Jealousy in Open Relationships and Polyamory: What Research Shows

Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.

Jealousy can occur in open relationships, polyamory, and other forms of consensual non-monogamy just as it can occur in monogamous relationships. The presence of jealousy does not show that consensual non-monogamy has failed, that a person is secretly monogamous, or that a relationship is unhealthy. It is an emotional response to a perceived threat, loss, comparison, uncertainty, or change in a valued bond. What differs in consensual non-monogamy is the context in which that response is interpreted and negotiated.

The scientific literature does not support a simple claim that people in open or polyamorous relationships are either more jealous or less jealous than people in monogamous relationships. Findings depend on what researchers measure: frequency of jealous situations, intensity of distress, jealous thoughts, reactions to consensual versus nonconsensual outside involvement, relationship configuration, and the specific partner being considered. A recent German study of 1,623 people, for example, found that monogamous participants reported fewer jealousy episodes but experienced them as more emotionally troubling, while people in open relationships reported higher levels of jealous cognitions. Morar-Bolba, Banse, and Conley (2025/2026) The broader literature therefore points toward heterogeneity rather than a single jealousy profile.

The most useful question is not whether jealousy “belongs” in non-monogamy. It is what the jealousy is responding to, whether the perceived threat is supported by evidence, how agreements and resources are being handled, and what a person does next. This article focuses specifically on jealousy in consensual non-monogamy. For the broader psychology of romantic jealousy, see What Is Jealousy in a Relationship? Meaning, Triggers, and What Research Shows.

At a glance

Consensual non-monogamy, or CNM, is an umbrella for relationship arrangements in which people may have more than one sexual and/or romantic relationship with the knowledge and consent of those involved. Open relationships and polyamory are overlapping but distinct forms within that broader landscape, and the meaning of each label varies across communities and couples. A 2022 review in Current Opinion in Psychology emphasizes this diversity and the importance of separating consensual non-monogamy from infidelity.

Jealousy is compatible with consent. Agreeing that outside relationships are permitted does not erase attachment, fear of loss, comparison, uncertainty, needs for time and attention, or sensitivity to changes in priority. Consent defines what is allowed; it does not dictate what someone must feel.

Compersion—the experience of positive feelings about a partner's positive romantic or sexual experience with another person—can coexist with jealousy. It is not a test of whether someone is “good at” polyamory. Large-sample research on compersion supports treating jealousy and compersion as partially independent responses rather than as simple opposites.

Relationship structure by itself is a poor shortcut for relationship quality. A 2026 meta-analysis of 35 studies involving 24,489 participants found no overall difference in relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction between monogamous and non-monogamous participants. Anderson and colleagues' meta-analysis also found that the overall result did not materially change across different non-monogamy agreement types.

The evidence on how to reduce jealousy specifically in CNM is much thinner than the descriptive literature. There are emerging studies of emotion regulation, communication, agreements, resource distribution, and compersion, but no established clinical protocol for ordinary jealousy in open or polyamorous relationships. Practical recommendations should therefore be presented as evidence-informed relationship strategies, not as a validated treatment package.

What counts as consensual non-monogamy?

Consensual non-monogamy describes relationship structures in which multiple sexual and/or romantic connections are permitted with explicit knowledge and consent. Polyamory usually refers to the possibility of multiple ongoing romantic or intimate relationships. “Open relationship” often refers to a partnered relationship in which some outside sexual and sometimes romantic involvement is permitted. Those descriptions are useful, but real-world labels are not perfectly standardized. People may use the same term for different agreements, or different terms for similar arrangements.

That variation matters for jealousy because the emotional meaning of an event depends on the agreement. A date with another person might be expected and welcome in one relationship, permitted only after advance discussion in another, and outside the agreement in a third. The same observable behavior can therefore carry very different meanings.

The defining distinction from infidelity is consent and knowledge, not the number of partners. In a study of jealousy, consent, and compersion, people practicing CNM clearly distinguished consensual outside involvement from “cheating,” understood as involvement that violated consent or the relationship's expectations. An open relationship can therefore contain betrayal if an agreement is broken, just as a monogamous relationship can; non-monogamy does not make every outside behavior automatically acceptable.

Does consensual non-monogamy cause more jealousy?

Current evidence does not justify that conclusion. The most comprehensive recent syntheses instead show that CNM is not a single psychological condition and that people in CNM do not have one uniform relationship profile. Gupta, Tarantino, and Sanner's scoping review of 209 studies found that many studies reported relationship satisfaction and commitment comparable to or higher than monogamous comparison groups, while also identifying mixed findings and major methodological limitations.

