Next week, we will have part 2, covering studies done about non-monogamy and its relation to mental health, sexual health, and the health of children raised by non-monogamous parents. Stay tuned for the next part of our research roundup!
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we are going to begin tackling a daunting task that we've been wanting to cover for a long time. Today is going to be the first of a two-part episode where we're going to go through a roundup of some of the most recent research studies that have been done about non-monogamy. Since starting this podcast in 2014, the amount of researchers actually looking seriously at consensual non-monogamy has grown hugely and the way that they're writing about it is very different.
It used to be, "No one's researching this, so I'm doing this study," and now it's, "This is becoming a more and more common thing for people to research, so I want to add to the research in this way, which is really exciting." Today there's just way more information, way more academic papers being written about specific facets of non-monogamous relationships, the people who practice them, their health, the health of their children, and so much more.
Today we're going to start by looking at a group of studies about who is practicing non-monogamy, what motivates people to practice non-monogamy, and then also how healthy non-monogamous relationships are in general and comparing different ways of doing non-monogamy. Then next week, we're going to continue by looking at studies about non-monogamy and how it relates to mental health, sexual health, and the health of children being raised by non-monogamous parents.
Dedeker: This is an exciting day. I feel like this could be a fun practice for us to do what? Once a year, once every couple of years because especially as the case-
Emily: I like that idea.
Dedeker: -of research is increasing on this topic, I think there could be some pretty regular updates to give to the people. It's what the people want.
Jase: Yes.
Emily: It's what people need.
Jase: This is also something that we are planning to put on our website. We're going to have a page. I believe it's multiamory.com/sources where we're going to put up links to the studies as well as some basic summary information of what's in them so that people have a place to go to look for those things. We can continue to add to that as we discover research that we think should go on that list.
Dedeker: Yes. The hope is that if someone's ever trying to throw a bunch of Helen Fisher research at you that makes the claim that non-monogamy is just biologically impossible. There's just no way that--
Jase: Is that where it comes from? Any people.
Dedeker: Helen Fisher definitely contributed to that. Helen Fisher is all very much on this bent that our brains just physically cannot tolerate non-monogamy. There's no way that anyone could ever be happy in non-monogamous relationships. If anyone throws that at you, you can just go to our website where all these studies are nicely compiled and nicely formatted and just wham get into a little research fight.
Jase: Perfect.
Emily: Love that.
Dedeker: Anyway, we're going to go through each of these studies one by one. Of course, we have to give the caveats that we often give on the show whenever we're looking at research and studies. Again, we always have to be mindful of correlation and causation relationships. As in causation, if a study says this causes this, that means this factor being in place definitely caused X, Y, and Z to happen and there's a very strong link. Correlation is a little bit more unclear.
They can say that, "Oh, we found this correlation that people who painted their houses blue were also correlated with having a higher income." That doesn't necessarily mean if you go and paint your house blue, you're going to automatically have a higher income. Correlation means we don't know the direction of what's influencing what. It could be because you have a higher income, you can afford that really nice high-quality, low gloss bear paint, or whatever it is. Can you tell that I've recently had to go down a whole rabbit hole of shopping for paint?
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: Anyway, just bear that in mind. We're going to do our best to be clear when a study has talked about a correlation and really clarify that is not necessarily causation.
Jase: One other caveat with these studies is when it comes to getting participants for these studies, all of them with one exception were almost predominantly all White people. We're talking 85% or higher people who identify as White in the studies. What is interesting though, in the studies that acknowledged that they did find that when they were looking at it, they did not find that race had any effect on the answers. As in they didn't find different results for non-White races in their studies and so the studies don't talk about race as a factor with one exception which is a study specifically about African American polyamorists that we'll get to later.
Dedeker: Then the last thing, I know I painted this image of you being really triumphant in this research fight against Helen Fisher and I hope that you are. I genuinely hope that you are. However, of course, we have to remember that the purpose of studies and of research and of science isn't necessarily to prove anything. Our media really likes to grab findings from studies to say, "Science proved that your blue house is going to increase your income by $10,000 this year," or whatever it is.
That's really not the point. A well-written study is not going to make those kinds of claims that, "This just empirically proves that this is the case or empirically proves that this type of communication practice or relationship practice is superior." The whole point is that research builds on other research. Something that's baked into studies for those of you that don't know is a section where they talk about further avenues to be researched and talk about the ways that this particular study may be missed certain areas or where there's gaps in the knowledge.
Then also research it's all about uncovering new things and so it also will contradict earlier research and things like that. Basically just trying to say you can take some of this as a grain of salt. None of this is trying to be a cajole to insist that one particular way of practicing relationship is the right way and that means every other way is the wrong way. Even though there's evidence here and there's research, it doesn't mean that this is just a hard irrefutable fact.
Jase: Actually, we're going to have a neat example of this in the very last study that we're going to talk about today where even in their own research, they find certain things that contradict between multiple studies they did and when they looked into why, found some surprising things. It's actually a good example of how continuing to do research and refining. What we understand is the whole point of it rather than, "Oh, I did this thing and now it's proved and you don't question me, just believe it."
Emily: We're going to jump right into our first section of research which is motivations for non-monogamy. This first study that we're looking at is a 2021 study by Moors, Gesselman, and Garcia called Desire, Familiarity, and Engagement in Polyamory: Results From a National Sample of Single Adults in the United States. It was published in psychology faculty articles and research. The methodology and the demographics we'll start out with here, it was collected as part of the annual Singles in America, SIA, study run by Match.
That's really interesting to me. Match.com, it makes sense that they would be making studies like this.
Jase: Studies about singles.
