The overlooked, fatal flaw of research promoting the ‘benefits’ of nonmonogamy

A social trend of open relationships, polyamory and “swinging” has swept across the nation — tantalizing an already sexualized American public with a steady drumbeat of media-hyped stories featuring couples embracing what is euphemistically called “consensual,” “ethical” or “responsible” nonmonogamy.
Although statistically only a small fraction of couples are involved, these glamorous portrayals make it seem like this is happening everywhere. While the fact this is getting attention at all has been a shocking development for many family advocates and people of faith, a small group of researchers and clinicians have been raising their voices to reassure the country that any such fears are misplaced. Whatever “stereotypes” may exist, these scholarly influencers point to seemingly trustworthy research studies “proving” that the purported emotional and relational benefits of these departures from family norms exceed any risks.
Some journalists are now beginning to point to these same peer-reviewed studies as conclusive evidence that nonmonogamous relationships lead to similar levels of happiness as exclusively committed couples — and could even make people happier and more physically satisfied. One recent study goes so far as to claim that children involved in these families are better off!
In one especially glowing Forbes article entitled, “Why Are Non-Monogamous Relationships Thriving?” journalist Mark Travers suggests that nonmonogamous relationships “owe their popularity, in part, to the positive relationship and sexual outcomes they yield” — pointing to these recent studies as all the proof that is needed.
Lost in this flurry of coverage are basic questions about how this research was designed and conducted — distracting the public from crucial methodological details that turn out to be consequential in reaching flattering conclusions about nonmonogamous lifestyles.
Much could be said, for instance, about how researchers and participants drawn to these studies tend to have strongly favorable views of nonmonogamy. Even the researchers acknowledge that most participants are recruited because of their association with an advocacy group — a sampling method some acknowledge as potentially introducing bias as participants “feel obligated to present the most positive aspects of their relationships.”
Likewise, some of the scholars themselves are personally committed to the lifestyle, with one researcher recruited by a nonprofit that aims “to educate people about and support polyamory as a valid choice in loving relationships and family lifestyle” — while acknowledging that he serves on the board of directors of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom — ”committed to creating a political, legal and social environment in the U.S. that advances equal rights for consenting adults who engage in alternative sexual and relationship expressions.”
It doesn’t require much imagination to foresee this combination of polyamory-positive researchers surveying polyamory-positive men and women leading to unique influences on the data being generated (especially given how small the sample sizes are in many of these same studies).
But one even more substantial issue looms above the rest — deserving to be front and center in any attempt to think seriously about these positive claims being promoted about nonmonogamy.
What’s the biggest research flaw? In virtually none of the studies featured prominently in media outlets have researchers even tried to investigate longer-term emotional and relational outcomes. Instead, the focus is on how people feel and think right now, in the middle of actively participating in swinging, polyamory, or an open marriage.
Consider what would happen if a research team worked hard to obtain satisfaction surveys from a group of people currently actively involved in drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or using marijuana. Would it surprise any of us if participants kept reporting back a high level of happiness and well-being — maybe even more than those not currently using the same mood-altering substances?
That wouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since early stages of chemical or behavioral addictions are commonly described as transcendent in the relief and pleasure provided … at least for awhile. That’s why no serious researcher would rely upon short-term measures alone to try and answer whether people who use substances are happier than those who do not.
But that’s more or less exactly what’s taking place here. Of all the studies publicly available, only three I’ve found claim to look at anything beyond the present feelings of participants in nonmonogamy. In one 2014 study claiming no difference between “long-term, non-monogamous” relationships and monogamous partners, the author defined “long-term” as someone who had been in a relationship “for at least six months.”
Two other studies in the 1980s tried to ascertain the stability of consensually nonmonogamous relationships after a few years — but neither explored relationship quality and emotional well-being in any depth (one study with a small sample did claim “no generalized differences” in relationship happiness based on a single question asked five years apart).
The larger share of studies making headlines have focused exclusively on present feelings among people in nonmonogamous relationships — finding, perhaps unsurprisingly, that participants report one of two things:
First, people in nonmonogamous relationships often report emotional well-being that exceeds those in exclusively committed relationships — with researchers claiming the combined data proves these people are “significantly happier than the general population” and “in general significantly happier … than their counterparts in the general U.S. population sample.” One scholar argued that “swinging appears to make the vast majority of swingers’ marriages happier, and swingers rate the happiness of their marriages and life satisfaction generally as higher.” (Other short-term studies have found “lower overall happiness” and lower sexual satisfaction among those in nonmonogamous relationships.)
