Characteristics of Relationship Agreements and Associations with Relationship Functioning Among People with Diverse Relationship Structures

Abstract

Having a relationship agreement — a mutual understanding between partners regarding relationship and sexual behaviors both within and outside their relationship — has been linked with healthy relationship functioning. Yet research has been largely limited to sexual agreements among gay and bisexual men, with few studies regarding relationship agreement prevalence, types, and motivations among people of diverse sexual and gender identities and relationship types (e.g., polyamory, monogamy). This study sought to describe characteristics of and motivations for relationship agreements and examine associations between agreements and two metrics of relationship functioning: adaptive decision-making and satisfaction. In a cross-sectional online survey about sexuality, dating, and relationships among people of diverse sexual orientations, 722 U.S. participants (M age 29.3, 48.9% cisgender women, 83.7% non-heterosexual, 34.9% monogamous) provided data regarding relationship agreements, decision-making, and satisfaction. Bivariate and regression analyses were used to examine individual and relational correlates of having an agreement as well as associations between agreements, deciding, and satisfaction. A large majority of participants (N = 594, 82.3%) had a relationship agreement. Nearly two-thirds described their current relationship status as some form of consensual non-monogamy (CNM), with 41% having 2 or more current significant partners. Common reasons for making an agreement included building trust and honesty, protecting the relationship or partners’ feelings, managing expectations, and preventing HIV or STIs. Across participants, having an agreement — regardless of the type — was associated with higher scores on both satisfaction and decision making. Implications for couples/relationship researchers and therapists are discussed.

Keywords

Relationship agreements couples/close relationships consensual non-monogamy sexuality commitment theory

Introduction

Relationship agreements are partners’ mutual understandings about the relational and sexual behaviors allowed both within and outside their relationship. Agreements may involve a commitment to monogamy (i.e., sexual and romantic exclusivity with one partner) or some form of consensual non-monogamy (CNM; i.e. partners may have more than one concurrent sexual, romantic, and/or intimate partnership). Agreements represent compacts between partners that go beyond what may be dictated by traditional relationship structures such as marriage, and that are more specific than signifiers like “dating”, “single”, or “committed partnership”. Studying relationship agreements can, therefore, allow us to examine relationships that have been historically excluded from science. Having an agreement is associated with several positive health and relational outcomes, including improved communication, sexual health behaviors, and relationship satisfaction (for a review, see Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). However, most research on relationship agreements has been limited to studies of sexual agreements among gay and bisexual male couples, with emphasis on HIV prevention-related correlates and outcomes (Hoff et al., 2010; Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Thus, little is known about the characteristics, motivations, and correlates of relationship agreements among women, transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people, heterosexual people, and sexual minority people other than gay and bisexual men. The current study seeks to characterize the relationship agreements of people with diverse sexual and gender identities and relationship structures, and to investigate associations between relationship agreements and functioning.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Relationship Agreements

The study of relationship agreements has roots in the HIV prevention literature, where studies of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) have sought to understand relationship-level factors that may protect against risk of HIV transmission (Hoff et al., 2010; Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Relationship and/or sexual agreements have emerged as one such factor and are common among MSM, with prevalence rates ranging from 50–99% (Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Motivations for making agreements are diverse among MSM, including protecting sexual health (e.g. preventing HIV and other STIs); promoting trust, honesty, and transparency in relationships (Rios-Spicer et al., 2019); and desiring a specific relationship structure such as monogamy or an open arrangement that facilitates sexual exploration (Hoff et al., 2010; J. W. Mitchell et al., 2017; Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Relationship duration is associated with likelihood of male couples having and agreeing upon a relationship agreement (J.W. Mitchell, 2014), although recent work focused specifically on young adult MSM indicates that young MSM make agreements with both casual and serious dating partners (Feinstein et al., 2018; Newcomb et al., 2021).

Gaps in the agreements literature identified in a recent scoping review by Rios-Spicer et al. (2019) include lack of attention to the agreements of transgender and gender diverse people, mixed-gender couples, sexual minority people other than MSM, and women. A handful of studies have examined relationship agreements among mixed-gender couples (Jones et al., 2014; Lee & Mitchell, 2017; Levine et al., 2018; Séguin et al., 2017) and have generally found somewhat lower prevalence of having an agreement, with prevalence estimates ranging from 50–82%. Very few studies have focused on relationship agreements among TGD people (Gamarel et al., 2016) or among women (Bertens et al., 2008), and those that exist focus on sexual health-related outcomes. In additional to further research on agreements among people of diverse gender and sexual identities, more research is also needed regarding whether differences exist between types of relationship agreements (e.g., monogamous, open with restrictions, open without restrictions) and outcomes such as relationship satisfaction.

