Psychology & Sexuality

ISSN: 1941-9899 (Print) 1941-9902 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpse20

Attitudes and experiences of swinging couples

Justin Wilt, Marissa A. Harrison & Cobi S. Michael

To cite this article: Justin Wilt, Marissa A. Harrison & Cobi S. Michael (2018): Attitudes and
experiences of swinging couples, Psychology & Sexuality, DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2017.1419984

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017.1419984

Published online: 02 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpse20

Download by: [RMIT University Library] Date: 02 January 2018, At: 13:02
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017.1419984

Attitudes and experiences of swinging couples

Justin Wilt, Marissa A. Harrison and Cobi S. Michael
Psychology, Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Swinging involves emotionally committed romantic partners engaging in Received 23 June 2017
sex with others, typically in the presence of one’s partner. Previous Accepted 16 December 2017
studies of the demographics, attitudes and behaviours of those involved KEYWORDS
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

in swinging are largely from the 1970s and tended to focus on obtaining Swinging; the lifestyle;
information from only one member of a romantic pair. In the present nonmonogamy; CNM;
exploratory, descriptive study of swingers, we endeavoured to obtain a jealousy; partner
contemporary sample to document demographics, to elucidate gender
similarities and differences with respect to motivations and attitudes
regarding swinging, and to gauge self- versus partner perceptions of
this shared activity. We administered a questionnaire to 34 heterosexual
couples attending a swinging club. Demographics match those found in
previous studies of swingers. As expected, participants engaged in
swinging for enjoyment and fantasy fulfilment and reported low jealousy
from themselves and their partners. Results show few gender differences
in attitudes toward swinging and consistent partner agreement of the
motivations and parameters of participation in swinging. However, par-
ticipants’ assessments of why their partners engaged in swinging were
not consistent with their partners’ reports. Results and limitations are
discussed.

Swinging, or ‘the lifestyle’, is consensual, non-monogamous (CNM) sexual activity, typically occur-
ring in the presence of one’s partner, where emotional monogamy with the partner is still
maintained (Gould, 1999; Walshok, 1971). Although it is argued that CNM is becoming more
popular (Hutzler, Giuliano, Herselman, & Johnson, 2016), a good portion of the research that exists
about swinging, a type of CNM, was conducted more than a generation ago and rarely examines
the attitudes of couples. In the present exploratory study, we endeavoured to obtain a more recent
sample of swinging couples to compare partner attitudes and experiences and to elucidate
contemporary attitudes and practices among swingers.
Many cultures forbid extramarital sex for one or both partners (Frayser, 1985; Vaughn, 2010),
and extramarital sex ranks among the most strongly tabooed sexual practices, second only perhaps
to incest (Hyde & DeLamater, 2011). A recent CNN poll (2014) showed that in the United States
(US), most adults (93%) believed that extramarital sex is wrong. However, swinging is not con-
sidered infidelity by its participants (Bergstrand & Williams, 2000; Gould, 1999). Thus, it is often a
confusing concept to many people, as our political, popular and psychological landscapes suggest
that sexual and emotional monogamy is the natural, ‘moral’ way for couples to relate to one
another (Barker & Landridge, 2010; Rubin, 1984). This argument may have evolved from reproduc-
tive and paternity concerns (Trivers, 1972).

CONTACT Marissa A. Harrison mah52@psu.edu Psychology, Penn State Harrisburg, Olmsted W311, 777 W. Harrisburg
Pike, Middletown 17057-4898, PA, USA
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 J. WILT ET AL.

Historically, US society has not been receptive to swinging. Gilmartin (1975) documented that
about 50% of nonswingers would find it aversive if an otherwise unobjectionable swinging couple
moved into their neighbourhood and that nonswingers think that swingers are deviant in other,
non-sexual facets of their lives. Recent research by Hutzler and colleagues (2016) documented
people’s negative attitudes towards polyamory (consensual, concurrent romantic relationships;
Sheff, 2006), which, although not the same as swinging, is a type of CNM. People tend to have a
negativity bias (Kunda, 1999); when people are labelled as having an undesirable trait, those same
people are assumed to have other undesirable traits as well. Unfortunately, it is common for
swingers to experience stigma and be labelled by nonswingers as general deviants (Jenks, 1998).
Early researchers ascribed the label of deviant to swinging behaviour (Fang, 1976). Even recently,
Matsick and colleagues (2014) determined that people perceive those who engage in swinging
more negatively than they do those involved in polyamory. Similarly, Grunt-Mejer and Campbell
(2016) showed that heterosexual (but not sexual minority) participants ascribed higher relationship
quality, morality, and cognitive abilities to monogamous and polyamorous individuals than to
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

swinging individuals. Such negative perceptions persist even in the face of evidence showing that
outside of the swinging atmosphere, swingers try to maintain a lifestyle that upholds traditionally
responsible values such as marriage, children, and emotional monogamy (Gould, 1999). Although
nonswingers’ attitudes are not a focus of the present work, a pervasive, negative attitude towards
swinging may be a reason for the lack of research regarding this phenomenon.
Indeed, the concept of swinging is often misrepresented or misunderstood, resulting in confu-
sion about how it may differ from other forms of nonmonogamy. A variety of different words (e.g.
wife swapping, polyamory) are erroneously used to describe what is thought to be a common
practice or belief system in swinging. These terms are often perceived as offensive by swingers
themselves (Gould, 1999). It appears that a mononormative way of thinking (i.e. a belief that
monogamy is ‘normal’ and ‘natural’) provides roadblocks to understanding nonnormative beha-
viours (Barker, 2005; Barker & Landridge, 2010; Gould, 1999).
Coon (2006) suggested that our changing social organisation has created an opportunity for
people to engage in behaviours that have always been part of ‘the human behaviour matrix’ but
were infrequently engaged in due to suppressive sociocultural norms. It may be the case, then, that
a societal shift towards personal freedom of choices invigorates a sense of sexual freedom.
However, despite a recent evolution of sexual diversity tolerance and inclusion (e.g. same-sex
marriage becoming legal in some countries, including the US) (Berggren & Nilsson, 2016), pre-
judices appear to persist, and the negative stereotypes attached to swinging behaviour by those
not involved necessitate a discretionary nature for those who are involved (Bergstrand & Sinski,
2010). To wit, most swinging establishments provide as much discretion as possible to protect their
clients, and many swinging clubs historically and even today are run by membership only
(Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010).

