In the context of recent debates about same-sex marriage, consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships have recently begun making their way into media discussions. In the current research, we investigated whether stigma is attached to these nonnormative romantic relationships and, conversely, whether halo effects surround monogamous relationships. In Study 1 we analyzed openended responses to the question "what are the benefits of monogamy?". The most commonly mentioned benefits included the promotion of commitment and health (especially the prevention of sexually transmitted infections [STIs]). In Study 2, descriptions of CNM relationships were strongly stigmatized and a substantial halo effect surrounded monogamous relationships. Specifically, monogamous relationships were rated more positively than CNM relationships on every dimension (both relationship-relevant and arbitrary relationship-irrelevant factors) that we examined and across diverse social groups, including CNM individuals themselves. In Study 3, we conducted a person perception study in which participants provided their impressions of a monogamous or a CNM relationship. The monogamous couple was rated overwhelmingly more favorably than the CNM relationship. Finally, in Study 4, we replicated the findings with a set of traits that were generated with regard to relationships in general (rather than monogamous relationships, specifically) and with a broader set of arbitrary traits. Across all studies, the results consistently demonstrated stigma surrounding CNM and a halo effect surrounding monogamy. Implications for future research examining similarities and differences between monogamous and CNM relationships are discussed. One man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children-whenever and wherever it was in danger.. . And now we ring the steeple bell

In this article, we critically examine the social institution of monogamy. First, we discuss the lack of an adequate and consistent definition of the construct of monogamy and consider how common monogamy is. Next, we address perceived benefits of monogamy and whether those ostensible benefits are supported by empirical evidence. We conclude that evidence for the benefits of monogamy relative to other relationship styles is currently lacking, suggesting that, for those who choose it, consensual non-monogamy may be a viable alternative to monogamy. Implications for theories of close relationships are discussed.

We proposed that the premise that monogamy is the exemplary form of romantic partnership underlies much theory and research on relationship quality, and we addressed how this bias has prompted methodological issues that make it difficult to effectively address the quality of nonmonogamous relationships. Because the idea that consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships are functional (i.e., satisfying and of high quality) is controversial, we included a basic study to assess, in a variety of ways, the quality of these relationships. In that study, we found few differences in relationship functioning between individuals engaged in monogamy and those in CNM relationships. We then considered how existing theories could help researchers to understand CNM relationships and how CNM relationships could shed light on relationship processes, and we proposed a model of how CNM and monogamous relationships differ. Finally, in a second study, we determined that even researchers who present data about CNM are affected by the stigma surrounding such relationships. That is, researchers presenting findings favoring polyamory were perceived as more biased than researchers presenting findings favoring monogamy.

In our target article, "The Fewer the Merrier: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships," we documented a robust stigma toward consensual nonmonogamous relationships and a halo surrounding monogamous relationships. In the present piece, we respond to six commentaries of our target article with the aim of promoting future research and policy change. First, we address questions and concerns raised by commentators using existing data and found that regardless of perceived relationship happiness, sexual orientation, or gender (of experimental targets), individuals in consensual nonmonogamous relationships were more negatively viewed on a variety of qualities (both relationship-specific and nonrelationship specific) compared to those in monogamous relationships. Second, we suggest productive future research avenues with regards to implications for social change, and strengthening methodology used in consensual nonmonogamous research. Finally, we consider common ground among the commentators as an avenue to promote coalition building through the examinations of prejudice toward individuals in nonnormative romantic relationships. We conclude that this is only the beginning of a fruitful line of research and argue that the stigma toward departures from monogamy is robust and, of course, worthy of additional research.

No abstract

Abstract. The increased media and public curiosity on the topic of consensual non-monogamy (CNM) presents an interesting case, given that these types of relationships are highly stigmatized. In the present review piece, we first situate common themes of benefits that people believe are afforded to them by their CNM relationships within the current state of the literature to provide insight into unique and shared (with monogamy) relationship benefits. This approach helps uncover relationship benefits and theoretical advances for research on CNM by highlighting some of the key features of CNM relationships that people find rewarding, including need fulfillment, variety of activities, and personal growth and development. Second, we discuss common misconceptions about CNM and stigma toward CNM. Finally, we conclude with future directions and recommendations for scholars interested in pursuing research on CNM.

Research on dynamics within communities of sexual and gender minorities is scant, despite reports that people experience prejudice within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) spaces. The present research examined dynamics within LGBTQ communities and used gender as a lens of understanding bisexual prejudice among lesbian women and gay men. In two online studies with lesbian and gay participants (N Study1 ϭ 120; N Study2 ϭ 165), we randomly assigned participants to reflect on lesbian and gay people's attitudes toward bisexual women or bisexual men. In each study, we evaluated lesbian and gay people's perceptions of identity instability, sexual irresponsibility, and interpersonal hostility. In Study 2, we proposed that beliefs about bisexual people's attraction (to men or to women) serve as a mechanism of bisexual prejudice among lesbian and gay people. We found that people perceived bisexual women and men as being more sexually attracted to men than they are to women, which helps to explain why some lesbian women reported more negative attitudes toward bisexual women than gay men did. Moreover, we tested whether lesbian and gay people's identification with their ingroup, as well as their experiences with dating bisexuals, exacerbated negative perceptions of bisexuals. Taken together, these studies offer implications for reducing bisexual health disparities via improving dynamics within LGBTQ communities. Public Significance StatementThis research suggests that gender dynamics play a critical role in how bisexual women and men are evaluated in LGBTQ communities. Lesbian and gay people perceive bisexual women and men as being more sexually attracted to men than they are to women, which helps to explain why some lesbian women may feel negatively about bisexual women. These results shed light on how and why bisexual individuals may experience prejudice from lesbian and gay people.

In this article, we review basic research on sexual orientation for a clinical scientist-practitioner audience. We present contemporary and evolving approaches to defining and measuring sexual orientation, and we provide suggestions for how to translate psychological theory into best practices (i.e., how to select appropriate sexuality measures in both research and clinical settings). Our focus is on evaluating currently available measures of sexual orientation in terms of comprehensiveness and feasibility: How thoroughly are components of sexuality captured and how feasible it is to use such measures in research and clinical settings? Basic research in sexuality has progressed beyond our current clinical practices and should be used as a guide to more responsibly conceptualize participants and clients. While we determine that the current options are far from perfect, the critical clinician will find that contemporary measures of sexual orientation prove more useful than more simplistic predecessors. This review will elucidate best strategies for translating sexual orientation research and theory into clinical practice and provide clinicians and researchers alike with theoretically grounded support for tools of measurement and assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record