Monogamy, the most common relationship structure in the United States, involves an agreement in which two partners agree to have sexual and romantic intimacy only with one another (Haupert, Gesselman, et al., 2017; Haupert, Moors, et al., 2017). Of note, although monogamous relationships would seem to have clear relationship agreements, there is considerable variation in how individuals define monogamy, and up to one-third of monogamous adults report being sexually unfaithful to a partner (Green et al., 2016; Swan & Thompson, 2016). Definitional issues pose challenges to individuals as well as relationship researchers and clinicians, with little consensus regarding what constitutes infidelity across dating and committed relationships (Blow & Hartnett, 2005; McAnulty & Brineman, 2007). The prevalence of infidelity among ostensibly monogamous dating and committed couples and lack of research on how, when, whether, and why monogamous couples agree upon their relationship structure speaks to the need for more research on whether and how monogamous individuals and couples form explicit agreements.

The broader fields of relationship and sexual science have shown growing interest in studying consensually non-monogamous relationships (Brewster et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2021). In CNM relationships, partners agree upon the extent to which engaging in multiple concurrent sexual and/or romantic relationships is allowed (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). Consensually non-monogamous is an umbrella term describing several relationship types, including polyamory (i.e. multiple concurrent romantic and often sexual relationships); swinging (i.e. couples who have sexual relationships with others, often in a social setting); open relationships (i.e. relationships involving a primary romantic and sexual partner and one or more additional sexual partners; Conley, Moors, Ziegler, et al., 2013) and other diverse relationship structures. According to representative data from the U.S. and Canada, about one in five single adults have engaged in agreed-upon sexually open relationships (Fairbrother et al., 2019; Haupert, Gesselman, et al., 2017; Haupert, Moors, et al., 2017) and 4–5% of the population report currently being in a CNM relationship (Conley et al., 2013). Thus, studying people who engage in CNM presents a rich opportunity to further understandings of relationship agreements among people of diverse gender and sexual identities and relationship structures.

Consensually non-monogamous relationships are similar in quality as ostensibly monogamous relationships, and the increased importance of ongoing communication between partners and emphasis on autonomy and growth have been identified as potential strengths of CNM relationships (Conley et al., 2017; Rubel & Bogaert, 2014; Sakaluk et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2018). In addition to comparing monogamous and CNM relationships regarding relationship quality, psychological wellbeing, and other factors (for a review and critique, see Sakaluk et al., 2021), researchers have also begun to investigate different types of CNM agreements, such as hierarchical polyamory, in which a primary partner is prioritized relative to other partners, versus non-hierarchical polyamory, in which no partner is prioritized relative to others, and their associations with individual and relationship wellbeing (Flicker et al., 2021). Despite the popularity of studies comparing CNM and ostensibly monogamous relationships, there has been relatively little attention to the role of explicit relationship agreements (or lack thereof) that may be associated with differences in functioning between relationship types.

Motivations for Forming Relationship Agreements

There is considerable variability in how partners construct relationship agreements, as well as their reasons for doing so (Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Rios-Spicer et al., 2019; Wosick-Correa, 2010). Among the ostensibly monogamous population, we might expect that people agree to monogamy due to societal pressure and expectation, as well as perceived benefits of monogamy such as decreased jealousy and the equation of monogamy with commitment (Conley, Moors, Matsick, et al., 2013; Waite & Gallagher, 2001). However, the degree to which monogamous couples explicitly agree to exclusive sexual and romantic relationships, and their motivations for choosing monogamy rather than another relationship structure, have received scant attention in research. Some research among gay male couples has found that simply desiring monogamy may be a motivator for forming relationship agreements among that population, given that sexual nonexclusivity is more prevalent among gay male subcultures, indicating that relationship agreements may stem in part from a desire to protect one’s relationship or align the relationship with one’s values (Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Motivations for forming a CNM agreement may include navigating discrepancies in sexual interests or desire, diversifying need fulfillment across different relationships, and promoting individual values such as autonomy, although there is, again, little research comparing motivations for different types of agreements (V. E. Mitchell et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2020). Agreement making might also be influenced by attachment style, communication skills, levels of trust and commitment, health and life goals, and relationship duration (Hangen et al., 2020; Hoff et al., 2010; J. W. Mitchell, 2014; Rios-Spicer et al., 2019).