Jealousy findings are similarly dependent on measurement. Some studies have found less jealousy among people practicing CNM. For example, research comparing imagined partner involvement found greater emotional distress among monogamous participants than CNM participants under some conditions. Other work shows that people in CNM may encounter jealousy-relevant situations more often because partners' other relationships are an acknowledged part of the relationship landscape. Frequency of exposure and intensity of distress are not the same variable.

The 2025/2026 German study is especially useful because it measured jealousy in several ways rather than reducing it to one score. Monogamous participants reported fewer jealousy situations but those situations were more emotionally troubling; the open-relationship group reported more jealous cognitions. The authors explicitly argue for a more differentiated view of CNM jealousy. That is a stronger interpretation than saying one relationship structure “has more jealousy.”

A related point comes from the 2026 meta-analysis of relationship and sexual satisfaction. Across 35 studies, overall satisfaction differences were essentially null. This does not prove that any particular open or polyamorous relationship will work well. It does show that relationship structure alone is not a sound explanation for whether a relationship is satisfying.

Why jealousy happens even when everyone consented

Consent changes the rules of the relationship; it does not remove the human capacities that produce jealousy. A person can genuinely endorse non-monogamy and still react when something changes in a bond they value. Several recurring mechanisms appear across CNM research.

Threat to time, attention, or priority

A partner's new relationship can change how time, attention, emotional energy, money, caregiving, holidays, sleep, travel, or domestic labor are distributed. Jealousy may therefore be responding to a concrete resource shift rather than to abstract sexual exclusivity. In qualitative interviews with 51 people who had practiced CNM, participants described costs such as difficult emotions, having less of a partner's time than they wanted, conflict within their own relationship, and conflict involving metamours. They also described benefits, including compersion, personal growth, and partners having needs met elsewhere.

This is an important practical distinction. “I feel jealous when you date Sam” may become much more workable when translated into “Since that relationship began, we have canceled our planned time three times and I no longer know when I can count on seeing you.” The first statement names the emotion. The second identifies a potentially observable problem.

Comparison and perceived replaceability

Jealousy can intensify when another partner becomes a comparison target: more attractive, more sexually compatible, more adventurous, wealthier, younger, more available, or simply new. The mind can turn difference into a ranking and ranking into a prediction of replacement. Those predictions may be accurate, inaccurate, or impossible to know from the comparison alone.

Open and polyamorous relationships do not remove social comparison. They can make some comparison cues more visible because another relationship is known rather than hidden. The useful task is to separate the existence of difference from the conclusion that one's own relationship has lost value.

New relationship energy and rapid change

People in polyamorous communities often use the phrase new relationship energy for the excitement and heightened attention that can accompany a new connection. The term is descriptive rather than diagnostic. A small 2025 study of 122 polyamorous adults examined jealousy and compersion in response to a partner's new relationship energy. Greater mindfulness was associated with lower jealousy through emotion-regulation and distress-tolerance pathways, but the study was cross-sectional and cannot establish that mindfulness training would cause jealousy to decrease.

The more defensible conclusion is that rapid shifts in attention and emotional intensity can be meaningful jealousy contexts, while the evidence for specific interventions remains preliminary.

Ambiguous or changing agreements

Jealousy may increase when partners do not share the same understanding of what was agreed. “Tell me before you see someone,” “no sleepovers,” “casual sex only,” or “romantic relationships are okay but weekends are ours” can sound clear until an unanticipated situation appears. Agreements also change over time.

Research with male couples, while population-specific, shows why explicit agreement processes deserve attention. A study of 395 male couples found both similarities and differences in communication among monogamous and open couples and specifically examined discussion of sexual agreements, safety agreements, breaches, and disclosure. Gusakova and colleagues (2021) provide useful evidence that relationship agreements are communication processes rather than self-executing rules.

Attachment-related threat sensitivity

Attachment can shape how strongly a person responds to perceived rejection, abandonment, inconsistent availability, or changes in closeness, but attachment style is not a diagnosis and it does not determine whether CNM will succeed. Jealousy-specific attachment evidence belongs in a narrower frame than general attachment theory. For that evidence, see Jealousy and Attachment Styles: What Research Shows.