Emily: Exactly. That's primarily what they're looking at. All of the people in the study were over 18. They were single as we said and they were English speaking. It included 3,438 respondents and they filled out a full survey of 11 questions.
Jase: One thing to clarify here is that this study is not by Match. The data was collected by Match and then that data is made available to researchers. These researchers are not affiliated with Match because Match doesn't really study polyamory. As far as I know, they don't even-
Emily: They're not interested in it at all.
Jase: -acknowledge-- They put questions about it on their survey I guess but they tend to not be fans of it because they employ, Helen Fisher.
Emily: Oh, there you go. Well, of course. She is like, "No." These were some of the things that they were trying to determine within the study. First, they were trying to determine if people had engaged in polyamory before. For example, "I have been in a polyamorous relationship before and I would like to be in another, or I would not be in another." Something along those lines. They also were trying to determine if people are interested in trying polyamory like "I would consider being in a polyamorous relationship if it were more socially acceptable," or "I will only consider polyamorous relationships."
Then finally, they were also trying to determine if they know anyone polyamorous and how they feel about it. For example, "I know someone who had or who is currently in a polyamorous relationship," or "I respect polyamorous people, but I could not do it myself," something along those lines. Their findings were interesting. 16.8% reported a desire for polyamorous relationships. That's close to that 20% that we talk about.
Jase: Yes. Supposedly there's the 20% of people who've ever done some kind of non-monogamy. What's interesting to note about all of these findings is that this study is specifically with people who identify as single. That's who the research is about. Which it is an interesting thing in non-monogamy.
Emily: Because a lot of people open up their already existing relationship, and that's their gateway into it.
Jase: Or maybe if someone does have a breakup, it's somewhat unlikely that they would get back down to zero and count themselves as single and be involved in this study. Also maybe where they were getting their sample from is maybe match.com subscribers which are less likely to be polyamorous people. It's all just stuff to keep in mind. I don't know exactly those answers.
Emily: I feel specifically young maybe. If you are calling yourself single, maybe you're younger, it's skewing younger, or also maybe you've just gotten out of a long-term relationship, who knows?
Jase: We'd have to check and see.
Emily: 16.8% had reported a desire for polyamorous relationships, 10.7% had been in one before, 6.5 knows someone who is or has been in polyamorous relationships, 30.4% of people who had been in one previously would do it again. Then of those who had tried it, 21.1% said that they were too possessive to cope with it. That's an interesting turn of phrase that they were just too possessive specifically to cope with it. 32.8% said that the emotional aspects of polyamory were too challenging.
Jase: I think that was worth noting that the lower number is the jealousy one, only the 21.1 said it was effectively because of jealousy that they were too possessive. Do think that's interesting because that's the one people would assume is the main one and that the larger answer they got was just the overall emotional aspects of managing multiple relationships was too challenging.
Dedeker: That is interesting. Also with 30.4% of people who'd been in one previously would do it again, I'm like, "Okay, so it's like a third-
Emily: It's a nice amount.
Dedeker: -retention rate?"
Emily: There you go.
Jase: You could look at it another way and say like one-third-ish of people who had been in some sort of polyamorous relationship and were now totally single, would still pursue that. Maybe that's another interesting way to look at the question. This study is a weird interesting one which is why I wanted us to start with this.
Emily: Additionally, men and people with lower education levels compared to women and people with higher education levels were around two times more likely to have been in a polyamorous relationship before, but there are no other significant correlations.
Dedeker: Interesting.
Emily: Yes. That's an interesting one for whatever reason.
Jase: Really flies in the face of this idea that it's also only for highly educated-
Emily: Yes, that's true.
Jase: -people and that it's dominated by women. Though again, depends how they got their sample and how these people ended up on the study. Who knows?
Emily: Totally. Perhaps, I don't know, sometimes I think men will pursue it more openly initially, but then women are the ones in that more retention category maybe. I don't know.
Jase: Potentially. Yes. What a good question.
Dedeker: Maybe potentially. That's an interesting hypothesis for your study, Emily.
Emily: Oh, yes.
Jase: We're going to come up with so many studies to do.
Emily: Oh, yes, I know. For sure. Also, men were three times more likely than women to report desire for polyamory. There you go. Non-heterosexual people were two times more likely than heterosexual people to want polyamory.
Jase: That tracks with other things we see.
Dedeker: That definitely tracks with I think what we see in the community that there is this big overlap between the non-monogamous people and the queer people.
Emily: The queer people, for sure. Also, young people and non-heterosexual people were more likely to know someone polyamorous. That doesn't surprise me at all. Significantly, political affiliation and age did not correlate with prevalence of practicing or desiring polyamory, but they did correlate with being more accepting of other people being polyamorous, even if they were not personally interested. Democrats and young people were more likely to approve than Republicans and older people.
Jase: Isn't that interesting though that--
Dedeker: the anecdotal evidence.
Jase: The first part though, that they did not find, in terms of people wanting to do-
Emily: Yes, political.
Jase: -polyamory or having had done it that age and political party were not correlated with that, but then-
Emily: More accepting.
Jase: -they're more likely to disapprove of it. That was interesting.
Emily: That's fascinating. I have no idea why. That study did go all over the place, but that was really fascinating. I think a nice buffer and a first study to look at for all of this.
Dedeker: Definitely, it set the scene there. We're going to talk about another study. This was also in 2021. It's a study by Murphy, Joel, and Muise, I'm sorry if I'm butchering your name, but it's called A Prospective Investigation of the Decision to Open Up a Romantic Relationship. This was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. Basically, this was two surveys that they gave to their participants and they gave about two months apart. This technically accounts as a longitudinal study, is that correct Jase?