If not superior, these studies secondly tend to conclude that nonmonogamous, non-exclusive relationships lead to outcomes as least as good as a committed marriage — with one 2015 review asserting that “nonmonogamists have similar psychological well-being and relationship quality as monogamists.” A 2022 review purporting to summarize what “we know about consensual non-monogamy” argues “there is little difference in measures of relationship quality compared to monogamous relationships” — with the authors observing that available studies have “tended to find no difference between reports from people in monogamous and CNM (consensual nonmonogamous) relationships.”
There you go. What more evidence would anyone need to conclude that these lifestyles offer a valid alternative pathway to seek happiness?
How about legitimate long-term studies — the kind that find out how people’s lives actually turn out?
Severe limitations notwithstanding, don’t be surprised if these surprisingly positive, pro-polyamory conclusions get touted in human development and sociology classes across American universities and many high schools. After all, for many people in the American public, once a scientific study has been published, little else needs to be said. The data has “spoken.”
Far less attention goes to how this data was generated in the first place, along with various ways the results can be framed and interpreted. In this case, with a little more thought, observers might come to other conclusions about the research entirely: Namely, it’s no surprise that people actively choosing to engage in this lifestyle answered positively about their chosen-lifestyle in short-term surveys.
Not only are these research participants already identifying with this sexually charged lifestyle in the first place, they’re speaking from a place in the middle of something that feels as wildly exciting as a heavy drug … at first. As one pro-polyamory researcher acknowledged, individuals in nonmonogamous relationships describe “feeling free to explore” and “express” their sexuality, speaking of these relationships as helping to “foster their own sexual fulfillment.”
That could be because people in nonmonogamous relationships, the researcher adds, “simply devote more effort to increase sexual satisfaction” and are “more persistent in seeking sexual pleasure, on average, than monogamous people.” This may also be “evidenced,” the article continued, by a “tendency to organize their social lives around sex.”
What other questions go unanswered in such a short-term investigation? More specifically, what are the long-term outcomes of people like this who are “persistent” enough to “devote” so much of their life to seeking maximal sexual fulfillment as a primary focus (e.g., through various partners)?
That answer is wholly unaddressed, unexplored and unknown in these studies being promoted today — with many scholars seemingly uncurious about finding out how people’s lives actually unfold. Yet ask yourself: how would insight on that very neglected question potentially change people’s perception of nonmonogamy — especially if this longer-term picture became more clear?
One aspect overlooked in short-term research, says Alan J. Hawkins, manager of the Utah Marriage Commission, is how many have tried nonmonogamous relationships but “desisted” — with data suggesting that “many more have tried it than are currently practicing it.”
We “need longitudinal research to capture this experience,” Hawkins argues. In the absence of that, he says, “we only observe the experiences of those who are involved in it, not those who have ended their involvement.”
What would those who quit the practice have to share? Dave Schramm, professor at Utah State University, describes speaking with someone who knows personally at least nine couples who have engaged in swinging, polyamory or open marriages. “Most are now getting a divorce,” he remarks, with his contact telling him that he doesn’t know anyone personally where it works and “all are happy.”
Schramm calls all the buzz around nonmonogamy a “glimmer wrapped misery.” Hawkins says that it’s also clear from the research that “there are more enthusiastic and less enthusiastic participants” in consensual nonmonogamous relationships — adding that “we have strong reason to suspect that ‘consensual’” for one member of a couple “may not mean a fully enthusiastic, unforced choice, just an ‘OK.’”
Given all this complexity, it’s clearly much simpler to keep focused on the exciting present moment — a time of unconstrained sexual pleasure, continual novelty, and wide-ranging bursts of intimacy. One pro-polyamory researcher suggests that people who are intimate with many partners likely report “higher levels of satisfaction,” in part, perhaps, because they are “less subject to normal habituation processes that occur in the sexual relationships of monogamous people.”
You think? No need to learn patience and deeper levels of love, when you can just move on to someone else! None of these results should surprise anyone — at least not any more than a current drug user telling you how awesome their last high was.
Can you see the profound blind-spots involved when short-term research is used to evaluate the truth about any highly-sensitive questions? From sexuality and gender issues to divorce to faith transitions, it’s wise to not over rely on short-term surveys too much — at least if you’re interested in the true and lasting impact of anything on people’s lives.
Research debates aside, it’s clear that certain unique lessons are instilled in exclusive, committed marriages — lessons which contrast starkly with relationships formed on the basis of current sexual need fulfillment. “Marriage builds character by challenging us out of our egocentric demand that our needs should always be met,” family scholar Wally Goddard tells me. “Marriage builds character because we cannot be successful without starting to accommodate another person’s needs and perspectives into our own decisions.”