Metamour relationships and network effects

In polyamory, a metamour is a partner's other partner. The quality of that relationship can matter even when metamours are not close. Conflict, exclusion, incompatible expectations, or repeated scheduling problems may amplify threat. Positive metamour interactions can also reduce uncertainty or become a source of support. Arter and Bunge's qualitative study found both beneficial and difficult metamour-related experiences, reinforcing the idea that CNM is a network of relationships rather than a set of isolated dyads.

Stigma and external pressure

Jealousy does not arise only from what happens inside the relationship. CNM can be stigmatized, misunderstood, or hidden from family, employers, clinicians, or social networks. The scoping review by Gupta and colleagues found research linking CNM-related minority stress and internalized negativity with poorer well-being and relationship outcomes in some samples. External stigma can therefore add strain without being evidence that non-monogamy itself is the problem.

Jealousy and compersion can exist at the same time

Compersion is commonly described as positive emotion in response to a partner's pleasure, intimacy, or connection with someone else. It is often presented in popular discussions as the opposite of jealousy, but research suggests the emotional picture is more complex.

In a large study comparing 3,530 polyamorous participants with 1,358 monogamous participants, Balzarini and colleagues (2021) found more anticipated compersion and less anticipated jealousy among polyamorous participants. Crucially, compersion and jealousy were not simply opposite ends of one continuum. A person can be happy that a partner is having a meaningful experience and simultaneously fear losing time, status, reassurance, or connection.

Compersion should therefore be treated as one possible emotional response, not as a moral requirement. Someone does not have to feel delighted about every date, sexual experience, or new relationship to qualify as consensually non-monogamous. Pressuring a partner to perform compersion can become another way of invalidating ordinary emotion.

Open relationships and polyamory are not psychologically identical

Research often groups many forms of CNM together for statistical power, but open relationships, polyamory, swinging, relationship anarchy, and other arrangements can differ in whether outside relationships are sexual, romantic, shared, independent, hierarchical, or integrated into family life. Those distinctions can change what jealousy means.

The 2026 international development of the Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale is useful here. Across international online samples totaling 4,290 participants, researchers identified nine recurring CNM maintenance practices, including disclosure of extra-pair attraction, open communication about jealousy, compersion, partner hierarchy or non-hierarchy, sexual-health maintenance, and thoughtful resource distribution. Mogilski and colleagues (2026) also found differences among open, polyamorous, and swinging participants on several of these dimensions. Because this was scale-development and observational research, it identifies patterns rather than proving which practices cause better outcomes.

Hierarchy is another example. Some polyamorous people explicitly prioritize a primary relationship; others reject formal ranking. Across two samples, Flicker and colleagues (2021) found differences in relationship satisfaction and attachment security between hierarchical and non-hierarchical configurations. Those observational findings should not be converted into a universal prescription. Hierarchy itself can mean different things, and the quality of consent, predictability, resource allocation, and respect within any structure still matters.

What jealousy can tell you—and what it cannot

Jealousy is information about a person's internal threat system. It may point toward a real relationship problem, an uncertain situation, a painful comparison, a remembered injury, or a feared future. It does not identify which explanation is correct by itself.

A useful way to analyze jealousy in CNM is to separate four questions. What happened? What did I predict it means? What do I need or value that feels threatened? What evidence supports the prediction?

For example, “my partner stayed out later than planned” is an event. “Their new partner is becoming more important than I am” is an interpretation. “I need predictability and protected time” identifies a relational need. “We have missed three plans this month, but we have not discussed changing our schedule” is evidence that can be evaluated.

This separation protects both people. It prevents the feeling from being dismissed as irrational while also preventing the feeling from becoming automatic proof of wrongdoing.

Trust in consensual non-monogamy

Trust in CNM is not the expectation that a partner will never be attracted to, date, love, or have sex with anyone else. It is confidence about the things the relationship actually promises: honesty within agreed boundaries, follow-through, disclosure when disclosure has been agreed, sexual-health practices, care with shared resources, respect for consent, and willingness to address problems.

This is why trust should be understood through evidence, reliability, predictability, dependability, vulnerability, and context rather than through total certainty. The broader trust construct is developed in What Is Trust in a Relationship? Predictability, Dependability, and Faith.

A non-monogamous agreement can also be trustworthy without being maximally transparent. Partners can agree that outside dates are permitted while keeping some private details private. Privacy is not identical to secrecy, and transparency is not identical to surveillance. Couples differ in how much information they want, and more information is not automatically better.