Jase: Yes, I think so because it's anything over time where you have multiple time points. Just not very longitudinal.
Emily: No. Not like Elizabeth Chef doing really huge longitudinal studies.
Dedeker: For many years. This was over the course of two months. They gave these surveys to 233 individuals that was made up of 80 men, 143 women, and 10 non-binary people. These were all people who were considering opening up their relationship. Now, the average duration of the relationships that these people were in was about 8.4 years. We're looking at an average of, I guess, what we would consider a long-term relationship. About 55% of them were married and the rest were in some variation on a dating relationship or engaged.
For the surveys, they were looking at three different areas for each person at both the first and the second survey. Then they were also looking at what are these people's reasons for wanting to open up their relationship. They were initially measuring relationship quality, sexual satisfaction, and life satisfaction as well. Of all the reasons that people might have for opening up, basically, only two reasons emerged that had satisfactory data. It doesn't mean these are the only two reasons that people open up. It's just these were the ones that had data significant enough for them to pay attention to.
Those two were intrinsic reasons, so as in, being non-monogamous is my identity, or it's just what I want. This is just a part of me and that's why I'm interested in opening up my relationship. The other reason that they looked at was sexual incompatibility reasons. As in just my partner and I have different sexual needs, different levels of sexual desire, or different sexual fantasies, or sexual interests, or things like that.
This is what they found, that in the time between the first survey and the second survey, again, this is just a period of two months, about 67% of the respondents had opened up their relationships since the first survey. Then they compared the two groups, the ones who had opened up in the meantime and the ones who hadn't. They found that those who did open up their relationship had significantly higher relationship satisfaction and life satisfaction, however, it wasn't that different from before they opened up. It just turned out that these people who seemingly came in with already high relationship and life satisfaction were more likely to just actually open up. That's really interesting.
Jase: I think that's a cool one that would surprise a lot of people too. Especially if they look at opening up as the stereo stereotype of, "Oh, it's not working, so we're going to try opening up." The relationships that were already happier and people who were happier were the ones more likely to actually open up in this particular study. I just thought that was really interesting.
Dedeker: Along those same lines, the study confirmed that opening up for these people, it did not decrease relationship satisfaction or life satisfaction, but it also didn't necessarily increase it. It seemed like everything stayed pretty net- what? -neutral, net zero, I don't know what you'd call that.
Jase: Neutral to a little bit positive is what they found, but definitely at least showed evidence that it doesn't make it worse so that's good.
Dedeker: However, they did find that opening up did tend to increase sexual satisfaction while sexual satisfaction went down for the people who had not opened up in that interim. This was especially true for those people who identified specifically sexual incompatibility as the reason for wanting to be open, which I suppose makes sense. You already are feeling maybe sexually frustrated, or one or both people in the relationship feel like there's incompatibility. We feel motivated to open up our relationship for that reason.
Two months have gone by, it's still unopen. I guess chances are pretty good that you'd still be feeling pretty sexually frustrated unless something, I don't know, some surprise solution presented itself in the meantime, which happens for some folks. Now interestingly, in the study, they didn't find any evidence to support that people with the intrinsic motivations were more satisfied with life or with their relationship after opening up than those with the other motivations. Overall basically whatever people's motivations were, your chances of still having a satisfaction with your life or with a relationship seems like that was pretty neutral or had a pretty neutral effect in this particular study.
Jase: This one's really interesting and later we'll get into some studies that found slightly different things, but I think what this study really brings up is how important it is to note what they didn't find, that a negative is also interesting. Say you hypothesize that the people who wanted to open up just for their own reasons versus some sexual incompatibility issue would somehow end up happier when they did open up and they didn't find that. That's interesting.
The fact that they didn't find something is also sometimes significant. That's one of the cool things about science. This next study here that's still on this same topic of people's motivations for opening up. This is a 2021 study by Wood, De Santis, Desmarais, and Milhausen called Motivations--
Emily: That was lovely.
Dedeker: So French with that chase.
Emily: I don't know if it's a French name or not, but I'm from Arkansas.
Jase: We just felt bad to say like Desmares as the name.
Dedeker: You can say it both ways. Just cover all your bases.
Jase: Desmarais or Desmahigh or some variation on that and Milhausen. This is called Motivations For Engaging in Consensually Non-monogamous Relationships published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. I like with that one, the title's real straightforward. Just this is what we're doing. This one was an online survey. You'll find that pretty much all of these studies that we're talking about today are online surveys of some kind. This one though is specifically targeted to people in consensually non-monogamous communities like the Reddit polyamory and Reddit non-monogamy groups, followers of sexuality, educators on Twitter, things like that.
That's how they tried to seek out respondents who were non-monogamous.
Emily: Maybe you out there.
Jase: You might have been part of this. I know.
Emily: Yes. You may have been part of those.
Jase: These are all pretty recent. There's a good chance that some of our listeners ended up on these studies. In this, they ended up with 540 individuals who are currently in a consensually non-monogamous relationship and who answered all of their questions, and this one, they were open-ended questions. They ended up with an average age of 35, although the range was everything from 18 to 82 years old. Mostly Canadian and United States citizens, mostly White, as we mentioned before and 67% were in polyamorous relationships and the others were in some other kind of consensually non-monogamous relationship.
This was basically one question that they got to write however much they wanted to answer. The question was, please tell us about your reasons for participating in a multi-partner/consensually non-monogamous relationship and that's it, go. Do with it what you will.
Emily: You can do a study on something like that? That's really interesting.
Dedeker: I guess they're like a qualitative study, right? Like when people do something like this, or if you're bringing people in and sitting them down for interviews where it's less about checking boxes or tell me how extremely satisfied-
Emily: Finding percentages.