People who engage in swinging

It is difficult to estimate how many people engage in swinging. Research has shown that up to 5%
of people in the US have been involved (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2013). Some reports
claim that 15% of couples in the US have engaged in swinging at some point (Bergstrand &
Williams, 2000). Older studies found much lower percentages. For instance, Weiss (1983) estimated
that 2–4% of married couples engaged in swinging occasionally, yet Bartell (1971) found that about
1% do. Hunt (1974) conducted a nationwide survey and found 2% of men and less than 2% of
women reported swinging, with a large proportion of these respondents having only tried it once.
Similarly, Cole and Spaniard (1974) found a sample of students from a small college community to
have a 1.7% instance of swinging at least once in their lives. It must be emphasised that most of
these studies are decades old, and from these data, it is difficult to estimate contemporary
involvement.
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 3

With respect to swingers’ traits and attitudes, Jenks (1985) obtained a large sample of swingers
(N = 340) and compared them with a control group of nonswingers (N = 406). Jenks reported in
comparison to the control group that more swingers were White, work in more professional
settings and management positions and were above average in education and income. Further,
Jenks documented that compared to controls, swingers were quite liberal in regard to issues
concerning sexuality, were more tolerant of atypical sexual behaviour and less likely to stereotype
women’s roles. Moreover, compared to controls, they were less likely to place emphasis on religion
and were more liberal regarding areas such as abortion, divorce, premarital sex, pornography and
homosexuality. Jenks’ study was conducted 30 years ago, yet Bergstrand and Sinski (2010) corro-
borated its findings in their more recent online study of over 1000 swingers residing in the US. Of
note, they found that most swingers were married, were most often affiliated with the Democratic
party and more than half were Christian.
Additionally, Bentzen and Træen (2013) interviewed six men and six women involved in
swinging. The sample included five heterosexual couples. Participants noted some negative
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

aspects of swinging such as concerns about sexually transmitted infections and impotence.
However, participants reported many positive aspects to swinging such as enhancing self-esteem
and one’s relationship, allowing opportunities for seeing one’s partner engage in sex with others,
and affording the ability to act out sexual fantasies. Although this study was rigorous and very
informative, the sample size arguably limits its representativeness.

But aren’t they jealous?

One might expect jealousy to exist when a committed partner has sex with someone outside of the
relationship. A survey of therapists showed that jealousy was a problem in a third of all couples
that sought marital counselling (White & Mullen, 1989). Usually, romantic jealousy in a typical,
monogamous relationship emerges from a threat of separation or abandonment by one’s partner
vis-à-vis the possibility of the partner’s romantic or sexual interest in another person (Sharpsteen &
Kirkpatrick, 1997). It seems counterintuitive, then, that those in committed, romantic relationships
would be accepting of their partner having sex with others. Jealousy has long been identified as a
major cause of divorce and marital problems in monogamous relationships (Pines, 1992). However,
jealousy does not seem to be a major factor in couples involved in swinging. In fact, evidence
suggests that for people involved in non-traditional relationships, compersion (positive feelings
attained from one’s partner being involved in a rival romantic relationship) exists and predicts
relationship satisfaction (Aumer, Bellew, Ito, Hatfield, & Heck, 2014). Research from Jenks (1985),
Barker (2005), Klesse (2006) and others has shown low jealousy in swinging and other CNM
relationships. Moreover, generally men tend to become more jealous of sexual infidelity than do
women (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). It is interesting to see if this sex difference
emerges among swingers.
De Visser and McDonald (2007) addressed jealousy and how couples involved in swinging
perceived and managed it. Results showed that these couples became jealous only when they
thought their partner may have an emotional connection to another person. de Visser and
McDonald suggested that to manage jealousy, couples involved in swinging form a strong couple
identity, communicate openly and implement rules that separate physical intimacy, shared with
others when swinging, and emotional intimacy, exclusive to the primary relationship. This allows
the couple to explore sexually with others.
Curiously, there is limited research comparing and contrasting both members of a swinging
couples’ attitude about lifestyle participation. Nearly all of the studies cited above focused one
elucidating individual participants’ perceptions and experiences in swinging activities. Although
these studies were done well and yielded value insight into the lifestyle, it is interesting to
investigate how partners’ preferences, perceptions and experiences compare with each other.
This was a goal of the present study.
 4 J. WILT ET AL.

Sex differences
As noted by Serina and colleagues (2013), based on social construction of gender, emotion and
sexuality, one might expect differences in the attitudes and behaviours of men and women who
engage in swinging to reflect differences typically seen between men and women in the general
population. For example, men tend to initiate sex more frequently than do women (Buss, 1994).
Evidence does corroborate that men typically initiate and impose swinging (Houngbedji & Guillem,
2016). Further, as stated earlier, men are typically more sexually jealous than women (Buss et al.,
1992) so that may carry over into the swinging environment.
Arguably little research has been conducted on this topic. However, some studies have shown
that men and women who swing tend to have common attributes. Dixon’s (1984) review noted
that male and female swingers tend to have the same demographic characteristics, are not
typically anxious, do not engage in deviant behaviours in other facets of their lives and share
common beliefs and attitudes about society. A more recent study by Houngbedji and Guillem
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

(2016) also documented that male and female swingers tend to share demographic characteristics
and do not differ in age at first swinging or frequency of swinging. A difference did emerge in that
female swingers report more bisexuality, which is consistent with general population findings
(Diamond, 2004). It is interesting, then, to explore further the attitudes and practices of contem-
porary swingers to ascertain sex differences.

Issues with research on swinging

The subject of swinging has historically been ignored from a research perspective (Rubin, 2001).
Rubin (2001) noted that academic interest in the topic declined since the 1970s and that ‘those
on the fringes’, like swingers, have been studied infrequently. In a review of contemporary
literature, Barker and Landridge (2010) contended that there has been ‘an explosion of interest
in CNM relationships’ (p. 748); however, as evinced by the content of their review, this interest
seemingly focuses on polyamory, or open gay relationships, and not swinging per se. Further,
some studies underscore sexually transmitted disease risk in the swinging community (e.g.
Jenks, 1992; Niekamp, Mercken, Hoebe, & Dukers-Muijrers, 2013), but not psychological aspects
of swinging. The scarce literature that is available tends to highlight demographic data compar-
ing swinging couples to non-swinging couples or on the sexual aspects of swinging. Other
studies have focused on swinging couples’ construal and management of jealousy (cf. Jenks,
1985), as previously discussed.
The topic of swinging has seemingly been avoided by researchers, perhaps due to its sensitive
nature and the fear of association of such by peers and administrators who feel the subject to be
taboo (Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010). It also may be the case that there are few academic rewards for
studying personal choices that are seemingly contrary to achieving acceptance and status (Rubin,
2001). Further, it is possible that academics may not be aware of swinging practices or consider
them such a rare occurrence that study is unwarranted.
The research that has examined swinging provided valuable information but was not without
methodological problems. These issues are discussed below.

