Comparisons of the Costs and Benefits of CNM versus Monogamy

Charlotte Inthof-Barrett

PSYC 4P15

Brock University

Elvira Prusaczyk

November 19, 2019

 2

Introduction

Although monogamy is considered to be the ideal romantic relationship (Garner, Person,

Goddard, Patridge & Bixby, 2019), people are increasingly forming consensual non-

monogamous (CNM) relationships. Despite this, stigma and prejudice against those in CNM

relationships continues to be pervasive. Therefore, researchers are increasingly examining CNM

relationships, investigating both perceptions of CNM relationships and relationship outcomes.

In this paper, I will compare monogamous versus CNM relationships on three indices:

mental health, physical health, and relationship satisfaction. Ultimately, I conclude that CNM

and monogamy can both be healthy options for individuals based on factors such as personality,

attachment, and communication styles. Future research should investigate areas such as

heterosexual non-monogamy, the effects of family opinions on CNM relationships, as well as

look further into possible discrepancies between monogamy and CNM in physical health.

Mental Health

In a study by Al-Krenawi & Graham (2006), surveys were given to women in

polygamous and monogamous relationships in Pakistan. These women rated their life

satisfaction, family functioning, mental health and marital satisfaction. Specifically, the sample

was taken from “senior wives”, who were often in the relationship through an arranged marriage.

Results showed that senior wives in the polygamous relationships reported greater

psychopathology on scales rating symptoms related to disorders like anxiety, depression, and

phobias (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2006; Al-Krenawi, 2010). The women in monogamous

relationships were much less likely to experience the adverse symptoms associated with the

disorders, and generally reported more positive mental health (Al-Krenawi, 2010).
 3

Although some studies have investigated the mental health outcomes of gay men in CNM

relationships, there is limited research in the mental health of heterosexual individuals in CNM

relationships. For example, in a study by Wagner, Remien, and Garballo-Dieguez (2000), gay

men in committed monogamous and CNM relationships participated through several surveys

which evaluated their commitment style (open, monogamous, swinging, etc.), their extradyadic

sex, how much their partner knew about their extradyadic sex, their satisfaction with their

primary relationship, and different psychopathological symptoms (such as depression and

anxiety). They found that the differences between the monogamous and CNM couples were not

significant in psychological distress (Wagner, Remien & Garballo-Dieguez, 2000).

Interestingly, they found that the psychological distress of the men in the CNM

relationships were highly dependent on individual’s personality. While for some, the extradyadic

sex their partner participated in was irrelevant to the strength of the relationship, other men

confessed to feeling jealous, threatened, and depressed about their partner (Wagner, Remien &

Garballo-Dieguez, 2000).

Therefore, there is some mixed evidence on the effects of CNM on the mental health of

the individuals within the relationships. Further research is necessary on this subject, and should

include relationships outside of the gay community to get a better understanding of a greater

variety of CNM relationships. One of the great limitations of this research is the lack of research

outside of the gay-male community. Very little research has been done on the mental health

outcomes of heterosexual and lesbian couples practicing CNM.

Physical Health
 4

Stigmas surrounding the sexual health of partners in CNM relationships are

predominantly negative, due to the commonality of sex outside of the primary relationship in

most forms of CNM. It is often assumed that these individuals would be more prone to, and have

a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections (STI). However, research conducted on CNM and

monogamous relationships has concluded these differences may not be statistically significant.

Lehmiller (2015) conducted a study where individuals in CNM and monogamous

relationships completed an anonymous online survey asking questions about the relationship, the

individual’s sexual practices, and questions of infidelity, or CNM. They reported that CNM

partners often practiced safer sex than monogamous couples who were cheating on their partners.

In essence, individuals in CNM relationships were more likely to report using condoms outside

of the primary relationship, as opposed to monogamous couples committing infidelity, where the

majority did not use condoms (Lehmiller, 2015; Swan & Thompson, 2016). The study found that

individuals in CNM relationships had a much higher number of sexual relationships over their

lifetime, but did not have more STIs than those in monogamous relationships (Lehmiller, 2015).

These results are similar to those found by Swan and Thompson (2016) when college students

and gay men were asked to fill out surveys regarding their relationship status and sexual

behaviours (including infidelity and condom use). It was found that those in monogamous

relationships reported feeling less at risk for STIs, but simultaneously predicted neglect in

condom use when participating in extradyadic sex (Swan & Thompson, 2016).