Contextualizing Relationship Agreements Within Existing Models of Healthy Relationships

Making a relationship agreement involves communicating about the nature of the relationship, including the expectations partners have for one another, as well as their needs and desires for the relationship; thus, relationship agreements can be thought of as a specific type of communication between partners. Communication between partners is recognized as a critical component of healthy relationships, with robust evidence of its importance in the quality and stability of mixed-gender, ostensibly monogamous marriages (see Karney & Bradbury, 1995, for a review) and emerging evidence of its relation to satisfaction for cisgender men and women in CNM relationships (Hangen et al., 2020). However, more research is needed regarding the association between agreements and satisfaction among people of diverse gender and sexual identities.

Agreements can also be understood as a form of active decision-making about relationships whereby partners negotiate and decide upon the structure of their relationship. Active decision-making in relationships is important in navigating relationship transitions (e.g. moving in together, marriage) in a manner that prevents “sliding” into decisions that may prolong unsatisfying relationships due to inertia or convenience (Stanley et al., 2006). Active decision-making in relationships has been operationalized through three subdomains: self-efficacy or confidence in ability to maintain a relationship, knowledge of warning signs pertinent to relationship decisions, and thoughtfulness about relationship decisions (Vennum & Fincham, 2011). Cross-sectional studies have suggested that greater adaptive decision-making is associated with romantic competence among emerging adults (Davila et al., 2017) and with greater relationship satisfaction and less infidelity among adults regardless of relationship status (i.e. dating, cohabiting, or married, Owen et al., 2013). Such thoughtfulness about relationships may be particularly important for young adults navigating the uncertainty and ambiguity of dating relationships (Clifford et al., 2017; Vennum & Fincham, 2011). Uncertainty and ambiguity are also characteristic of CNM relationships, which may emphasize an egalitarian approach to creating and maintaining relationship agreements that work for all parties involved in the absence of clear models or scripts for said relationships (Flicker et al., 2021; Wosick-Correa, 2010). Thus, adaptive decision-making may be particularly important for people navigating CNM relationships. However, no studies to date have examined associations between having a relationship agreement and adaptive decision-making constructs, nor included CNM relationships in examinations of whether agreement type is associated with decision-making.

Importantly, the empirical underpinnings of leading theories of healthy relationships have been largely based on studies of ostensibly monogamous married couples who are predominantly heterosexual, middle-to-upper class, and White (Davila, 2020). Thus, the extent to which they may apply to other relationships requires further study. To date, most research on relationship agreements has focused on agreements among sexual minority men and has found positive associations between agreements and several measures of healthy relationship functioning, such as satisfaction and sexual health behavior (Rios-Spicer et al., 2019; Sizemore & Olmstead, 2017).

The Present Study

In the present study, we sought to extend the literature on the nature, rates, and correlates of relationship agreements by addressing gaps in existing research. First, we describe the characteristics and motivations for relationship agreements using data from a large survey of people with diverse gender and sexual identities and relationship structures. Second, we investigated which individual factors (i.e., gender identity, sexual orientation, CNM status) and relationship characteristics (i.e., length, cohabitation) may be associated with having a relationship agreement. Third, we examined associations between agreements and relationship functioning (i.e., adaptive decision-making and relationship satisfaction). We hypothesized that having an agreement will be associated with greater adaptive decision-making and relationship satisfaction and investigate whether these outcomes differ according to type of relationship agreement. Given limited evidence from existing research, we consider this research exploratory, particularly because our study was among the first to investigate relationship agreements using a sample of people with diverse gender and sexual identities and relationship structures.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were part of an online study focused on sexuality, dating, and relationships among people of diverse sexual identities and relationship structures. From August to October 2019 we recruited participants via online and social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, etc.) and through listservs and direct requests to LGBTQ+ and CNM/polyamorous community organizations. Participants were invited to participate in a study about attitudes and experiences related to sexuality, dating, and romantic relationships. Recruitment materials were designed to appeal to specific subgroups, including flyers specifically recruiting people in non-monogamous, polyamorous, or open relationships. Participants filled out a 1-minute screening survey and if eligible were directed to complete self-report questionnaires via Qualtrics lasting approximately 45 minutes. Eligibility criteria included: at least 18 years of age, currently residing in the United States, and consenting to participate in the study. After completing the survey, participants were invited to enter a raffle for one of ten $50 gift cards as compensation. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Stony Brook University.