Difficulty of recruitment
Recruiting participants is a major issue in swinging research. Swinging is not the ideal US relation-
ship (Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010); so, any association with swinging may jeopardise the participants’
social status. For this reason, swingers usually keep their interests separate from their daily lives
and may not wish to participate in research. Swingers rarely allow family members, coworkers or
friends not associated with swinging to have knowledge of their swinging activities (Bergstrand &
Sinski, 2010). Thus, the secrecy of swinging makes it difficult for researchers to access participants.
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 5

Precision
As recruitment is difficult, much research on swinging is confined to very small, localised samples
(Jenks, 1998). The research that exists on swinging typically has low sample sizes such as 5 couples
(e.g. Bentzen & Træen, 2013), 7 couples (e.g. Vaillancourt, 2006), or 10 couples (e.g. Finn & Malson,
2008). Although these studies yielded a valuable snapshot of swinging demographics, attitudes
and behaviours, a larger sample size may allow for increased precision of findings.

Gender bias in sampling

Many researchers of swinging have analysed responses of unequal pools of participants in terms of
gender, with more men responding (Rubin, 2001). Thus, opinions of swinging may reflect a male
bias. Although it is not certain why this is so, it may be the case that participants responded to
these surveys as couples but allowed the men to speak for the attitudes of both partners
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

(Bergstrand & Williams, 2000).

Lack of contemporary results

Scientific studies of swinging that do exist are several decades old. Much of the limited research
conducted on swinging dates back to the 1970s. Yet, a quick Internet search in the present day on
‘swinging club’ and ‘the lifestyle’ yields thousands of hits, providing information on relevant clubs
and parties in all areas of the US, demonstrating public interest. It is, therefore, compelling to
explore the topic further with a contemporary sample.

The present study

There is a curious lack of contemporary research on the attitudes and behaviours of heterosexual
couples involved in the swinging. We investigated demographics, partner preferences and percep-
tions thereof, reasons for participating in swinging and attitudes towards swinging.
This study advances knowledge on several fronts. We provided updated demographics on those
who engage in swinging. We measured the general life satisfaction of those who participate in
swinging. We aimed to elucidate gender differences in swinging attitudes and practices, as
previous research has seldom addressed this. Moreover, we sought to determine how accurately
one partner perceives the other partner’s preferences regarding shared participation in swinging.
We also compensated for potential gender-biased responses in previous research. We recruited
only couples where each member was able to participate in the study.

Method
Participants
As noted by Bentzen and Træen (2013), it can be particularly difficult to recruit swingers to
participate in research, likely because many swingers are not open about their involvement in
the lifestyle. We contacted three swinging clubs for recruitment assistance, but only one was
willing to allow our team to come into the club to recruit participants. This swinging (lifestyle) club
is located in a suburban area of a mid-Atlantic state. The club hosts parties on Thursday, Friday and
Saturday of every week and can only be entered once a couple or a single person becomes a
member and pays an entrance fee. Reservations are also necessary. Participants received no
remuneration.
A total of 34 couples (34 men and 34 women) participated in this study. Ages ranged from 27 to
58 (M = 45.60, SD = 7.76). The majority of the participants identified themselves White (87.0%),
followed by Black (7.2%), then American Indian (1.4%).
 6 J. WILT ET AL.

Measures
Demographics
Previous research on these topics is largely from the 1970s and 1980s; thus, we wanted to gauge
demographics of contemporary swingers. We asked various demographic questions, including age,
ethnicity, state of residence, education, occupation, income and political ideology.

Sexual orientation
To assess sexual orientation, we used the Kinsey Scale developed by Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin
(1948). This scale represents a 0–6 continuum of sexual orientation, with a rating of 0 indicative of
exclusive heterosexuality and a rating of 6 representing exclusive homosexuality. The scale is
widely used and has face validity (Bailey, 2009).

Satisfaction With Life Scale

Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Pavot & Diener,
1993) assesses satisfaction with life as a whole. Participants responded to each of five items on 7-
point scales ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’. Scores, therefore, range
from 5 to 35. The SWLS is an effective tool in gauging emotional well-being (Pavot & Diener, 1993).
Hultell and Gustavsson (2008) reported that the SWLS has good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .88),
and Pavot, Diener, Colvin and Sandvik (1991) reported that SWLS scores are solid predictors of
other self-reported as well as peer-reported measures of well-being. Similarly to previous research,
our participants’ responses to the SWLS showed good scale score reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .85;
CI: .75, .92).

Swinging milieu
We asked participants to report their relationship status with the person with whom they attended
the club that evening, how long they have been in said relationship, who of the couple introduced
the idea of swinging into the relationship, how long the couple has been swinging and how
frequently the couple swings.
We also asked the following questions: ‘How do you (and your partner) find other swingers to
interact with sexually?’ (circle all that apply). Answer choices were ‘internet lifestyle sites’, ‘swing
clubs’, ‘swing newspapers or magazines’, ‘private parties’, ‘other swingers’ homes’, ‘meet-and-
greets’ and ‘other’ (please explain). ‘What are the reasons you are involved in the lifestyle?’ and
‘What are the reasons that you feel your partner is involved in the lifestyle?’ (circle all that apply).
Answer choices were ‘sexual variety’, ‘to meet other people socially’, ‘attribution of fantasies’,
‘polyamorous interests’, ‘my partner wants me to do it’ and ‘other’ (please explain). ‘How did you
first learn about the lifestyle?’ Answer options were ‘my partner’, ‘friends’, ‘media’ (magazine, news
article), ‘Internet’ or ‘other’ (please explain). ‘How did YOUR PARTNER first learn about the lifestyle?’
Answer options were ‘from me’, ‘friends’, ‘media’ (magazine, news article), ‘Internet’ or ‘other’
(please explain). ‘While swinging, who typically makes the final decision when it comes to sexual
“play”?’ Answer choices were ‘myself’, ‘my partner’, or ‘both equally’.

