Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:11:30.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perceived Satisfaction Derived From Various Relationship Configurations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2016

Marisa T. Cohen
Marisa T. Cohen*
Affiliation:
St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York, USA
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Marisa T. Cohen, Assistant Professor of Psychology, St. Francis College, 180 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Experimental research focusing on consensually non-monogamous relationships is lacking. This study examined perceptions of relationship satisfaction of participants (N = 321) randomly assigned to conditions in which they were presented with either a passage depicting a monogamous, open, or polyamorous couple. Results demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the groups exposed to the various relationship configurations in terms of the perceptions of the hypothetical couples’ relationship satisfaction, F(2,318) = 3.12, p = .045. Specifically, the monogamous couple was rated as having higher relationship satisfaction than the open couple. Such a study has implications for garnering a better understanding of the preconceived notions we hold about the lifestyles of others. As this area warrants further investigation, exploration is still ongoing.

Keywords

relationship satisfactionconsensual non-monogamyopen relationshippolyamorymonogamy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 7 , 2016 , e10
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, M. (2011). Monogamies and non-monogamies: A response to 'The challenge of monogamy: Bringing it out of the closet and into the treatment room. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 26, 281–287. doi:10.1080/14681994.2011.595401 Google Scholar
Brandon, M. (2011). The challenge of monogamy: Bringing it out of the closet and into the treatment room. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 26, 271–277. doi:10.1080/14681994.2011.574114 Google Scholar
Conley, T.D., Moors, A.C., Matsick, J.L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, T.D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17, 124–141.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Gohm, C.L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 31, 419–436. doi:10.1177/0022022100031004001 Google Scholar
Farooqi, S.R. (2014). The construct of relationship quality. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, 1–11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.2 Google Scholar
Finn, M.D., Tunariu, A.D., & Lee, K.C. (2012). A critical analysis of affirmative therapeutic engagements with consensual non-monogamy. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 27, 205–216. doi:10.1080/14681994.2012.702893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family. 50, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, C.C., Beougher, S.C., Chakravarty, D., Darbes, L.A., & Neilands, T.B. (2010). Relationship characteristics and motivations behind agreements among gay male couples: Differences by agreement type and couple serostatus. AIDS Care. 22, 827–835.Google Scholar
Hosking, W. (2013). Satisfaction with open sexual agreements in Australian gay men's relationships: The role of perceived discrepancies in benefit. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1309–1317. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0005-9 Google Scholar
Khaleque, A.R., & Rohner, N. (2004). Intimate adult relationships, quality of life and psychological adjustment. Social Indicators Research. 69, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, J.J. (1976). An exploratory study of seventeen sexually open marriages. Journal of Sex Research, 12, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsick, J.L., Conley, T.D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A.C., & Rubin, J.D. (2014). Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 339–348. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013. 832934 Google Scholar
Moors, A.C., Conley, T.D., Edelstein, R.S., & Chopik, W.J. (2015). Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (bot not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 222–240. doi:10.1177/0265407514529065 Google Scholar
Shernoff, M. (2006). Negotiated nonmonogamy and male couples. Family Process, 45, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weitzman, G., Davidson, J., & Phillips, R.A. (2009). What psychology professionals should know about polyamory. Baltimore, MD: The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, E. (2010). What's queer about non-monogamy now? In Barker, M. & Langrdridge, D. (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 344–361). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, K.J. (2012). Clients in sexually open relationships: Considerations for therapists. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy. 24, 272–289. doi:10.1080/08952833.2012.648143 Google Scholar