Participants were screened based on attentive responders, minimum survey completion, and being in a relationship of at least 1 month’s duration. Of 2458 initial responses, n = 315 were ineligible, n = 396 did not consent, and n = 128 completed only initial demographic data. From these n = 1619 responses, n = 13 were excluded because of inattentive responding (i.e. three or more incorrect responses on the Directed Questions Scale, Maniaci & Rogge, 2014) and n = 587 did not provide data about their current relationship status or identification (e.g. as monogamous, polyamorous, other). Of the resulting 1023 participants, n = 280 were excluded because they were not currently in any romantic or sexual relationships and n = 19 did not provide data about their relationship agreements, and n = 2 reported being in a relationship of less than 1 months’ duration, leaving a final analytic sample of N = 722. As an additional means of confirming data quality among participants who reported agreements, we compared reported agreements with reports of current relationship structure (e.g. Monogamous, Open, Polyamorous) and partner number, and found responses to be consistent.

As described in Table 1, participants were generally in their late twenties, mostly non-Hispanic White, and diverse in terms of income and employment status. Participants were primarily non-heterosexual, with the largest groups identifying as bisexual and pansexual. Most indicated plurisexual attraction (i.e. experiencing attraction to people of more than one gender or regardless of gender) in contrast to monosexual attraction (i.e. only experiencing attraction to one gender). About half of participants were cisgender women, followed by transgender and gender diverse individuals and cisgender men. Participants were geographically diverse, with the highest percentages of participants living in New York (10.7%), California (9.3%), Pennsylvania (6.8%) and Washington (5.9%).

Table 1.

Participant (N = 722) demographic characteristics.

	Total N (%)
Mean age, years (SD)	29.3 (9.3)
Race
White	588 (81.4)
Multiracial	81 (11.2)
Black	31 (4.3)
Asian/Pacific Islander	16 (2.0)
Native American	6 (0.8)
Hispanic/Latina/o/e	65 (9.0)
Gender identity
Cisgender woman	353 (48.9)
Cisgender man	131 (18.1)
Nonbinary/genderqueer/gender non-conforming	84 (11.6)
Trans man	49 (6.8)
Trans woman	41 (5.7)
Different identity	24 (3.3)
Sexual orientation
Bisexual	192 (26.6)
Pansexual	153 (21.2)
Straight/Heterosexual	118 (16.3)
Queer	102 (14.1)
Gay	48 (6.6)
Lesbian	44 (6.1)
Asexual	23 (3.2)
Different identity	42 (5.8)
Sexual attraction
Only attracted to one gender	192 (26.6)
Attracted to more than one gender or regardless of gender	530 (73.4)
Annual household income
$0 – $23,999	179 (24.8)
$24,000 – $44,999	152 (21.0)
$45,000 – $74,999	161 (22.3)
$75,000 – $119,999	128 (17.7)
$120,000+	100 (13.9)
Employment status
Employed full-time	351 (48.6)
Employed part-time	225 (31.3)
Full-time student	75 (10.4)
Unemployed	48 (6.6)
Unemployed or not working due to disability	23 (3.2)
Relationship status
Committed relationship(s)	372 (51.5)
Dating one person	167 (23.1)
Dating more than one person	95 (13.2)
Different status (wrote-in)	88 (12.2)
Number of significant relationship partners
One	427 (59.0)
Two	162 (22.5)
Three	71 (9.8)
Four or more	64 (26.5)
Structure of current relationship(s)
Monogamous	252 (34.9)
Polyamorous	209 (28.9)
Monogamish	82 (11.4)
Relationship anarchy	72 (10.0)
Open	33 (4.6)
Swinger	23 (3.2)
Something else	51 (7.0)
Current relationship agreement
Sexual or romantic connections with outside partners but with some restrictions	219 (30.3)
No sexual or romantic connections with outside partners	182 (25.2)
Sexual or romantic connections with outside partners without restrictions	147 (20.4)
Other agreement (write in)	47 (6.5)
No agreement	128 (17.7)

Measures

Demographic data were assessed including age, sexual orientation, and gender identity (see Table 1). Relationship status was assessed with the question, “How would you describe your current relationship status?” with options: dating one person; dating more than one person; and committed relationship(s). Relationship orientation and structure were assessed per recommendations from the American Psychological Association Society for the Psychological Study of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity’s Committee on Consensual Nonmonogamy (Schechinger, 2018). Relationship orientation was assessed with the question, “When it comes to relationships, I think of myself or identify as” with options: monogamous, non-monogamous (Polyamorous, Open Relationship, etc.), questioning/exploring, or Other relationship structure/orientation. Relationship structure was assessed with the question: “How would you describe your current relationship(s)?” and multiple response options: monogamous, open, polyamorous, swinger, relationship anarchy, monogamish, or something else. For inferential analyses, participants were coded as CNM if they endorsed a non-monogamous relationship orientation and/or described their current relationship structure as involving CNM.