Swinging questionnaire
We developed a questionnaire to assess participants’ attitudes, satisfaction and perceptions of
one’s partner’s satisfaction with involvement in swinging. The authors created this pool of
questions to explore a wide range of attitudes and behaviours involved in swinging. Items
tapped into previously researched swinging topics (e.g. jealousy) as well as topics infrequently
addressed in the literature (e.g. partner pressure and boundaries). We were particularly inter-
ested in assessing sex differences. Participants were presented with a series of statements and
asked to report on a 5-point Likert scale the degree to which they agreed with each. Response
options were 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 2 = ‘disagree’, 3 = ‘neither agree nor disagree/neutral’,
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 7

4 = ‘agree’ and 5 = ‘strongly agree’. The questions are presented in predetermined categories
of items in a table later in the context of analysis.
Because the questionnaire was geared at gauging several different constructs, good scale
reliability for the instrument as a whole was not expected (α = .55, CI 95% = .35, .71). In Table 2,
we report subscale score reliability for each category. Based on evidence from previous research
and on our exploration of various media topics geared at swinging audiences (e.g. websites,
magazines, newsletters), we underscore the face validity of the items we presented. To illustrate,
asking participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement, ‘My partner
would break up with me if I did not participate in swinging’ or ‘I enjoy swinging’, targets the
concepts of interest (relationship maintenance and enjoyment, respectively).

Procedure
All procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board. The principal investigator (PI)
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

obtained written permission from the club owner to conduct the study. Both the PI (male) and a
Master’s-level female research assistant administered the questionnaires. On two nights spaced
approximately a month apart, investigators set up a table in a corner of the club to avoid
disturbing patrons who did not wish to participate. Participants approached the table when
interested. Investigators told them that this survey was being conducted for research purposes
by a University team, and they briefly explained the purpose of the study. All people who
approached the table were willing to participate.
We handed paper-and-pencil format questionnaires to each member of a couple upon their
agreement to participate. An informed consent form was stapled in front of the questionnaire so an
individual could read the form, agree to participate and then use this front page to cover the
questionnaire so that responses could not be seen by their partner, the investigators or passers-by.
Once finished, both couples’ questionnaires were placed together in an envelope, sealed and
placed in a covered box.

Results
Demographics
Please see Table 1 for demographic data.

Satisfaction with life

No gender differences were observed in the SWLS (men, M = 28.42, SD = 5.68; women, M = 28.22,
SD = 5.28), t(63) = .151, p = .181. According to Diener’s (2006) specifications, these scores are in the
high range suggesting that participants ‘like their lives’ and ‘feel that things are mostly good’ in their
lives (p. 1). A one-sample t-test showed that participants in this study had a higher mean SWLS score
(M = 5.66, SD = 1.09) than controls in Pavot and Diener’s (2008) study (M = 4.78), t(64) = 6.54, p < .001,
d = .82. An interesting sex difference did emerge. For women, a Spearman’s rho correlational analysis
showed a moderate statistically significant relationship between SWLS score and frequency of
swinging, rs(30) = .52, p = .002, but this was not the case for men. Further, there was no relationship
between how long someone has been swinging and SWLS scores for men or women.

‘The lifestyle’ introduction and participation

Women most commonly reported that they first learned about swinging from their partners
(50.0%), whereas only 11.1% of men reported that they first learned about swinging from their
partners. A larger proportion of men (44.4%) than women (26.9%) reported learning about
 8 J. WILT ET AL.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

Category Result
Age Men: M = 47.38, SD = 7.14
Women: M = 43.76, SD = 8.05
No statistical difference; t(65) = 1.95, p = .055, d = .48
Sexual orientation 40.6% Exclusively heterosexual; 0% predominantly or exclusively homosexual. Women (M = 1.88,
SD = .89) much more likely than men (M = .42, SD = .88) to report being non-exclusively
heterosexual, t(64) = 6.71, p < .001, d = 1.65
Relationship status 79.4% Married; 20.6% boyfriend/girlfriend; 100% couple agreement on labels
Time in relationship 15.45 years (SD = 10.85)
Time swinging together 6.40 years (with considerable variation; SD = 5.18 years)
Positive correlation between length of current relationship and years swinging together, r
(66) = .33, p = .006
Positive correlation between age and relationship length, r(65) = .38, p = .001
No relationship between length of current relationship and frequency of swinging, rs
(64) = −.058, p = .642
No relationship between age and years swinging together, r(65) = .23, p = .065
Residence 85.3% Lived in the state where the club is located, and 14.7% lived in surrounding states. Most
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

live in suburbs (60.3%), χ2(2, N = 68) = 30.21, p < .001, Phi = .67, as opposed to rural (33.8%)
or urban (5.9%) areas
Education Some high school (1.5%), being a high school graduate (19.1%), attending some college (23.5%),
having technical training (11.8%), an Associate’s degree (13.2%), a bachelor’s degree (13.2%), a
Master’s degree (14.7%), or a doctoral degree (3%). Analyses show that most (79.4%) of the
participants had at least some post-secondary education, χ2(1, N = 68) = 23.53, p < .001,
Phi = .59
Income Median income: $80,000–$90,000 annually per person. Mode income: $100,000 or more annually
per person
Occupation Healthcare field most commonly reported occupation for participants (26.2%), χ2(15,
N = 65) = 54.88, p < .001, Phi = .92, but participants worked in a wide variety of fields:
Management (10.7%), business (10.7%), education (7.1%), information technology (8.9%) and
retail (5.4%). Others indicated professions: Arts, construction, food service, maintenance, legal,
military, administration, science and transportation
Politics Radical liberal (left wing) (3.5%), moderate (40.4%), conservative (43.8%), or reactionary (right
wing) (3.5%), or uninterested enough to have an opinion (8.8%). Participants unlikely to have
extreme political views (radical or reactionary), χ2(4, N = 68) = 52.00, p < .001, Phi = .87
Religion 41.2% reported being somewhat religious; 26.5% reported being not at all; 23.5% reported being
moderately; 8.8% reported being very religious (the least common response) χ2(3,
N = 68) = 14.35, p = .002, Phi = .46