Dedeker: -to not satisfied or strongly agree, or only kind of agree. Instead of that, that it is more about this qualitative content and sifting and parsing data out of that.
Emily: So many of the studies we find are the opposite of that. This is just cool that it's simply one question and then go and we find different things from that. Very fun.
Jase: From my understanding of it, basically crunching the numbers and doing your data on a quantitative study. Something where people are answering like a five, agree, one, disagree somewhere on that scale, versus a qualitative study like this, where it's just having to analyze what people write. They mentioned it went everywhere from people who almost listed it like bullet points very succinctly and other people who wrote huge long essays about their history and all the story leading up to it and all these things. Finding having to go through all of that, read all of it, find ways to codify it, to classify it into categories is a lot of work.
They get there are pros and cons to each. Basically what they did was in looking through it, they tried to find themes basically, to find themes of what are the recurring reasons why people do this. They came up with six interconnected themes in the responses. The first one is autonomy, which basically encapsulates everything from no non-monogamy is just more natural for me. It feels more authentic to me. I don't want to be controlled or control others. Those sorts of answers.
Autonomy was one of the themes. The second one was their belief system. This tended to show up more as a negative belief in monogamy of this belief that monogamy is restrictive of developing authentic connections or maybe is even harmful, or it could be a belief that's more positive about non-monogamy such as it allowing more individual exploration or belief that one person can't provide all of the sexual and emotional needs for someone else. That's belief system.
The third one was relationality, which basically means because I want to focus on my relationships. Saying that non-monogamy helps them to form, enhance, or maintain relationships. Mostly this was in the context of sexual and romantic relationships, but the researchers did acknowledge that several people also mentioned specifically friendships that they were able to focus more on those. As well as creating community with like-minded people and for allowing more integrity in the relationships that they do have.
Relationality was the third theme. Fourth theme was sexuality. That's the freedom to express yourself sexually or to live your sexual identity, interest in variety, novelty, or just excitement in sex, or as we mentioned in a previous study that ability to accommodate discrepancies in sexual desires or preferences or things like that with a partner. Then the fifth one was growth and expansion. That's a desire for personal growth that's fostered in non-monogamy. That's something we've definitely talked about before on this show, that idea that you can learn more about yourself through different relationships.
It allows relationships to grow and change in ways that feel more natural. That's growth and expansion. Then the last one they called pragmatism, which was not pragmatism of it just makes sense, but pragmatism of this makes sense for me and my life right now. Maybe because work's busy and this is just what works for me, or I have a long-distance relationship that's important to me and this just makes sense as a way to keep doing that relationship, or there are some medical issues that are a challenge and that we're able to get our needs met better through non-monogamy.
The takeaway that the researchers came to from this is basically just that the reasons why people do it are a lot more varied and were more intrinsic than a lot of people assume. That there tends to be that assumption of, oh, it's just that they're looking for sexual excitement or maybe just some pragmatic thing of sexual differences. We'll see that a lot of other studies focus on those two because I think some early studies focused on those and everyone else has kept going on that theme. This study being more qualitative was able to explore this further and showed that there were a lot of other reasons involved than just those.
Emily: The hypothetical scenario where people say things like, "Oh, non-monogamy doesn't work. All the studies show that." I would love to show them this because I think that it's really interesting to have all of these very nuanced reasons as opposed to just thinking, "Oh, it's because somebody wants to sleep with whomever they want. I love that. I think it also brings perhaps a humanity to it that some people don't see right away, especially if they're super against it.
Dedeker: Looking at this list and these reoccurring themes of autonomy, one's belief system, relationality, sexuality, growth and expansion, pragmatism, I'm thinking about our interview with Lola Phoenix, a few episodes back where they were talking about finding your anchor, finding your reason why or finding what motivates you. This seems like I just end up working with a lot of folks who sometimes get a little lost, especially when they're new to non-monogamy of, "I know I want to do this, but I'm not entirely sure why, or like what actually excites me."
Especially people who are not partner necessarily who are single, who are still trying to navigate, "I know I don't want monogamy, but I'm not entirely sure what's the really exciting part here for me that even having this list of just examples, I think could really help people with brainstorming and getting a sense of, "Oh, what actually is in this for me? Does it feel like it's related to sexuality or is it about the autonomy?" I can see this as at least a good starting point for people I guess, to find some ground to put their feet on.
Emily: Our next study looks at kink. It's a 2021 study by Ellora and Sprott, which are two of the greatest names I've ever heard in my life called Consensual non-monogamy among kink-identified adults: Characteristics, relationship experiences, and unique motivations for polyamory and open relationships. It was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. These are results from two different studies. One was a US national quantitative study of 690 adults and one was a qualitative study of 70 adults in Northern California, which surprises me, not at all Dedeker. Finding all those Northern Californians that love polyamory.
Dedeker: Yes, back to my roots.
Emily: They looked at both studies to see how motivations to practice consensual non-monogamy may overlap with motivations for kink. They found that over 80% of participants indicated that they had at least two emotionally significant relationships. Around 58% had at least three and 43% had at least four. That's a lot of people.
Jase: It is worth clarifying that in this context, they're not necessarily someone that they would identify as a partner per se, but just an emotionally significant relationship. That's why there's a little wiggle room. It's not saying for sure 80% we're also polyamorous or something, but this is a good indication that somewhere close to that probably.
Emily: Yes, that they were involved with more than one person in various ways, emotionally significant. From the large study, the one with 690 adults, they found that participants' current emotional partners often included partners that they used to be sexual with, but are no longer. That's a really interesting specification there because again, you may not necessarily need to be sexual with someone for them to still be really emotionally significant in your life. Of the participants in relationships, 44.57% reported having at least one partner who is not kinky or did not share their kink interests.
