![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Approximately 4% of individuals in North America participate in consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships, wherein all partners have agreed to additional sexual and/or emotional partnerships. The CNM relationships are stigmatized and viewed as less stable and satisfying than monogamous relationships, a perception that persists despite research evidence. In our study, we assess the legitimacy of this negative perception by using a self-determination theory (SDT) framework to explore how sexual motivation impacts relational and sexual satisfaction among CNM and monogamous participants in romantic relationships. A total of 348 CNM (n = 142) and monogamous participants (n = 206) were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk. (2016). www.mturk.com) to complete a cross-sectional survey. Participants reported on their sexual motivations during their most recent sexual event, their level of sexual need fulfillment, and measures of sexual and relational satisfaction with their current (primary) partner. The CNM and monogamous participants reported similar reasons for engaging in sex, though CNM participants were significantly more likely to have sex for personal intrinsic motives. No differences in mean levels of relationship and sexual satisfaction were found between CNM and monogamous individuals. Participants who engaged in sex for more self-determined reasons reported increased relational and sexual satisfaction. This relationship was mediated by sexual need fulfillment; participants who reported more self-determined motives reported higher levels of need fulfillment and, in turn, greater relationship and sexual satisfaction. This study indicates that CNM and monogamous individuals report similar levels of satisfaction within their relationship(s) and that the mechanisms that affect relational and sexual satisfaction are similar for both CNM and monogamous individuals. Our research extends theoretical understandings of motivation within romantic relationships and suggests that SDT is a useful framework for considering the impact of sexual motivation on relational outcomes.
References
|
Barker, M., Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bergstrand, C., Williams, J. B. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 3. Google Scholar | |
|
Berscheid, E., Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., Lindzey, G. (Eds) The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. Google Scholar | |
|
Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021–1031. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brunell, A., Webster, G. (2013). Self-determination and sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970–987. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually non-monogamous relationships: Theories, methods and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 205–232. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please! How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage. Comment on Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson (2014). Psychological Inquiry, 25, 56–63. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A. (2012). The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 00, 1–29. Google 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 | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange, A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–438). London, England: Sage. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
De Santis, C., Wood, J., Milhausen, R., Desmarais, S. (2016). “Just because we found our favourite dish, doesn’t mean we have to shut down the buffet”: Motivations for engaging in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Paper presented at the at the 41st Canadian Sex Research Forum Annual Meeting in Que, Canada, Sept 22–24. Google Scholar | |
|
Dindia, K., Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). What partners do to maintain their close relationships. In Noller, P., Feeney, J. A. (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 305–324). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing mount maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Fisher, T. D., Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Davis, S. L. (2011). Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Impett, E., Muise, A., Peragine, D. (2014). Sexuality in the context of relationships. In Tolman, D., Diamond, M. (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (pp. 269–316). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Jenkins, S. S. (2003). Gender and self-determination in sexual motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 6330. Google Scholar | |
|
Johnson, S. M., Giuliano, T. A., Herselman, J. R., Hutzler, K. T. (2015). Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 325–339. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
LaGuardia, J. G., Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49, 201–209. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation insecurity of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
LaSala, M. C. (2004). Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85, 405–412. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 85–98. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Meston, C. M., Hamilton, L. D., Harte, C. B. (2009). Sexual motivation in women as a function of age. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 3305–3319. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Mitchell, M. E., Bartholomew, K., Cobb, R. J. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 329–339. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and shared benefits of consensually non-monogamous an monogamous relationships. European Psychologist, 22, 55–71. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., O’Beaglaoich, C. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 4, 75–91. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Desmarais, S. (2013) Getting it on vs. getting it over with: Approach-avoidance sexual motivation, desire and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1320–1332. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Murray, S. H., Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38, 28–40. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., Gamarel, K. E., Grove, C. (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 669–677. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Lonsberry, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434–457. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Rubel, A. N., Bogaert, A. F. (2014). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 0, 1–22. Google Scholar | |
|
Rusbult, C. E., Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic Dialectical perspective. In Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–34). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sabourin, S., Valois, P., Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 1, 15–27. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sánchez-Fuentes, M. M., Santos-Iglesias, P., Sierra, J. C. (2014). A systematic review of sexual satisfaction. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 67–75. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Séguin, L. J., Blais, M., Goyer, M. F., Lavoie, F., Rodrigue, C., Magontier, C. (2016). Examining relationship quality across three types of relationship agreements. Sexualities, 0, 1–19. Google Scholar | |
|
Smith, V. (2007). In pursuit of “good” sex: Self-determination and the sexual experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 69–85. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Stephenson, K. R., Arhold, T. K., Meston, C. M. (2011). The associations between sexual motives and sexual satisfaction: Gender differences and categorical comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 607–618. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Stulhofer, A., Busko, V., Brouillard, P. (2010). Development and bicultural validation of the New sexual satisfaction scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 257–268. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Wood, J., Milhausen, R. R., Jeffrey, N. K. (2014). Why have sex? Reasons for having sex among lesbian, bisexual, queer and questioning women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23, 75–88. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Wosick, K. R. (2012). Sex, love and fidelity: A study of romantic relationships. New York, NY: Cambria Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Wosick-Correa, K. (2014). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 44–61. Google Scholar |
