↓ 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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 892)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Student > Bachelor 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 52%
Social Sciences 15 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 292. 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 14 November 2020.
All research outputs
#58,275
of 16,308,161 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#38
of 892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,215
of 267,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,308,161 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 892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 267,608 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 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.