Agreements work best when they describe real expectations

In CNM, agreements often concern disclosure, sexual-health practices, scheduling, shared spaces, overnight stays, introductions, family involvement, finances, or the degree to which relationships are integrated. The value of an agreement is not how restrictive it is. Its value lies in creating shared expectations that people can understand, consent to, follow, and renegotiate.

An agreement should therefore answer practical questions. What information is important before something happens, after it happens, or not at all? Which resources are shared and which are individual? What happens when plans change? Which sexual-health practices are expected? What is private between one relationship and another? How are new relationships introduced into an existing schedule or household?

The newest large-scale CNM maintenance research includes jealousy communication and thoughtful resource distribution among the recurring practices people report using. That evidence is promising but observational. It supports the relevance of these domains without establishing one ideal rulebook.

Reassurance can help without becoming a system of control

Reassurance is a normal part of close relationships. A partner may say that a bond still matters, confirm plans, clarify an agreement, or respond to a vulnerable question. The problem begins when reassurance is treated as something that must eliminate uncertainty completely.

Repeated demands for proof can expand: more details about a date, screenshots, immediate replies, access to private messages, passwords, location data, or restrictions on another relationship. Those behaviors should not be normalized as the price of loving someone. Consensual transparency is jointly chosen and revisable. Surveillance is monitoring that overrides or pressures autonomy.

For the relationship boundary between openness and monitoring, see Transparency vs Surveillance in Relationships: When Reassurance Becomes Monitoring. For the broader distinction between trust and attempts to control a partner, see Trust vs Control in Relationships: Safety, Boundaries, and Autonomy.

How to respond to jealousy in an open or polyamorous relationship

There is no validated step-by-step treatment protocol for ordinary CNM jealousy. The following approach is best understood as an evidence-informed framework drawn from relationship research, CNM observational studies, and emotion-regulation research.

1. Name the specific trigger before solving the whole relationship

“I am jealous” is real but broad. Identify the event that activated the response: a canceled plan, a new sexual connection, a new romantic bond, a sleepover, a metamour interaction, social-media visibility, a change in safer-sex practice, unequal time, an unexpected disclosure, or uncertainty about an agreement. Specificity makes it possible to distinguish emotion from a concrete problem.

2. Separate the feeling from the conclusion

A feeling can be valid while an interpretation remains uncertain. “I feel afraid I am becoming less important” is different from “you are replacing me.” This wording is more than politeness. It keeps the discussion open to evidence.

3. Check whether the issue is internal, relational, or both

Some jealousy is largely driven by comparison, fear of rejection, or uncertainty. Some is a response to observable behavior such as repeated broken plans or an agreement violation. Many situations contain both. Treating every jealousy episode as personal insecurity can obscure a real problem; treating every episode as proof of partner wrongdoing can turn emotion into accusation.

4. Identify the threatened resource or value

Ask what feels at risk: time, sexual connection, emotional closeness, status, predictability, privacy, family stability, financial security, social recognition, or confidence that agreements will be honored. Research on partners' other relationships suggests that time, relationship conflict, metamour interactions, positive emotion, and personal growth can all be part of the CNM experience. Arter and Bunge (2024) offer qualitative evidence for this wider range of costs and benefits.

5. Ask for a concrete relational change when one is actually needed

A useful request is observable: protect Thursday night, tell me if plans change, revisit our disclosure agreement, schedule time for us after a busy week, or decide how we handle shared-home sleepovers. A demand to “make me never jealous again” cannot be reliably fulfilled because no partner controls another person's emotional system.

6. Protect autonomy while negotiating interdependence

CNM requires coordination, but coordination does not erase personhood. Boundaries concern what a person consents to and how they will participate; agreements concern what partners jointly undertake. For a broader framework, see Healthy Boundaries in Relationships: Examples, Communication, and Mutual Respect.

7. Build reliability rather than demanding certainty

Trust grows when words and behavior repeatedly match. If the real issue is missed plans, inconsistent disclosure, or unclear follow-through, the repair target is reliability. How to Build Trust in a Relationship: Reliability, Vulnerability, and Boundaries addresses that general process. The goal is not to guarantee that no relationship can ever change; it is to make the current relationship more knowable and dependable.

8. Use emotion-regulation practices as tools, not proof of moral fitness

Pausing before sending an accusatory message, labeling the emotion, allowing physiological arousal to settle, and noticing catastrophic predictions can make a difficult conversation more workable. The small 2025 study on new relationship energy found associations between mindfulness, emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and lower jealousy, but this is preliminary correlational evidence rather than a clinical trial. Clemons-Castaños and Flicker (2025) should therefore be read as a promising mechanism study, not as proof of a treatment.