swinging from the Internet. Other choices were friends (men = 18.5%; women = 7.7%), media
(men = 11.1%; women = 3.8%) and other (men = 14.8%; women = 11.5%). The responses indicated
for ‘other’ included pornography media, family, previous boyfriend, always knew and a swing
vacation site. We also asked participants how their partners first learned about swinging. The most
common response by men (53.3%) was that their partner learned about swinging ‘from me’, but
only 9.7% of the women reported this. The most common response from women (32.3%) was the
Internet, whereas 30% of men reported this. Other choices included friends (men = 3.3%;
women = 22.6%), media (no men chose this response; women = 3.2%) and other (men = 3.3%;
women = 6.5%). Ten per cent of men and 25.8% of women were not sure how their partner first
learned about swinging. ‘Other’ responses included pornography, a ‘lifestyle’ vacation and they
always knew.
We also sought to determine which partner introduced swinging into the relationship, as
evidence from previous research shows that it is typically men who do so. As expected, men’s
reports indicated that they introduced swinging 53.1% of the time, their partners introduced it 25%
of the time and someone else introduced it 21.9% of the time. Women’s reports indicated that they
introduced swinging into the relationship 19.4% of the time, their partners introduced it 67.7% of
the time and someone else introduced it 12.9% of the time. A Chi-square test of independence, χ2
(2, N = 63) = 11.89, p = .003, Cramer’s V = .46, showed that men more frequently introduced
swinging into the relationship.
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 9

Table 2. Self-report of reasons for swinging participation and partners’ perceptions of those reasons.
Self-reported % Partner’s perception % κa p
Men
Sexual variety 88.2 82.4 .248 .119
To meet other people socially 76.5 53.5 .129 .454
Attribution of fantasies 44.1 38.2 .125 .465
Polyamorous interests 3.0 8.8 .306 .002*
My partner wants me to do it 3.0 11.8 .576 <.001*
Other 3.0 5.9
Women
Sexual variety 73.5 73.5 .231 .176
To meet other people socially 73.5 73.5 .154 .366
Attribution of fantasies 50.0 64.7 .406 .017*
Polyamorous interests 11.8 8.8 .238 .225
My partner wants me to do it 23.5 8.8 .407 .010*
Other 14.7 11.8
Notes. Because we asked participants to check all that apply on a list of six reasons, percentages exceed 100%. *Statistically
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

significant. aKappa statistic calculated only for data provided by both partners.

Respondents reported engaging in swinging 2–3 times per year (4.5%), 4–5 times per year
(15.0%), 6–8 times per year (18.0%), monthly (28.4%), several times per month (23.9%), weekly
(7.5%) and several times per week (3.0%). Nearly all participants found others to swing with via
swing clubs (90.9%), and the majority met others through Internet ‘lifestyle’ sites (69.7%).
Participants also found other swingers through meet-and-greets (36.4%), private parties (36.4%),
other swingers’ homes (24.2%) and swing newspapers or magazines (1.5%). As participants
checked all that apply, percentages exceed 100%.
Participants identified on a list the reasons that they are involved in swinging and the reasons
they believe their partners are involved in swinging. We calculated Cohen’s kappa to determine the
agreement between self-reports of reasons and their partners’ perceptions of those reasons.
Table 2 depicts these results.

Who initiates ‘play?’

Most participants (78.8% of men, 58.8% of women) stated that the decision to play is equal among
both partners. Further, 9.1% of the men and 23.5% of the women reported that they made the
decisions to play, while 12.1% of the men and 17.6% of the women reported that their partner made
the decision to play. There were no sex differences in these responses, χ2(N = 68) = 3.15, p = .207.

Sex differences
Our Swinging Questionnaire consisted of a series of items aimed at assessing participants’ experi-
ences and perceptions of swinging and their perceptions of their partners’ experiences with
swinging. We averaged participants’ scores in predetermined categories of items in the Swinging
Questionnaire, and we analysed them for sex differences. See Table 3. Of note, we later removed
one item from one predetermined category, relationship maintenance. We moved ‘Swinging has
enhanced my relationship with my partner’ into its own category, relationship enhancement, as this
placement was more theoretically sound.
For the only category that showed a significant sex difference, partner contingency, the effect
size was large, d = .75, whereby women disagreed more than men did with items pertaining to
swinging being essential to the relationship.
To ascertain agreement or disagreement, we used one-sample t tests to determine how
participants’ scores compared to the neutral midpoint (value of 3). Please see Table 3.
Given that previous research shows that when given a choice of partners in a sexual encounter,
most men would prefer to have sex with two women (Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2004), we
 10 J. WILT ET AL.

Table 3. Swinging questionnaire categories, items, sex differences and participants’ agreement.
Men M (SD) Women M (SD) t p
Fantasy 3.81 (.98) 3.89 (.75) .364 .717
α = .69, 95% CI [.53, .81] Agree** Agree**
Swinging helps me escape the roles of my daily life 3.74 (1.29) 3.55 (1.21)
Swinging helps me live out my fantasies 3.93 (1.08) 4.03 (.95)
Swinging helps my partner live out his/her fantasies 3.80 (1.19) 4.10 (.87)
Enjoyment 4.08 (.43) 4.00 (.43) .725 .471
α = .29, 95% CI [−.03, .54] Agree** Agree**
I enjoy swinging 4.74 (.51) 4.39 (.67)
My partner enjoys swinging 4.48 (.57) 4.52 (.89)
I plan to continue swinging for a long time 4.18 (.73) 3.81 (.93)
My partner and I enjoy engaging in threesomes – us 2.82 (1.53) 3.03 (1.49)
and a man
My partner and I enjoy engaging in threesomes – us 4.09 (.91) 4.09 (1.0)
and a woman
My swinging experiences as a couple have been positive 4.36 (.55) 3.97 (.86)
Relationship enhancement 4.36 (.65) 4.09 (.82) 1.47 .146
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

