A look at “Review and Critique of the Quantitative Literature Regarding Attitudes toward Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)” by B. J. Rye (2024)
Ask people how they feel about polyamory or open relationships and many will shrug: “Each to their own.” But put a monogamous couple and a polyamorous couple side by side, and something shifts. This Canadian review pulls together the research on attitudes towards consensual non-monogamy (CNM), and also critiques how those attitudes have been measured.
What it found
Drawing on more than two dozen studies, the author reaches several conclusions.
- On average, attitudes are roughly neutral. Some studies find slightly negative views, some slightly positive.
- But comparison changes everything. When people rate monogamous and CNM couples side by side, they overwhelmingly favour monogamy. That supports the idea of compulsory monogamy (or “monocentrism”): the cultural assumption that monogamy is the default, superior option.
- Who holds more negative views? People who are themselves monogamous and heterosexual tend to be more negative. Most studies find no difference between men and women.
- The strongest predictor is ideology. People with more authoritarian or conventional values, such as political conservatism, preference for social conformity and support for traditional hierarchies, tend to hold the most negative attitudes. The author links this to broader theories of prejudice.
The review also critiques the questionnaires used in this field and recommends the best ones, including the MACS scale we covered in “Measuring the Side-Eye: A New Tool for Attitudes Towards Non-Monogamy”.
A grain of glitter ✨
This is a thorough and thoughtful review, and its critique of measurement is a welcome contribution. But as the author says, this research area is “in its infancy”. Many studies use different designs and measures, mix up attitudes towards oneself and others, and lack strong theoretical grounding. It’s a narrative review by a single author, so the selection and interpretation of studies reflect one perspective. Much of the underlying research likely relies on Western, often student, samples. And it focuses on what people say in surveys, which may differ from how they behave.
Why this matters
If you’re non-monogamous and sense that people are “fine with it” in theory but subtly judge you in practice, this research suggests you’re not imagining it. That bias tends to come from broader values about convention and conformity, not from anything wrong with your relationships. Therapy can be a space to explore how you navigate other people’s assumptions, and to make sure you’re not absorbing them yourself.
“Each to their own,” they say, then side-eye the unicorn with three partners. Consistency, darlings, consistency.