9. Do not make compersion the goal unless it is genuinely yours

It may be enough to tolerate a partner's other relationship without celebrating it. Emotional neutrality, acceptance, or confidence in one's own relationship can be meaningful outcomes. Compersion may develop, fluctuate, or never become prominent. The relationship does not need an emotional performance.

When jealousy points to an agreement problem

Sometimes the central issue is not jealousy management. It is that partners do not have the same agreement, the agreement has changed without meaningful consent, or one person repeatedly behaves outside what was agreed.

A useful distinction is between discomfort within an agreed structure and a dispute about the structure itself. A person can consent to polyamory and still dislike a particular scheduling decision. A person can consent to an open relationship and still object to a broken safer-sex agreement. A person can also discover that they no longer want the relationship structure they previously accepted.

Relationship preferences are allowed to be incompatible. “I want a monogamous relationship” and “I want a polyamorous relationship” can both be legitimate positions. Compatibility cannot be manufactured by framing one preference as more evolved, secure, or psychologically healthy.

When consent is present on paper but not experienced as free

CNM depends on meaningful consent. A label such as “open” does not by itself tell us whether both partners feel able to say no, renegotiate, or leave. If someone agrees because they fear punishment, humiliation, retaliation, or coercive pressure, the important issue is the quality of consent and safety rather than whether the relationship can technically be called non-monogamous.

This distinction also protects CNM from being blamed for coercive behavior. Non-monogamy does not authorize threats, stalking, isolation, forced password access, covert phone checking, or compulsory location monitoring. Jealousy may coexist with controlling behavior, but the emotion does not justify the behavior.

When jealousy becomes a safety or clinical concern

Ordinary jealousy is an emotion, not a diagnosis. In CNM as in monogamy, clinical or safety assessment becomes more important when jealousy is accompanied by fixed false beliefs that are held with delusional conviction, severe functional impairment, escalating threats, stalking, coercive monitoring, physical violence, or a substantial inability to distinguish suspicion from evidence.

The relationship structure does not change those thresholds. Open relationships and polyamory do not make surveillance or violence more acceptable, and monogamy does not make them more understandable. If there is an immediate safety risk, the priority is safety and appropriate local emergency or support resources rather than relationship negotiation.

What the evidence still cannot tell us

The CNM literature has grown quickly, but important limits remain. Gupta and colleagues' scoping review found that most reviewed studies were conducted in North America, many samples were self-selected, and relatively little work used large representative or longitudinal datasets. Relationship labels are heterogeneous, and studies often compare broad categories that contain very different agreements.

Many jealousy studies are cross-sectional or use hypothetical scenarios. They can identify associations and group differences but cannot establish that a relationship structure caused an emotional pattern. Qualitative work can describe lived experience in depth but should not be treated as prevalence evidence. Small mechanism studies can generate hypotheses but do not establish treatment efficacy.

The 2026 Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale is an important methodological step because it maps multiple practices across large international samples, but it is still observational scale-development research. The field needs more longitudinal, dyadic, network-level, and intervention studies that distinguish open relationships, polyamory, swinging, and other forms of CNM rather than collapsing them into one category.

What research supports most strongly

The strongest current conclusion is modest but useful: jealousy is compatible with consensual non-monogamy, and its presence does not by itself indicate relationship failure. Relationship quality is not determined by monogamy versus non-monogamy alone. Consent, communication, need fulfillment, reliability, resource distribution, agreement clarity, and the specific configuration of relationships all matter.

The evidence also supports rejecting two opposite myths. CNM does not automatically eliminate jealousy, and jealousy does not automatically disprove CNM. Human emotional responses are more flexible and more context-sensitive than either claim allows.

Frequently asked questions

Is jealousy normal in an open relationship?

Yes. Jealousy can occur in open relationships without meaning that the arrangement is fraudulent or doomed. The useful question is what the jealousy is responding to and whether the situation involves a real agreement, resource, trust, or safety problem.

Can polyamorous people be jealous?

Yes. Polyamory describes a consensual relationship structure, not an emotional trait. A polyamorous person can experience jealousy, compersion, both at once, or neither in a particular situation.

Does jealousy mean I am not really polyamorous?