Jase: That's interesting because it relates back to the couple of other studies talking about sexual desire differences but it could also just be kink differences. If I'm into this kink and you're not or you're not kinky, I am, how can we manage this? That that came up to a lot of these.
Emily: Of the 70 qualitative interviews, 29 of them spontaneously mentioned non-monogamy in their answers. That's cool. They weren't necessarily asked it, but they still spontaneously talked about it. Discrepancies in kinkiness or mismatch in kinks was a dominant, wink, wink, wink, wink, theme in desire for consensual non-monogamy of some kind, which again is kind of what you just said Jase.
Jase: Righ, that that was recurring, yes.
Emily: Yes, as something may be happening there and so that's why perhaps they want to be involved with more than one person, which makes a lot of sense.
Dedeker: I think that's something that doesn't necessarily get talked about I think quite often enough. I know sometimes when I bring this up in interviews, people are sometimes caught off guard or surprised but I do think that in our culture, especially when it comes to kink or fetishes or even someone's just sexual interests that on monogamous folks, we put a lot of pressure on you need to sexually perform and match whatever your partner brings to the table, whatever they want because if you're not able to do that, then I think the fear is then they're going to leave you or they're going to cheat on you or stuff like that.
There are a lot of people who do turn to consensual non-monogamy, not even because it's like, "Oh I have high desire and my partner has low desire," but it's just straight up that, that, "I like the idea of being able to free my partner to be able to pursue their kinks instead of just being disappointed in me because I'm not really into their kink."
Jase: Love that. Before we continue on to covering some more exciting studies, we're going to take a quick break to talk about some sponsors for this show and some ways you can support this show to help us keep all of this information coming to people in an accessible way for free. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to those and check them out if any are interesting to you.
Dedeker: We're back and now we're going to be looking at studies that are examining the demographics of non-monogamy. Just getting curious about who's doing this, who's getting up to all these non-monogamy shenanigans. First, we're looking at a 2019 study by Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Holmes, Campbell, Lehmillera, and Harman. Who are we?
Jase: Who?
Dedeker: Called Demographic Comparison of American Individuals in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. This was published in the Journal of Sex Research. Basically, they got two different convenience samples. What a convenience sample is, it's better to just explain. What they did is they advertised in online communities for both monogamous or non-monogamous people to take a survey. Often with convenience samples, you're given a little treat or a little prize. It could be like a $5 Amazon gift card or we're going to enter you into a raffle for a $500 Amazon gift card or whatever it is.
When they were advertising the surveys, one survey advertised itself as "Investigating the perceptions of partners among individuals in polyamorous relationships" and the other survey advertised itself basically the same thing except for monogamous relationships. They got 2,428 non-monogamous participants and 539 monogamous participants who qualified for the study. They eliminated any non-monogamous participants who reported that any of their partners were unaware or not consenting, which is probably a good idea for getting some good data about these things.
Basically, they were just looking at a bunch of different demographics like gender, sexuality, education, religion, political affiliation, income, profession, ethnicity, number of household members, whether or not people had children, all those sorts of things. These were things that they found. Of the monogamous respondents, 74% identified as heterosexual but in the non-monogamous group, only 36% did. The two groups didn't differ in the rate that they would select gay or lesbian as their identity, but the non-monogamous people were much more likely to choose bisexual, pansexual or other, which again I think tracks with the experience of this particular community.
In this study, polyamorous people were slightly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher and this is in contrast to I know some earlier reports that we remember hearing, especially when we started the podcast that are the only people who were practicing this are people with bachelor's degrees or graduate degrees or higher. It's interesting that they found that that wasn't the case with this particular study. They also found that non-monogamous people were much less likely to report being Christian. Only about 11% of that group compared to 29% of the monogamous group. About 70% of both groups reported that their parents were Christian.
Emily: 70%. my mind.
Dedeker: I know. A lot of us have that ex-Christian baggage or the baggage from being raised by Christian parents. My goodness. Both groups were mostly Democrats instead of Republicans, but the polyamorous people were less likely to choose either of those. They were more likely to choose another smaller party like the Green Party or Libertarians or things like that.
Jase: To be clear, the majority still picked Democrat or Republican-
Emily: Democrat.
Jase: -but that they were more likely to pick a smaller party than the monogamous people.
Dedeker: The polyamorous group overall reported lower income than the monogamous group by a few percentage points.
Jase: Again, going in the face of this idea that it's just for rich educated people.
Emily: Which I love that though because that helps access needs. People who need or want to live in a big community so that they're able to afford things or have childcare, stuff like that. Lola Phoenix also talked about that.
Dedeker: This is interesting. The main career differences were that the polyamorous group were a bit more likely to be in IT, so as in 18% of the non-monogamous group versus 10% of the monogamous group. The monogamous group were more likely to work in education, so 15% of the monogamous group versus 7%. Both groups were equally likely to be married and also equally likely to have children living at home. Again, the study had predominantly White respondents, which is likely due to their methods for collecting the sample, so the data around ethnicity is not necessarily very enlightening.
Jase: Now to contrast that with this other study, this is a 2020 study by St Vil, Leblanc, and Giles, which is the Who and Why of Consensual Non-monogamy Among African Americans. This was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. As some background in this study, the authors cite that other studies from 2014, 2017, and 2018 show that the prevalence of consensual non-monogamy does not differ between White and Black people in the US, however, African Americans continue to be under-represented in the research on the topic. This study was seeking to add to that research and to--
They specifically said they wanted to help destigmatize consensual non-monogamy by not only exploring its prevalence but also looking at why people are pursuing it. I think like Emily mentioned in that earlier study, wanting to humanize it and put like, "Look, this is actually why people might want to do this." For this one, it was another online survey of 1,050 African Americans aged 18 to 40. This one was specifically looking at that age range, which I learned this age range is generally referred to as emerging adulthood, which is this--
Emily: You're almost out of emerging adulthood, Jase.