Although the stereotypes surrounding CNM are often focused on the sexual health risks

these relationships might pose, the concern is not supported by evidence. There are several

reasons as to why this might be the case. Those in CNM relationships are aware of and spend

more time dwelling on the sexual relations they have outside of their primary relationship. This
 5

appears to cause an increase in condom use amongst these individuals, as they create

understandings with their partner about certain rules they will not break (such as using condoms

with all partners except for their primary partner) (Lehmiller, 2015). Further, as individuals in

CNM relationships typically have more partners than those in monogamous relationships, they

are likely more aware of the inherent risks of having multiple partners (Conley, Ziegler, Moors,

Matsick & Valentine, 2012).

One of the limitations of the studies surrounding the physical health of individuals in

CNM relationships is that there is very little research conducted on the physical health outcomes

of monogamous versus CNM relationships. While much of research has been done on the study

of the sexual health of individuals in CNM relationships, research should investigate whether the

type of relationship might play a role in other health factors, such as coming down with colds,

avoiding serious health concerns, and decreasing stress-related diseases, all which have been

associated with close monogamous relationships (Miller, 2018).

Relationship Satisfaction

The third measure of the outcomes of CNM versus monogamous relationships is based

on relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction in this assessment will refer to one or both

partner’s reports on their contentment, intimacy and closeness within their primary relationship.

In the study of Pakistani women described earlier by Al-Krenawi and Graham (2006), the

women in polygamous relationships also reported feeling less satisfied in their relationship, and

described lower general life satisfaction. These women felt especially that they were lacking the

attention they desired from their partner. What is important to note, however, is that these

women were the “senior wives” in the family, and often entered the relationship based on
 6

arrangements, as opposed to consensually entering a relationship (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2006).

In this specific study, they did not measure the relationship satisfaction of the preceding wives

who had entered into the marriage willingly. Therefore one cannot accurately generalize this to

average CNM relationships, where individuals have full consent when entering these

relationships. However, this might address some of the factors which may be present when one

partner identifies their desire for CNM while another partner might be hesitant or reluctant to

engage in that kind of relationship.

In a similar study conducted amongst the female Pakistani population, researchers had

women in polygamous marriages, and women in monogamous marriages complete the

McMaster Family Assessment Device. The results revealed that women in polygamous

marriages were much unhappier with the way their family functioned, and felt less satisfied with

their home life. Furthermore, this specific statistic applied to all women in the marriage, not just

the senior wives (Al-Krenawi, 2010).

However, not all studies have agreed on the relationship satisfaction in CNM. This is

perhaps where the importance of the consent is observed. In a study conducted recently, they

found very different results. This study sampled 357 individuals in consensual non-monogamous

relationships (varying forms). Participants were asked to complete the Relational Assessment

Questionnaire, which reports on several different components to relationships and measure the

overall satisfaction. The results showed that these individuals were just as satisfied with their

current relationships as monogamous couples had reported (Moors, Ryan & Chopik, 2019).

In conjunction with these results, another study found that individuals in CNM

relationships reported just as high satisfaction as those in monogamous relationships, when the

communication between the partners was open. Contrary to typical monogamous relationships,
 7

individuals in CNM relationships were more likely to participate in open discussions about

uncomfortable subjects like attraction to others, jealousy and sexual temptation (Scoats &

Anderson, 2019). Similarly, when individuals chose to participate in forms of CNM that

prohibited or restricted this open communication (“don’t ask, don’t tell”), couples reported

feeling anxious and jealous about their partner’s extradyadic partners (Scoats & Anderson, 2019;

Wagner, Remian & Gaballo Diguez, 2000).

What these results suggest is that individuals in CNM relationships must enter in these

relationships with both partners wanting to participate in some form of consensual non-

monogamy. Without the desire to partake in this kind of relationship, we see the results as found

through earlier studies, with individual partners reporting high levels of depression, anxiety and

low life satisfaction (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2006; Al-Krenawi, 2010; Scoats & Anderson,

2019; Wagner, Remian & Gaballo Diguez, 2000).