No scientific test defines polyamory by an absence of jealousy. Relationship identity, preferred structure, behavior, values, and emotion are separate dimensions. A person can prefer polyamory and still experience jealousy.

Is compersion required for polyamory?

No. Compersion is a documented positive response that some people experience, but it is not a diagnostic criterion, relationship rule, or moral obligation. Research suggests it can coexist with jealousy.

Are open and polyamorous relationships less satisfying than monogamous relationships?

Not on average in the best current meta-analytic evidence. The 2026 meta-analysis of 35 studies and 24,489 participants found no overall difference in relationship or sexual satisfaction between monogamous and non-monogamous participants. Individual relationships, of course, vary widely.

Can there be cheating in an open relationship?

Yes. Consensual non-monogamy permits outside involvement within some set of shared expectations. Deception or behavior outside an agreement can still constitute betrayal. The important distinction is consent and the actual agreement, not whether additional partners exist.

Should partners share passwords or locations to reduce jealousy?

Not as a general trust rule. Some couples consensually share information for convenience or safety, but access obtained through pressure, fear, covert monitoring, or a demand for constant proof is different from voluntary transparency. More data does not guarantee more trust.

Does attachment style explain jealousy in polyamory?

Attachment-related threat sensitivity may contribute, but it is one factor among many. Scheduling, resource changes, agreements, comparison, relationship history, current partner behavior, and social context can all matter. Attachment style should not be used as a shortcut that turns every concern into personal insecurity.

Can therapy help with jealousy in consensual non-monogamy?

Therapy may help when jealousy is persistent, highly distressing, entangled with recurring conflict, or difficult to discuss. A clinician should distinguish ordinary jealousy from specific clinical disorders and should not treat consensual non-monogamy itself as pathology. Direct randomized evidence for a specific CNM-jealousy treatment is currently limited, so claims about one universally effective method would exceed the evidence.

Related Articles

• What Is Jealousy in a Relationship? Meaning, Triggers, and What Research Shows

• What Is Trust in a Relationship? Predictability, Dependability, and Faith

• How to Build Trust in a Relationship: Reliability, Vulnerability, and Boundaries

• How to Stop Being Jealous in a Relationship: Evidence-Based Ways to Respond

• Jealousy and Attachment Styles: What Research Shows

• Transparency vs Surveillance in Relationships: When Reassurance Becomes Monitoring

References

Anderson, J. R., Hinton, J. D. X., Bondarchuk-McLaughlin, A., Rosa, S., Tan, K. J., & Moor, L. (2026). Countering the monogamy-superiority myth: A meta-analysis of the differences in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction as a function of relationship orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 63(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988

Arter, J., & Bunge, S. S. (2024). Perceived impacts of partners' other relationships on oneself in consensual nonmonogamy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(4), 1415–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02823-7

Balzarini, R. N., McDonald, J. N., Kohut, T., Lehmiller, J. J., Holmes, B. M., & Harman, J. J. (2021). Compersion: When jealousy-inducing situations don't (just) induce jealousy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01853-1

Clemons-Castaños, C. R., & Flicker, S. M. (2025). Polyamorous individuals' jealous and compersive responses to their partner's new relationship energy: The role of mindfulness, emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and empathy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(4), e70068. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70068

Flicker, S. M., Sancier-Barbosa, F., Moors, A. C., & Browne, L. (2021). A closer look at relationship structures: Relationship satisfaction and attachment among people who practice hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1401–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01875-9

Gupta, S., Tarantino, M., & Sanner, C. (2024). A scoping review of research on polyamory and consensual non-monogamy: Implications for a more inclusive family science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 16(2), 151–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12546

Gusakova, S., Chin, K., Ascigil, E., Conley, T. D., Chakravarty, D., Neilands, T. B., Hoff, C. C., & Darbes, L. A. (2021). Communication patterns among male couples with open and monogamous agreements. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1419–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01821-9

Mogilski, J. K., et al. (2019). Jealousy, consent, and compersion within monogamous and consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1811–1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4

Mogilski, J. K., et al. (2026). How do people maintain consensual non-monogamy? An international development and validation of the Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 55(2), 517–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03334-9

Morar-Bolba, D., Banse, R., & Conley, T. D. (2026). Consensual non-monogamy (CNM)—Considering sexual minorities and moving away from a dyadic conceptualization. International Journal of Sexual Health, 38(1), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2025.2576764

Scoats, R., & Campbell, C. (2022). What do we know about consensual non-monogamy? Current Opinion in Psychology, 48, 101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101468