Jase: Well, yes. I think usually the emerging adulthood's more like 18 to 30-ish, but it's in that college through trying to get your life started time. This is in that and a little more into adulthood I guess. The average age was 29, and about half men, half women in this particular study. This was a 20-minute long survey. They got to a lot of stuff, but about the prevalence of non-monogamy, attitudes toward it, attitudes toward monogamy, infidelity, willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy, relationship satisfaction, safe sex practices, religion, life experiences, trauma, et cetera. They looked at a whole lot of stuff. Of that, the things that they found that they pointed out in the study was that 6.2% of the people in their study reported engagement in consensual non-monogamy at some point in their life.
Now that's interesting because it's lower than the 20% that we've heard in other studies. It does make me curious about how they went about collecting the people for this, if that might have any bearing on it, if the age might have an effect on that, if they were younger and hadn't had that experience, or maybe they were older, so they hadn't, I'm not sure what, so that's interesting, of all the demographic variables, so like income, political affiliation, all that stuff, the only one they found to be a strong predictor of whether they had done consensual non-monogamy was if they were not straight, if they were not heterosexual.
Heterosexuals were 73% less likely to have engaged in consensual non-monogamy. Again, similar to the other studies that we've looked at. Of the people who had practiced consensual non-monogamy in the past, the most common reason, 66% of people was excitement and or need for sexual satisfaction. The next most common answer, 25% of the respondents gave, which was not wanting to be in a committed relationship. I did think this was interesting, but they did not find any correlation with household income or education level despite again, that common perception that it's this educated upper-class phenomenon. They found that age and religion did not have a significant effect in predicting whether someone was interested in or had done consensual non-monogamy in the past.
What I think is interesting about this study is just that it backs up a lot of the other studies that we've looked at. There's a few things that are a little different, which again, this is why we need more of this research because these other ones have been, we're basing our study off of these three other studies before us and so we're able to really refine this data, whereas this is really the first one I know of that's asking these questions at all in specifically trying to look at African-Americans. There's more work to be done here, but it is interesting that at least on the surface, it seems pretty similar to the others.
Emily: Now we're going to move on to the section under the umbrella of non-monogamy and relationship health. This next study was from 2019 and it's a study by Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, Harman, and Holmes. The study was called Comparing Relationship Quality Across Different Types of Romantic Partners in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. It was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior as a few of these have been. Now, this was taken from two online convenience samples of individuals in polyamorous and monogamous relationships obtained in 2013, that's interesting. This study was published in 2019, but the samples were taken from 2013.
It included just over 2000 people, and most of the respondents were again in that emerging adulthood category, which they called 18 to 35, so not 18 to 40, but a little bit younger than that. Now, for the polyamorous people, they were asked to self-identify as being in a primary, secondary, this is "primary-secondary," "co-primary" or "no primary" type structure. That makes sense. Primary relationship in a secondary or two people or more that like essentially operate as primaries or non-hierarchical I guess, no primaries.
Jase: Or like the multi-secondary model or however you'd want to say it. People look at it different ways.
Emily: This is interesting. They removed anyone who did not fit in these three categories, which was over a third of the participants and it was unclear exactly what other options they gave.
Dedeker: Devastating.
Emily: They removed anyone else, I know.
Jase: That 2000 number of people that's after they removed it, it was like 3,500 people first and they eliminated tons of them because they didn't fit into one of these three categories, which is maybe a whole other paper that someone else will write based on this data.
Emily: They answered questions to determine things like relationship acceptance by friends and family relationship romantic secrecy from friends, family, or others. How secretive they were about their romantic relationship and then also investment in the relationship, things like commitment level, relationship satisfaction, jealousy, perceived quality of alternatives. I guess quality of alternatives to this type of relationship structure.
Jase: No more like, "Do you think I'd be just as happy with someone else that's not this person?" Like I could just as easily get my needs met from someone else, that type of alternatives.
Emily: Also quality of communication and proportion of time spent on sexual activity with their partners. Like what else do you do with this person? Is it only sex-based or not? That's really interesting. For the polyamorous people, the answers were separate for each of their partners, that makes sense.
It's not going to be one answer for everyone. Based on those answers for the people who called themselves "co-primary" or "non-primary," they assigned the partners as "pseudo primary" or "pseudo secondary," and this was determined based on the duration of relationship and cohabitation. Wow. That's weird that they did that, but it'll become relevant to what they were studying.
Dedeker: Am I reading this correctly because I think Jase actually read the text of the study in more detail? The way I'm reading this is that like, so if I'm taking the survey and if I'm like, oh I have two co-primary partners, but then I go on to indicate I live with one of these partners and I don't live with the other that then they would jump in and be like, that must mean the partner that you don't live with is pseudo primary. Is that what they were doing?
Jase: You nailed it. They specifically did a bivariate analysis of both duration of relationship and cohabitation with the person and then whichever had the higher score, they marked them as primary or as pseudo primary.
Emily: Even if somebody said that they don't operate in a hierarchical or primary non-primary they still said that they're pseudo primary.
