↓ Skip to main content

Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
38 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships
Published in
Perspectives on Psychological Science, March 2017
DOI 10.1177/1745691616667925
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terri D. Conley, Jes L. Matsick, Amy C. Moors, Ali Ziegler

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 20%
Student > Bachelor 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Researcher 11 6%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 44 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 82 45%
Social Sciences 21 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Chemistry 2 1%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 52 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 333. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#101,025
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#65
of 1,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,356
of 323,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 75.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.