Agree* Agree
Swinging has enhanced my relationship with my
partner
Partner contingency 3.03 (.56) 2.65 (.45) 2.89 .005†
α = .27, 95% CI [−.09, .53] Neutral Disagree**
I am more interested in swinging than my partner is 2.61 (1.20) 2.06 (.77)
I would only date someone in the lifestyle 2.94 (1.41) 2.00 (1.11)
If I wasn’t with my current partner, I would continue to 3.79 (1.22) 3.31 (1.31)
swing
I would break up with my partner if s/he did not 2.94 (1.41) 2.00 (1.11)
participate in swinging
Swinging is NOT cheating on a partner 4.76 (.51) 4.59 (.61)
Pressure on partner 1.47 (.94) 1.19 (.40) 1.49 .142
Disagree** Disagree**
My partner feels s/he must engage in swinging or s/he
will lose me
Relationship maintenance 1.20 (.36) 1.37 (.52) 1.49 .141
α = .58, 95% CI [.30, .75] Disagree** Disagree**
My partner would break up with me if I did not 1.19 (.40) 1.45 (.67)
participate in swinging
I feel I must engage in swinging or I will lose my partner 1.20 (.48) 1.29 (.53)
Own jealousy 1.50 (.67) 1.70 (.82) 1.06 .293
α = .90, 95% CI [.85, .93] Strongly disagree** Disagree**
I get jealous when my partner engages in soft core 1.42 (.96) 1.61 (.95)
swinging (e.g. oral sex) with others
I get jealous when my partner engages in sexual 1.65 (1.02) 1.57 (.90)
intercourse with others
I get jealous when my partner is visibly enjoying 1.55 (.71) 1.78 (.94)
himself/herself with another partner
I get jealous when someone flirts with my partner 1.42 (.66) 1.75 (.66)
I get jealous when my partner flirts with someone else 1.45 (.75) 1.72 (.85)
Partner jealousy 1.94 (.93) 1.54 (.57) 2.01 .049
α = .81, 95% CI [.71, .88] Disagree** Strongly disagree**
My partner gets jealous when I engage in soft core 1.81 (1.11) 1.45 (.72)
swinging (e.g. oral sex) with others
My partner gets jealous when I engage in sexual 2.00 (1.20) 1.48 (.68)
intercourse with others
My partner gets jealous when I am visibly enjoying 2.00 (.94) 1.72 (.68)
myself with someone else
Limits 3.28 (.68) 3.29 (.68) .026 .979
α = .61, 95% CI [.43, .75] Agree* Agree*
There are some things I will not engage in sexually 4.00 (1.13) 3.90 (1.30)
when in the swinging environment
There are some things my partner will not engage in 4.00 (1.05) 3.90 (1.33)
sexually when in the swinging environment
There have been times another swinger (other than my 3.52 (1.8) 4.00 (1.02)
partner) has made me uncomfortable
(Continued )
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 11

Table 3. (Continued).
Men M (SD) Women M (SD) t p
My partner and I only engage in same-room sex with 3.09 (1.51) 3.03 (1.54)
others
My partner and I engage only in sex with couples 2.94 (1.50) 2.63 (1.50)
a
I am comfortable engaging in group sex (three or more 4.27 (.88) 3.68 (1.14)
couples)
a
I would feel comfortable swinging without my partner 2.73 (1.59) 2.43 (1.45)
a
I would feel comfortable with my partner swinging 2.63 (1.60) 2.38 (1.36)
without me
Notes. *p < .05; **p < .001. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree,
2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree (neutral), 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree. To determine agreement, we used
one-sample t tests to compare responses to three (neutral).
a
Reverse coded. †Significant after employing a Holm–Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

separately analysed agreement to the questions about three-way sex. Participants reported enjoy-
ing threesomes with women (M = 4.09, SD = .95) more than they did threesomes with men
(M = 2.92, SD = 1.5), t(64) = 5.05, p < .001, d = .93. Further analyses show that men (p = .500) and
women (p = .906) were neutral in attitude about having a threesome with their partner and a man,
but men (p = .572) and women (p = .598) agreed that they enjoyed threesomes with their partner
and a woman.
In addition, we analysed the responses of couples on items from the Swinging Questionnaire
that were designed to allow comparison of self-ratings and ratings of partners’ attitudes on a given
construct. We report within-partner correlational analyses in Table 4.

Discussion
This study presented an analysis of the experiences and attitudes of contemporary swingers. Using
a larger sample of couples than in studies previously conducted, we documented a comparison of
behaviours, attitudes and attributions of those involved in swinging.
The demographics of our sample were largely consistent with those documented in older
research (e.g. Fernandes, 2009; Jenks, 1985). Of note, swinging women reporting more sexual
fluidity than men. This is consistent with previous evidence on sexual fluidity (cf. Diamond, 2004).
Bentzen and Træen (2013) noted that the purpose of bisexual behaviour in women during
swinging seems to be to enhance the arousal of one’s male partner; however, on average, the
women in this study were more than incidentally homosexual on the Kinsey Scale. It is arguable,
then, that women are in engaging in bisexual activities for their own benefit and not the benefit of
others.

Table 4. Comparison of dyads’ responses using Pearson product–moment correlational analysis.

r p
I would break up with my partner if s/he did not participate in swinging .49 .000*
My partner would break up with me if I did not participate in swinging
Swinging helps me live out my fantasies .42 .001*
Swinging helps my partner live out his/her fantasies
I feel I must engage in swinging or I will lose my partner .63 .000*
My partner feels s/he must engage in swinging or s/he will lose me
I enjoy swinging .095 .488
My partner enjoys swinging
There are some things I will not engage in sexually when in the swinging environment .80 .000*
There are some things my partner will not engage in sexually when in the swinging environment
I would feel comfortable swinging without my partner .66 .000*
I would feel comfortable with my partner swinging without me
Note. *Significant after employing a Holm–Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons.
 12 J. WILT ET AL.

Interestingly, responses from swingers in this study indicate a higher life satisfaction than
average. This may mean that swingers are inherently happy, allowing them the confidence to
involve themselves in swinging, or it could mean that swinging provided the current openness and
freedom needed to have a high level of life satisfaction. Bergstrand and Williams’ (2000) and
Bentzen and Træen’s (2013) studies suggest the latter, as their data showed that swinging did
enhance the relationships of the couples involved.
The male partner has historically been responsible for proposing the idea of swinging to the
female partner (Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010; Henshel, 1973), and our data are consistent with this.
Men reported introducing swinging into their relationships just over half of the time, while the
women reported that men introduced swinging into the relationships almost three-quarters of the
time. Although, consistent with previous research, both sexes agreed that it is the man who
introduces swinging, the reason for the discrepancy between the sexes’ percentage reports in
our study is not known. Because the average length of the relationships of the couples who
participated was almost 15 years and the average time of swinging in that relationship was about
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