Jase: They didn't tell the respondents this while they're taking this study, but in their analysis, they codified them that way. I was annoyed by this at first, but then as I started reading their findings, I was like, I see what you're trying to do here, but they're basically acknowledging that whether you intentionally practice a strict hierarchy or not, there's just effectively going to end up with someone that you end up more invested with or more entwined with or whatever. We use all sorts of different terms for that on the show but that's the point, is what they're looking at in this study is what are the differences between people's experience with their primary and secondary partner, one compared to the monogamous people who took this study and then two, compared to the people who said they were hierarchical and the people who said they weren't or had multiple primaries or no primaries? What was the difference between the experience of their primary and their secondary partner, even if they didn't call them that? That's what they're looking at.
Dedeker: Which I get because I think we do see that, but of course, people can say whatever, but then their behavior can be really different. I guess that makes sense.
Emily: The findings were, in most instances they found that secondary and pseudo-secondary partners in non-primary structures were less accepted by friends and family, they were less committed, less invested, less satisfied or satisfying, I guess those partners were, and they were more likely to be kept secret and spent a larger proportion of time together on sex, that's interesting. Huh?
Jase: It makes sense. We've talked about this before, where there's that primary privilege that shows up, where this is my primary partner, people at work know this is them maybe my family knows about this person, especially if I was in this relationship first and then I opened up, everyone already knows them. It's just easier and safer to keep the other one, a little more secret, be a little less entwined with them, that stuff. Just that shows up whether you call that primary or not, I do think is at least interesting, and we have talked about that, that that's something to be mindful about and be aware of. That makes sense here.
Emily: I did when I was in what I would call a secondary relationship, the person who I was with, we tended to have sex every time we saw each other, which was maybe once a week., and if we didn't, I know, I recall very vividly at one point he was like, "Well, if we're not going to have sex, what are we doing? Why aren't we doing that?" I was surprised a little by that because that's not necessarily if you live with someone, for example, you're not going to be having sex every single day necessarily. Maybe some people do but yes, that expectation I think is a little bit more prominent if you're only seeing someone once a week, for example, or once every other week so that skews the sex higher or the amount of time that you're having sex with someone higher.
Jase: I think especially because they set up their pseudo primary thing to identify the person you live with is probably your primary. If you're just looking at percentage of time together that we're having sex, if I live with you, I'm doing a lot of other things like sleeping, cleaning the house, and whatever. If I don't, it's just going to be a higher percentage of having sex, even if it's just as often as the other person. It's like come on guys, you set up that in the way you defined primary but sure.
Emily: Interestingly, in the co-primary rather than the non-primary relationships. People who identify as all of their partners are primary, they did not have less investment, satisfaction, or commitment level than the pseudo primaries. Does that also mean that both of them were living together or all of them were living together or what?
Jase: No, not necessarily. Basically what they're saying is that between the people who said I have a primary and secondary, they found all those things where the secondary was less satisfying, less invested, more likely to be kept secret, all that stuff that we've mentioned before. In people who said I don't have any primary, they found the same difference between their pseudo primary like their effective primary and their effective secondary.
Of the group who said, these are both my primary or these are all three of my primary, that in those categories of investments, satisfaction and commitment level, they didn't have as much of a difference. It's interesting that that shows that if you say multiple primary, it seems like maybe there's more of an effort or just you feel more of a consistent level of commitment and satisfaction between them. I don't know. It's interesting.
Emily: Finally, in their second study, they mostly confirmed the same findings except that in one they found the differences between the primary and secondary partners were smaller in both the co-primary and non-primary structures than they were in the primary, and secondary ones, which I guess makes sense. Again, I think that is, it's like where's the chicken and the egg? If you are perceived as secondary or perceive yourself to be secondary, then are you going to feel less satisfaction versus people who are perceived or who are told we're co-primaries here? That's fascinating.
Jase: Great questions. I love more studies on this one for sure.
Emily: Totally.
Dedeker: The next one is a 2021 study by Conley and Piedmont called Are there "Better" and "Worse" Ways to be Consensually Non-Monogamous (CNM)? CNM Types and CNM-Specific Predictors of Dyadic Adjustment? This seems interesting. This was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Basically, they did five total studies for this one. All of them used online questionnaires, and they were focused on evaluating the differences in relationship quality between people who are polyamorous, people who were swingers, and people who were in open relationships.
Now, these researchers characterized the differences this way. Basically, they defined swinging as having sexual experiences together. They defined an open relationship as having separate sexual relationships, but not romance or love. They defined polyamory as having separate sexual and romantic relationships. I know some people will hear that and get really really angry that they oversimplified it or some people will be like, "Oh, wow, it's finally clear." You can have your reaction but that's the terms they decided for this particular research study. They were only evaluating people's "primary relationships."
In the first three studies, they were evaluating the differences between these three groups on their relationship satisfaction, their commitment, their sense of passionate love, levels of jealousy, and also trust. Specifically, these first three studies, they were working to validate some of the previous findings from a 2017 study by Conley Piedmont, Gasa Cova, and Rubin from the University of Michigan. Now, this older study was looking at all those same factors, but just comparing them between consensual non-monogamy and monogamous relationships. They didn't necessarily get more granular into the different types of consensual non-monogamy.
Again, each study here didn't necessarily look at all of those traits, but they did overlap in some of those categories. This is what they found. Firstly, universally, the people who were in open relationships self-reported less relationship satisfaction, less passionate love, less trust, and more jealousy than either the polyamorous or the swinging groups. Also between the three different studies, they found that between polyamory and swinging, different studies showed higher or lower jealousy or trust or satisfaction between the two groups. That's interesting.
It was all over the place between their different studies. They didn't find necessarily consistent results. Overall, what they were able to conclude, the one consistent thing they found was that people specifically in open relationships were consistently less happy in their relationships than either the polyamorous people or the swingers. Then they have to figure out why.
