The short version: A lot of what people “know” about non-monogamy is folklore. Here is what the actual peer-reviewed research says — each study in one plain-language sentence, with a link to the source so you can read it yourself. These are real journals and authors, not blog opinions.
About 1 in 5 single Americans has tried consensual non-monogamy.
Across two national samples, 21.9% of single adults had engaged in some form of CNM at some point in their lives — roughly as common as owning a cat.
Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher & Garcia (2017). Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(5). Read it →
People in open relationships aren’t worse off psychologically.
A review of the evidence found that people in consensually non-monogamous relationships show psychological well-being and relationship quality on par with monogamous people.
Rubel & Bogaert (2015). Journal of Sex Research, 52(9). Read it →
Monogamy isn’t inherently more satisfying.
A 2025 meta-analysis pooling many studies found relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction were about equal whether people were monogamous or consensually non-monogamous — countering the “monogamy-superiority myth.”
Countering the Monogamy-Superiority Myth: A Meta-Analysis (2025). Journal of Sex Research. Read it →
Much of CNM’s bad reputation is stigma, not outcomes.
A widely-cited review concluded that consensually non-monogamous relationships can fulfill partners’ needs well, and that negative assumptions about them often reflect prejudice more than evidence.
Conley, Matsick, Moors & Ziegler (2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2). Read it →
“Primary” and “secondary” partners meet different needs.
In hierarchical polyamory, people reported more investment and everyday commitment with primary partners, but more frequent sex with secondary partners — the relationships served genuinely different roles.
Balzarini et al. (2017). PLOS ONE, 12(5). Read it →
Interest in polyamory is broad, not fringe.
In a national sample of single U.S. adults, a substantial share had either engaged in polyamory or expressed a desire to — and many knew someone who practices it.
Moors, Gesselman & Garcia (2021). Frontiers in Psychology, 12:619640. Read it →
A recent map of the whole research field.
A 2024 scoping review gathers what research has (and hasn’t) covered on polyamory and CNM — a solid, scholarly place to start if you want the big picture.
Gupta et al. (2024). Journal of Family Theory & Review. Read it →
A trustworthy one-page primer.
The American Psychological Association’s Division 44 publishes a short, plain-language fact sheet on consensual non-monogamy — a good first stop before the journals.
APA Division 44, Consensual Non-Monogamy Fact Sheet. Read it →
Research on relationships is always evolving, and no single study settles a question. These are starting points, chosen because they are peer-reviewed, widely cited, and readable. Where a link asks you to sign in, the study’s abstract is still free to read.
Want the plain-language version of the terms these studies use? See the Relationship Styles guide. Ready to put any of it into practice? Build a relationship check-in, or bring your questions to 1:1 coaching.