6 years, perhaps partners do not remember. It is possible that the introduction of swinging into the
relationship may carry such small relevance that participants do not remember.
There were no significant differences between the sexes in responses to Swinging Questionnaire
categories with one exception. Women were more likely than men to disagree that they would
break up with a partner who did not swing, would only be in a relationship with someone who
would swing etc. This difference suggests that men are more concerned about the incorporation of
swinging in their lives and relationships. This idea is also supported by the fact that more men have
introduced swinging into the current relationship. It should be noted that even though men
agreed with these contingencies more than women did, their agreement did not surpass a neutral
rating, suggesting that these concepts are not critical to their belief systems. In addition, results did
show that both sexes agreed that they were not fearful of losing their partners if they did not
swing. We do stress that data from 34 couples may not yield enough statistical power to detect sex
differences.
Although previous evidence suggests that men are more jealous of extra-pair sexual events than
are women (Buss et al., 1992), we found no sex difference in jealousy in our couples. Participants
reported low agreement with statements concerning one’s own jealousy and one’s partner’s
jealousy regarding sex in the swinging environment. This is consistent with previous research.
Participants did report enjoying threesomes with their partners and another woman more than
they did threesomes with their partners and another man. This is in line with previous reports that
female bisexuality is more accepted in the swinging community (Bentzen & Træen, 2013) and
follows logic in that the women in this study reported being sexually fluid. Moreover, this is
consistent with previous evidence of male partner preferences in threesomes (Hughes et al.,
2004). One caveat is that our questions about jealousy did not encompass all events that can
trigger jealousy, events such as a partner expressing emotions towards or maintaining contact with
an extra-pair partner. Future studies should address this phenomenon.
Level of agreement between partners certainly negates the assumption that one partner is
coerced into ‘playing’ with other people. To wit, the sexes agreed that there were limits to the
sexual activities in which they would engage in when involved in the swinging environment.
Although limits differ with each couple, it is important to realise these limits do exist. Further, men
and women disagreed with both self- and partner jealousy items. These data support previous
findings from De Visser and McDonald (2007) on how swingers manage jealousy well compared to
their non-swinging contemporaries.
Our Swinging Questionnaire allowed for direct partner comparison of specific items of self- and
partner responses. Analyses showed moderate-to-strong agreement on nearly every item, further
indicating that couples involved in swinging are in accordance with one another with respect to
expectations of what they want within their relationship. Although participants were fairly inaccu-
rate at selecting the reasons why their partner was involved in swinging, other evidence suggests
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 13

that couples’ attitudes and desires are in sync, suggesting good communication and the knowl-
edge that they are able to openly express their desires with one another. It may be that these
couples’ similar desires in swinging facilitated their attraction to one another and strengthened
their relationship. Moreover, Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna and Heyman (2000) showed that
engaging in arousing, exciting activities together enhances excitement and satisfaction in relation-
ships. Slatcher (2010) also determined that couples who engage in extensive disclosure with other
couples actually feel closer to their partners. It is therefore possible that engaging in the shared
activity of swinging can provide novel sexual excitement while requiring explicit disclosure of
desires, thereby increasing partner satisfaction.

Limitations and conclusions

The present study was not undertaken from a theoretical standpoint as to why partners participate
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

in swinging. Rather, we aimed to garner descriptive data of the attitudes and behaviours of
contemporary swingers. Moreover, the authors generated a set of items to tap into attitudes and
behaviours associated with swinging, and the questionnaire we generated as a whole did not have
good scale score reliability, and some sub-scales did not have good scale score reliability. Future
studies may wish to concentrate on parsing out these constructs to increase our understanding of
the psychology of swinging.
It should be noted that our questionnaire was administered in a club where alcohol was being
consumed. Nonetheless, the survey was administered at the beginning of business hours, mini-
mising the likelihood of intoxication, and it was not administered to any visibly intoxicated persons.
The swinging club in which we collected our data is located in a rural area of a mid-Atlantic
state. Our studied yielded demographic data largely consistent with those from other studies (e.g.
Bartell, 1970; Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010; Jenks, 1985), but it may be the case that researchers still are
not accurately capturing a complete picture of those who participate in swinging. Future studies
may wish to recruit participants from clubs in diverse areas.
We sought to recruit as many couples as possible for this study; however, we were only able to
obtain data from 34 dyads. Although a larger sample size than other studies known to us, this still
may not be considered a large enough sample to effectively represent the attitudes and experience
of those that participate in swinging as a whole. Our study may have lacked sufficient power. Not
surprisingly, difficulty with this research lies in accessibility. Many swing club owners are not willing
to allow researchers into their establishments for fear of poor representation of swinging and the
potential of negatively affecting business. Nonetheless, swinging is arguably understudied in the
social sciences, and to understand the behaviour and attitudes of those who participate, it would
be valuable to conduct larger studies, aiming to encompass the range of swinging attitudes, beliefs
and actions. Future research would benefit from increased effort at recruiting a larger number of
couples.
Another limitation is that, as in all self-report studies, participants may have had difficulty
remembering information. Further, they could have purposefully distorted their answers due to
social desirability (Hyde & DeLamater, 2011). Although we instructed participants to complete their
questionnaires independently and privately, participants may have thought their partner was
monitoring their responses and provided incorrect information to conceal attitudes or for fear of
upsetting their significant others.
We collected data from heterosexual couples only. The body of literature on CNM and other
extramarital sexuality focuses almost exclusively on heterosexual couples. There are some notable
studies on open relationships among non-heterosexual couples (e.g. Hickson et al., 1992; Peplau,
Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005). However, it would be beneficial to
investigate the attitudes and experiences of non-heterosexual individuals involved in swinging and
other types of CNM with recent samples.
 14 J. WILT ET AL.

One can argue that there is no holistic set of behaviours or attitudes that promote wellness in
every relationship. Swingers have learned how to manage boundaries and jealousy and incorporate
others into their sex lives without fear of losing the relationship. Our results show that swingers
participate willingly, are very satisfied with their lives and participate in ‘the lifestyle’ for enjoyment,
social interaction and fantasy fulfilment.
In sum, mainstream society may perceive swinging as behaviour not at all conductive to a
healthy, nurturing relationship. The men and women who took part in this study suggest that it is
possible to express oneself openly in a relationship without fear of judgement from a partner.
Relationships are generally expected to be monogamous for a variety of reasons, including cultural,
religious or political beliefs. Evidence from the present study suggests that swingers are happy with
their lives, enjoy engaging in swinging with their partner, have similar ideals regarding swinging,
are not coerced into engaging in extra-dyadic sex against their will and are able to manage their
relationships in a manner that promotes non-jealousy. Nonetheless, the caveat exists that we did
not capture a complete picture of participation in swinging. It may be the case that there are forces
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

operating inside these relationships unmeasured and unreported to us.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Mr. Wilt earned his M.A. in Applied Clinical Psychology from Penn State Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Michael are faculty at Penn State Harrisburg