Jase: That's where the second two studies come in and I thought this was fascinating. Basically, they said, "Okay, we found this trend, and we've replicated this across three studies. Now let's try to look at why." For these, they actually used different sets of responses from studies two and three previously. They were able to look back at that data and they've put in some questions specifically to answer these but did a separate analysis of them based on what they found previously.
Of those, they were trying to focus on why the people in open relationships are having worse scores on this. Study number four focused on communication skills. Basically, that was one of their hypotheses was that well, all the polyamory books and consensual non-monogamy resources really talk a lot about communication skills. They noticed that the communication skills that are often taught in the books, podcasts, and resources line up with some fairly well-validated interventions that are used in marriage therapy, specifically one that's called prep, which is not like the prophylactic drug but P-R-E-P is one and then care, C-A-R-E are the two different systems.
What they did is they looked at, based on their answers, do you have communication skills that are in line with these methodologies that are used in marriage counseling to see, or do you just have maybe better communication techniques? Then they also looked at how much they held pro-monogamy beliefs. They were thinking that perhaps people in open relationships are more likely to think monogamy is a better more ideal thing to do. They just don't happen to be doing it and so maybe that's due to their lack of satisfaction. Those were the hypotheses that they were testing.
Now the other study, study five before we get to the results. Study five is looking at people's motivation for non-monogamy. Was it intrinsic or extrinsic? Am I doing this because I want to or am I doing this because there's some circumstance like a long-distance relationship or sexual incompatibilities or something that feels more out of my control? Then they also looked at how well do you know your metamours thinking that perhaps polyamorous people and swingers might be more likely to know their metamours than open relationships and maybe that's part of it. Then also, how much do they hold pro-monogamy beliefs? Again, that's it.
Emily: I love that they looked at all this. It's so cool.
Jase: Yes, super fascinating. This is my favorite study. That's why I put it last in this episode so this is my favorite of these. Here's what they found when they looked at these. In study four, first, they confirmed their hypothesis that people in open relationships reported less effective communication patterns so not self-reported. Just based on their answers, they saw they didn't have these practices that have been shown to be good, and that they were more likely to believe that monogamy is an ideal that people should follow.
That say like, okay, maybe those are the reasons why they're having less relationship satisfaction, trust, intimacy, and stuff too. Then in study five, however, they did not find a difference between the open relationships and the swinger polyamory groups in terms of how pro-monogamy their beliefs were, which was surprising. I thought, for sure there'd be a difference there but I wonder if that could be because in this they were now combining the swinger and polyamory groups into one. I wonder if that--
Jase: The swinger data might skew it.
Emily: Well, I wonder. I just don't know it and it frustrates me that they didn't present that data separately. It just really surprises me to think that the polyamory group would feel just as pro-monogamy as the swingers and the people in open relationships but maybe it is. I don't know. I wish I knew. Maybe I'll have to go and run my own numbers on their data if they have it available. One thing they did find too is that having more extrinsic motivation led to lower satisfaction and that having better communication techniques led to higher satisfaction so those things they expect it. That the open relationship people tend to have less good communication and that they found that good communication led to higher satisfaction. Yes, exactly.
Emily: Yes, exactly.
Jase: What I thought was really interesting was this last part they did in their analysis was that, overall, that people in open relationships had more extrinsic motivation in their study, so more likely were doing it because of some other factor out of their control, rather than just because they want to, and that they had less effective communication techniques, and that they ended up less satisfied and less trusting in their relationships.
However, when they looked at the numbers again, but compared based not on relationship category, so ignoring whether they're in an open relationship or polyamorous or a swinger, and instead just looked at how are your communication skills, how are your pro monogamy beliefs and how familiar are you with your metamours, that there was no difference in how happy people were, whether they were open swinging or in polyamorous groups. Effectively showing that what matters is the communication, knowing your metamours, and not doing a relationship that's at odds with your beliefs, basically. That that's what matters.
Dedeker: That's what all makes sense.
Jase: This is a good example and this is what I previewed earlier. Dedeker was mentioning with correlation and causation, this kind of makes an interesting case that you might say first from correlation. "Oh, well, open relationships just aren't as good as polyamory or swinging because these scores were lower," Then when you dig deeper and they keep going with the research, it's actually, "Well, no, actually, maybe it's just that its communication and your monogamy beliefs and how well you know your metamours that matters. That people in open relationships happen to have less of those, less of the communication skills."
It's just interesting to look at it and be like what might be causing the other thing. It might not be what you think it is at first. Overall I think the cool takeaway is just having more intrinsic reasons for why you're doing it. Then also having good communication strategies and knowing your metamours, is going to get you more success. There seems to be a lot of evidence to support that, which I love. That's what we're all about here.
Dedeker: If you go to multiamory.com/sources, that's where you can find basically links to all of these studies. We could probably post it also with a little summary of the findings because I mean sometimes dropping in links, the unfortunate frustrating things, a lot of these studies are hidden behind a paywall. If you've been to that link before, we already have some studies there. A lot of them are from 2016, 2017 or so. We'll probably still leave those up, but we will add these more up-to-date research studies. Hopefully, keep that page updated into infinity and beyond for as long as they're doing research about non-monogamy. As long as we're doing this show.
Emily: We hope you all join us next week, as we continue our research roundup, we're going to look at studies on non-monogamy and its relation to mental health, sexual health, and the health of children raised by non-monogamous parents. That was a doozy, like all of those things. I'm really excited to look up even more interesting things on mental health and sexual health and all of that next week. I feel like in a lot of ways, we've just scratched the surface, even though that was a huge amount of research that was just thrown our way.