Conclusion

While there appears to be few differences in the outcomes or benefits to monogamy

versus consensual non-monogamy, it is important to look at some vital factors that might speak

to the success of these lifestyles in different individuals. For example, recent research has

suggested that individuals with secure attachments may have the most success in CNM

relationships (Moors, Ryan & Chopik, 2019). These individuals were able to retrieve satisfaction

from multiple relationships equally. In fact, people in these CNM relationships appeared to have

stronger secure attachment than typical monogamous relationships. What this might suggest is

that individuals with secure attachment styles are more likely to seek out CNM relationships

because of the trust that is required in the boundary-setting of non-monogamy (Moors, Ryan &

Chopik, 2019). Likewise, those with anxious or avoidant attachment styles may be adverse to
 8

CNM relationships, and may be inclined to have monogamous relationships instead (Conley et

al., 2012). In addition, it has been shown through multiple studies that communication is key to

the success of CNM relationships (Scoats & Anderson, 2019; Wagner, Remian & Gaballo

Diguez, 2000).

These results suggest that consensual non-monogamy and monogamy likely have similar

costs and benefits, and that neither have superior outcomes than the other. As long as the

individuals engaged are willing to participate in the kind of relationship that has been laid out by

both partners (whether monogamous or otherwise), these relationships can provide meaningful,

healthy and satisfactory connections. As studies have shown, however, this success is highly

dependent on the personality and attachments of the individuals within the relationship (Wagner,

Remien & Garballo-Dieguez, 2000; Moors, Ryan & Chopik, 2019; Scoats & Anderson, 2019).

There is still a great deal of research to be conducted on the overall benefits and costs of

monogamous relationships, and consensual non-monogamous relationships. Future research

should look to expand their samples to include adult relationships, instead of college

relationships. Further, more samples including heterosexual marriages and minority individuals

would increase the generalizability of the results, and help gather stronger evidence in the

benefits and outcomes of monogamy and consensual non-monogamy. Future research should

attempt to investigate the possible internalization of stigmas and stereotypes surrounding CNM

and what possible effects that might have on the relationship. For example, family members

(parents, grandparents, siblings, etc.) who are not supportive of the relationship might influence

the individuals in the CNM relationship’s ideas and feelings about how satisfied they are. Future

questions should ask what this looks like for individuals in CNM relationships, as well as the

impact that might have to their relationship satisfaction, mental, and physical health. These
 9

stereotypes themselves can be damaging and often inhibit individuals in CNM relationships to

seek help or participate in counselling (Balzarini et al., 2019).

In conclusion, current research suggests that when individuals in CNM relationships

maintain open communication, have secure attachments, and enter the relationship consensually,

there are no great differences from monogamy. The positive and negative outcomes do not differ

significantly, despite social stigmas and stereotypes regarding forms of CNM.

 10

References

Al-Krenawi, A., & Graham, J. (2006). A comparison of family functioning, life and marital

satisfaction, and mental health of women in polygamous and monogamous marriages.

Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52, 5-17. doi: 10.1177/00207640060061245

Al-Krenawi, A. (2010). A study of psychological symptoms, family function, marital and life

satisfactions of polygamous and monogamous women: The Palestinian case. Journal of

Social Psychiatry, 58, 79-86. doi: 10.1177/0020764010387063

Balzarini, R.N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, J.J., Harman, J.J., & Holmes,

B.M. (2019). Comparing relationship quality across different types of romantic partners

in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 48, 1749-

1767. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7

Conley, T.D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A.C., Matsick, J.L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical

examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,17, 124-141. doi:

10.1177/1088868312467087

Garner, C., Person, M., Goddard, C., Patridge, A., & Bixby, T. (2019). Satisfaction in consensual

nonmonogamy. The Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families,

27, 115-121. doi: 10.1177/1066480719833411

Lehmiller, J.J. (2016). A comparison of sexual health history and practices among monogamous
 11

and consensually non monogamous sexual partners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12,

2022-2028. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12987

Miller, R.S. (2018). Intimate Relationships. New York: McGraw Hill Education.

Moors, A.C., Ryan, W., & Chopik, W.J. (2019). Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with

multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Journal of Personality

and Individual Differences, 147, 102-110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023

Mogilski, J.K., Memering, S.L., Welling, L.L.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (2015). Monogamy

versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing strategically

pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 46, 407-417. doi:

10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2

Scoats, R., & Anderson, E. (2019). ‘My partner was just all over her’: Jealousy, communication,

and rules in mixed-sex threesomes. Journal of Culture, Health and Sexuality, 21, 134-

146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2018.1453088

Swan, D.J., & Thompson, S.C. (2016). Monogamy, the protective fallacy: Sexual versus

emotional exclusivity and the implication for sexual health risk. Journal of Sex Research,

53, 64-73. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2014.1003771