Does "Open" Rhyme with "Special"? Comparing Personality, Sexual Satisfaction, Dominance and Jealousy of Monogamous and Non-monogamous Practitioners
- PMID: 33942196
- DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x
Does "Open" Rhyme with "Special"? Comparing Personality, Sexual Satisfaction, Dominance and Jealousy of Monogamous and Non-monogamous Practitioners
Abstract
Romantic relationships are changing in Western culture. The recent rise of alternative relationship models called consensual non-monogamies (CNMs) has drawn attention toward them. Western cultures largely stereotype and stigmatize CNMs, portraying their practitioners (among other aspects) as psychologically distinct from monogamous practitioners. Likewise, recent scientific literature suggests probable differences for CNMs practitioners, mainly them being more extraverted, agreeable, and open, but also less jealous and dominant toward their romantic partners. However, although CNMs differentiate themselves from cheating monogamous practitioners, potential differences are unclear. The present study compared 372 participants (with 193 CNMs practitioners) from Spanish culture regarding their personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance, and jealousy. On most dimensions, monogamous and CNMs practitioners did not differ significantly from each other. CNMs practitioners showed significantly higher openness and lower conscientiousness, although these differences were small and debatable; thus, these findings should be taken with caution. These differences could not be explained by differences in age, gender, education, marital status, sexual orientation, or other demographic variables. The addition of cheating monogamous mitigated these differences. Overall, this study suggests that monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners are not psychologically different. Methodological limitations and future recommendations are discussed, with particular emphasis on replication studies.
Keywords: Consensual non-monogamy; Dominance; Jealousy; Personality; Polyamory; Sexual satisfaction.
Similar articles
-
Jealousy, Consent, and Compersion Within Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships.Arch Sex Behav. 2019 Aug;48(6):1811-1828. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4. Epub 2019 Jan 3. Arch Sex Behav. 2019. PMID: 30607710
-
Compersion: When Jealousy-Inducing Situations Don't (Just) Induce Jealousy.Arch Sex Behav. 2021 May;50(4):1311-1324. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01853-1. Epub 2021 May 26. Arch Sex Behav. 2021. PMID: 34041641
-
Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships.Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Mar;12(2):205-232. doi: 10.1177/1745691616667925. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017. PMID: 28346120
-
Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy.Arch Sex Behav. 2017 Feb;46(2):407-417. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2. Epub 2015 Dec 17. Arch Sex Behav. 2017. PMID: 26679305
-
A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships.Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2013 May;17(2):124-41. doi: 10.1177/1088868312467087. Epub 2012 Nov 21. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2013. PMID: 23175520 Review.
References
-
- Barash, D., & Lipton, J. (2002). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals and people. London: Macmillan.
-
- Barker, M. (2012). Rewriting the rules: An integrative guide to love, sex and relationships. London: Routledge. - DOI
-
- Barker, M., & Langdrige, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. - DOI
-
- Barrón, A., Martínez-Íñigo, D., De Paul, P., & Yela, C. (1999). Romantic beliefs and myths in Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2, 64–73. - DOI
-
- Belzer, F., Schmidt, S., Lucius-Hoene, G., Schneider, J. F., Orellana-Rios, C. L., & Sauer, S. (2013). Challenging the construct validity of mindfulness assessment—A cognitive interview study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Mindfulness, 4(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0165-7 . - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