References
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and
arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–
284.
Aumer, K., Bellew, W., Ito, B., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2014). The happy green eyed monogamist: Role of jealousy and
compersion in monogamous and non-traditional relationships. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17. Retrieved
from http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/happy.html
Bailey, J. (2009). What is sexual orientation and do women have one? In D. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on
lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities (pp. 43–63). New York, NY: Springer.
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner and this is my. . .. partner’s partner. Constructing polyamorous identity in a
monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), 75–88.
Barker, M., & Landridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research
and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.
Bartell, G. D. (1970). Group sex among the mid-Americans. Journal of Sex Research, 6, 113-130.
Bartell, G. D. (1971). Group sex. New York, NY: Wyden.
Bentzen, A., & Træen, B. (2013). Swinging in Norway in the context of sexual health. Sexuality & Culture, 18(1), 132–148.
Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2016). Tolerance in the United States: Does economic freedom transform racial, religious,
political and sexual attitudes? European Journal of Political Economy, 45, 53–70.
Bergstrand, C., & Sinski, J. B. (2010). Swinging in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Bergstrand, C., & Williams, J. B. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers. Electronic Journal of
Human Sexuality, 3. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm
Buss, D. M. (1994). Individual differences in mating strategies. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 17, 581–582.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and
psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255.
CNN.com. (2014). CNN morality poll reveals surprising trends in America. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2014/01/09/cnn-poll-morality_n_4568789.html
Cole, C. L., & Spaniard, G. B. (1974). Comarital mate-sharing and family stability. The Journal of Sex Research, 10, 21–31.
 PSYCHOLOGY & SEXUALITY 15

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex
than openly non-monogamous individuals. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–1565.
Coon, R. (2006). Theorizing sex in heterodox society: Postmodernity, late capitalism and non-monogamous sexual
behavior. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 9.
de Visser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosexual ‘swinging’
couples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 459–476.
Diamond, L. M. (2004). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority women over a 2-year
period. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 241–250.
Diener, E. (2006). Understanding scores on the satisfaction with life scale. Retrieved from https://internal.psychology.
illinois.edu/~ediener/Documents/Understanding%20SWLS%20Scores.pdf
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Dixon, J. K. (1984). The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women over the age of thirty. The
Journal of Sex Research, 20(1), 71–90.
Fang, B. (1976). Swinging: In retrospect. The Journal of Sex Research, 12(3), 220–237.
Fernandes, E. (2009). The swinging paradigm: An evaluation of the marital and sexual satisfaction of swingers.
Dissertations Abstracts International, 70(5–B), 3221.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

Finn, M., & Malson, H. (2008). Speaking of home truth: (Re)productions of dyadic-containment in non-monogamous
relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 519–533.
Frayser, S. G. (1985). Varieties of sexual experience: An anthropological perspective on human sexuality. New Haven, CT:
Human Relation Areas Files Press.
Gilmartin, B. G. (1975). That swinging couple down the block. Psychology Today, 8, 54–58.
Gould, T. (1999). The lifestyle: A look at the erotic rites of swingers. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.
Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive
relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53.
Henshel, A. M. (1973). Swinging: A study of decision making in marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 4, 885–891.
Hickson, F. C. I., Davies, P. M., Hunt, A. J., Weatherburn, P., McManus, T. J., & Coxon, A. P. M. (1992). Maintenance of
open gay relationships: Some strategies for protection against HIV. AIDS Care, 4, 409–419.
Houngbedji, A., & Guillem, E. (2016). Profiles and sexual practices of current and past swingers interviewed on French
websites. Sexologies, 25(1), e1–e4. doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2015.12.005
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity, and
multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender, 6(1), 3–13.
Hultell, D., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in a Swedish
nationwide sample of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1070–1079.
Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago, IL: Dell.
Hutzler, K. T., Giuliano, T. A., Herselman, J. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). Three’s a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)
perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7(2), 69–87.
Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2011). Understanding human sexuality (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jenks, R. J. (1985). Swinging: A test of two theories and a proposed new model. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(6), 517–
527.
Jenks, R. J. (1992). Fear of AIDS among swingers. Annals of Sex Research, 5(4), 227–237.
Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(5), 507–523.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Niekamp, A., Mercken, L. A. G., Hoebe, C. J. P. A., & Dukers-Muijrers, N. H. T. M. (2013). A sexual affiliation network of
swingers, heterosexuals practicing risk behaviours that potentiate the spread of sexually transmitted infections: A
two-mode approach. Social Networks, 35(2), 223–236.
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(4), 339–348.
doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.832934
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.
Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale:
Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction With Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152. doi:10.1080/17439760701756946
Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In J. Harvey, A.
Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 349–369). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pines, A. (1992). Romantic jealousy: Five perspectives and an integrative approach. Psychotherapy, 29(4), 675–683.
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and
danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–319). London, UK: Pandora.
 16 J. WILT ET AL.

Rubin, R. H. (2001). Alternative lifestyles revisited, or whatever happened to swingers, group marriages, and commu-
nes? Journal of Family Issues, 7(6), 711–726.
Serina, A. T., Hall, M., Ciambrone, D., & Phua, V. C. (2013). Swinging around stigma: Gendered marketing of swingers’
websites. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 348–359.
Sharpsteen, D, & Kirkpatrick, L. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. personality and Social
Psychology, 23(3), 627-40.
Sheff, E. (2006). Poly-hegemonic masculinities. Sexualities, 9(5), 621–642.
Slatcher, R. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: Creating closeness between couples. Personal
Relationships, 17(2), 279–297.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil
unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52, 561–575.
Trivers, R. (1972). Paternal investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of
man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Vaillancourt, K. (2006). Reconstructing the meaning of fidelity: A qualitative inquiry into swinging relationships
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
Vaughn, L. M. (2010). Marriage and the family. In H. J. Birx (ed.), 21st century anthropology: A reference handbook (Vol. 1,
pp. 162–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 13:02 02 January 2018

Walshok, M. L. (1971). The emergence of middle-class deviant subcultures: The case of swingers. Social Problems, 18,
488–495.
Weiss, D. (1983). Open marriage and multilateral relationships: The emergence of nonexclusive models of the marital
relationship. In E. Macklin & R. Rubin (Eds.), Contemporary families and alternative lifestyles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
White, G., & Mullen, P. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York, NY: Guilford.