1 of 1

Consensual Non-Monogamy Defined

Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) refers to romantic relationships in which all partners agree to engage in sexual, romantic and/ or emotional relationships with others.

Existing Research

Emerging evidence indicates that 28.9% of people are actively engaging in and identifying with CNM relationships (Barker & Langdridge, 2010, Conley et al., 2013; Rubin 2001, Matsick, et al., 2014). As awareness of CNM relationships increases, so has research surrounding the topic. Research has shown that people generally perceive CNM relationships differently than consensually monogamous (CM) relationships (Conley et al. 2012, Cohen 2016, Cohen et al., 2016, Thompson et al., 2017, Thompson et al., 2018). Specifically, there is a halo effect around CM relationships so that they are seen as better than CNM relationships and such that individuals involved in CNM relationships are viewed more negatively. One variable that is unknown at this time is how race influences the perception of individuals in CNM versus CM relationships.

Why Race Might Matter?

Research shows that racial stereotypes are highly ‘gendered’. That is, Black men are often stereotyped as hypersexual whereas Asian men are stereotyped as asexual or less desirable.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Race and Attitudes Toward Consensually Non Monogamous Relationships

Rachel Harris & Cyndi Kernahan University of Wisconsin-River Falls

^{rachel.harris@my.uwrf.edu}

Introduction

Results

Methods

Conclusions

Study Design and Hypotheses

We hypothesize that individuals involved in CNM relationships will be perceived more negatively across a range of characteristics as compared to those in CM relationships. We expect that race will interact with this main effect of relationship type, but we are unsure as to the direction of these effects. For now, this is an exploratory hypothesis. Race of the target will be manipulated via name (Black man, White man, Asian man) and this variable will be crossed with relationship type (CNM, CM) to create 6 conditions.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via psychology and communication studies courses at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Students received extra credit for their participation and were able to opt-out at any time without penalty. The study was IRB approved.

Via Qualtrics survey, participants were randomly assigned to one of six vignettes. They then read a short paragraph about Brad, Lamar, or Ling and his girlfriend. All relationships were described as positive and loving. Everything about each story was the same except for the target name and a single sentence describing the relationship as consensually monogamous or consensually non-monogamous. Participants were then asked to rate the target with eight questions (see table) using a 7-point scale (1-strongly agree to 7-strongly disagree).

​

Quantitative Results

Results showed no significant main effects for race (Fs ranged from .02 to 2.25, ps ranged from .11 to .98) while there were significant differences for relationship type (Fs ranged from 5.54 to 26.76, ps ranged from .00 to .06). There were also no interaction effects between race of the target and relationship type (Fs ranged from .16 to 1.7, ps ranged from .18 to .86).

In other words, and as shown in the means below, targets in CNM relationships were perceived more negatively across all eight characteristics (higher numbers indicate greater disagreement). Race appeared to play no role in participants’ perceptions of targets. And race did not interact with relationship type.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Conclusions

Like previous research, those in CNM relationships were viewed more negatively than those in traditional, monogamous relationships.

Surprisingly, however, despite the sexual stereotypes that affect both Black and Asian men, there were no interactions with relationship type or main effects of race on perception.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the UWRF Psychology Department, especially Ms. Jody Sather.

References

Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748-772.

​

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non‐monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 13(1), 1-30.

​

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 (ASAP), 13(1), 1-30.

​

Cohen, M. T. (2016). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 20(2), 295-315.

​

Cohen, M. T., & Wilson, K. (2017). Development of the consensual non-monogamy attitude scale (CNAS). Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 21(1), 1-14.

​

Thompson, A. E., Hart, J., Stefaniak, S., & Harvey, C. (2017). Exploring heterosexual adults’ endorsement of the sexual double standard among initiators of consensually nonmonogamous relationship behaviors. Sex Roles, 79(3-4), 228-238.

​

Thompson, A. E., Bagley, A. J., & Moore, E. A. (2018). Young men and women’s implicit attitudes towards consensually nonmonogamous relationships. Psychology

& Sexuality, 9(2), 117-131.

​

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.

​

​

​

​