Abstract
This quantitative study tested hypotheses derived from a previous qualitative study of the factors that facilitated and hindered compersion (the positive feelings derived from one’s partner’s intimate relations with others) in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. A total of 255 participants recruited from online CNM and Alt-Sex communities reported on demographic and relationship characteristics as well as individual, relationship, and metamour-related variables in an online anonymous survey. In Flicker et al. (2022), we identified various factors that predicted three subtypes of compersion: contentment with one’s partner’s relationships with established metamours (intimate partners of one’s partners), excitement sparked by one’s partner’s new/potentially new intimate connections, and sexual excitement elicited by thinking about one’s partner with another person. The current findings were consistent with the Flicker et al. qualitative study, with some hypotheses from the previous study more strongly supported than others. The predictors of compersion most strongly supported by the current data include closeness with one’s metamour and knowledge about the partner/metamour relationship, in a positive direction, as well as jealousy, envy, and attachment anxiety, in a negative direction. Individual-level predictors were weak predictors of compersion. The sexual arousal subtype of compersion was weakly endorsed by the current sample and predictors of this subtype were distinct from predictors of the other subtypes of compersion. The findings suggest that the development of new interventions that target reducing jealousy and envy and increasing attachment security within the unique context of CNM relationships could have the added benefit of increasing compersion. The development of these interventions stands to benefit a growing population of individuals involved in CNM relationships.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Data and materials are available by request.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
A metamour is the intimate partner of one’s partner, typically with whom one is not intimately involved (Sheff, 2014).
We use the term “alternative” partner here to be consistent with the terminology of the investment model (Rusbult et al., 1998). However, in the context of CNM, the term “additional” partners makes more sense.
A polycule is a network of individuals who are connected through CNM intimate partnerships.
In kitchen-table polyamory, metamours know each other and may have close relationships.
References
Anapol, D. M. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners. Rowman & Littlefield.
Barker, M. (2013). Rewriting the rules: An integrative guide to love, sex, and relationships. Routledge.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289–300.
Berking, M., & Whitley, B. (2014). Affect regulation training. Springer.
Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of jealousy. Personality & Individual Differences, 23(6), 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00136-0
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please!: How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908
Deri, J. (2015). Love’s refraction: Jealousy and compersion in queer women’s polyamorous relationships. University of Toronto Press.
Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships & other adventures (2nd ed.). Celestial Arts.
Flicker, S. M., Thouin, M., & Vaughan, M. D. (2022). Factors that facilitate and hinder the experience of compersion among individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 3035–3048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4
Flicker, S. M., Vaughan, M. D., & Meyers, L. S. (2021). Feeling good about your partners' relationships: Compersion in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1569–1585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01985-y
Frable, D. E., Wortman, C., & Joseph, J. (1997). Predicting self-esteem, well-being, and distress in a cohort of gay men: The importance of cultural stigma, personal visibility, community networks, and positive identity. Journal of Personality, 65, 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00328.x
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
Gjesfjeld, C. D., Greeno, C. G., & Kim, K. H. (2008). A confirmatory factor analysis of an abbreviated social support instrument: The MOS-SSS. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507309830
Grant, M., Salsman, N. L., & Berking, M. (2018). The assessment of successful emotion regulation skills use: Development and validation of an English version of the Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0205095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205095
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. University of California.
Jones, A. C., Jones, R. L., & Morris, N. (2018). Development and validation of the Couple Communication Satisfaction Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 46(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2019.1566874
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “the couple” increased over time? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208
Reiss, I. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. Prentice-Hall.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). “There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up”: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069987
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Sheff, E. (2014). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple-partner relationships and families. Rowman and Littlefield.
Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS Social Support Survey. Social Science Medicine, 32(6), 705–714.
Stewart, Z. (2001). What's all this NRE stuff, anyway? Reflections 15 years later. Loving More, 26.
Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15
Tatum, A. K., Flicker, S. M., & Schroeder, J. (in press). Addressing relationship stigma and supporting LGBTQ+ individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships. In N. A. Livingston, B. A. Feinstein, & M. P. Galupo (Eds.), Addressing minority stress and enhancing resilience in therapy with diverse LGBTQ+ clients. Springer Nature.
Thouin-Savard, M. I. (2021). Compersion in consensually nonmonogamous relationships: A grounded theory investigation (Publication No. 28493410) [Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies]. PQDT Open. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2561893892?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Vaughan, M. D., & Flicker, S. M. (2021). An exploratory analysis of demographic differences in experiences of compersion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association as part of the symposium ‘Perceptions and Experiences of Consensual Non-Monogamy’, virtual.
Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634471
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The second author conducted all data screening and analyses and wrote the results section. The first author completed all other work on the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. The preregistered hypotheses, methods, and data analytic plan (with exceptions noted in the paper) can be obtained at: https://aspredicted.org/m7nv8.pdf. Data can be obtained by emailing the first author.
Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Exempt due to less than minimal risk and anonymous surveys; IRB Approval Numbers: 20-21-180) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Flicker, S.M., Sancier-Barbosa, F. Your Happiness Is My Happiness: Predicting Positive Feelings for a Partner’s Consensual Extra-Dyadic Intimate Relations. Arch Sex Behav 53, 941–958 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02766-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02766-5