Participants were also asked their number of current significant intimate partners, including romantic, sexual, and intimate partners. Participants could provide data on up to four unique relationships including: length of relationship in months and years; cohabitation; and partner demographics, and information regarding relationship agreements and satisfaction as described below. The current paper reports only on each participant’s first reported relationship.

Relationship agreements were assessed with the question, adapted from Lee and Mitchell (2017): “A relationship agreement is a mutual understanding between you and your partner(s) based on an explicit conversation about which sexual and relationship activities are allowed to occur within your relationship and, if applicable, with outside partners. Do you currently have a relationship agreement with your partner?” with response options yes and no. Participants who endorsed this question were then asked which of the following scenarios best describes the current agreement they have with their partner: we cannot have any sex with an outside partner; we can have sex with outside partners but with some restrictions; we can have sex with outside partners without any restrictions; something else.

Motivations for making an agreement were assessed with the question: “What were your primary reasons for making a relationship agreement?” with response options taken from Rios-Spicer and colleagues’ (2019) review of common reasons studied in the agreements literature to date: Managing expectations; Building trust and/or honesty; Protecting the relationship and partners’ feelings; Preventing HIV and STIs; something else. Participants could endorse multiple response options, and participants who endorsed “something else” were invited to share additional detail in a free text response.

Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the four-item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The CSI-4 is a common measure of relationship satisfaction that asks people to indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of their relationship, with response options ranging from 1 (extremely unhappy) to 7 (perfect); then asks participants to rate the degree to which they agree with the following statements on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (completely): “I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner”; “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?”; “In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?”. Results are summed such that higher scores reflect greater satisfaction. The CSI-4 was developed using item response theory and has shown good reliability with both monogamous and CNM individuals (Flicker et al., 2021; Funk & Rogge, 2007; Hangen et al., 2020). In our sample, reliability was adequate, α = 0.76.

Adaptive relationship decision-making skills were assessed using the Relationship Deciding Scale, a 12-item measure that assesses romantic relationship decision-making as indexed by three factors: relationship confidence, warning signs, and deciding (Vennum & Fincham, 2011). The scale was originally developed to examine thoughtfulness regarding relationships among young adults following Stanley and colleagues’ (2006) commitment theory and has since been used in a variety of adult populations to examine thoughtfulness regarding relationship transitions and consequences (e.g. Clifford et al., 2017). Items are usually rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); this study rates items on a 7-point Likert scale because of a programming error (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items were summed to form subscales: (1) Relationship confidence (4 items, e.g. I have the skills needed for a lasting stable romantic relationship.), Cronbach’s α = 0.86, where higher scores indicate greater confidence in ability to maintain relationships; (2) Warning signs (3 items, e.g. “I know what to do when I recognize the warning signs in a bad relationship”), Cronbach’s α = 0.84, where higher scores indicate more recognition of relationship warning signs; and (3) Deciding (5 items, e.g. “With romantic partners, I weigh the pros and cons before allowing myself to take the next step in the relationship (e.g., be physically intimate)”), Cronbach’s α = 0.78, where higher scores indicate more thoughtfulness in navigating relationship decisions.

Data Analysis

To demonstrate the prevalence, characteristics, and motivations of agreements amongst the sample, we used descriptive statistics. Given the sizeable proportion of respondents who provided write-in responses to questions regarding the characteristics of and motivation for current relationship agreements, we report these responses in further detail.

To investigate individual and relationship-level factors associated with having an agreement, logistic regression was used. We examined individual predictors previously linked to having an agreement: gender identity, sexual orientation, and CNM status; as well as relevant relationship factors: relationship length and cohabitation. Given that cisgender men’s relationship agreements have been relatively better characterized in the existing literature, cisgender men were used as the reference group for gender identity, with dummy variables for cisgender women and TGD people to allow for investigation of these understudied groups. For sexual orientation, we examined main effects of having a sexual minority (i.e. non-heterosexual) identity compared to heterosexual identity. We first report the unadjusted regression results for each predictor separately, then examine a model with all predictors entered as covariates. All predictors used in regression models had less than 2% missing data; results presented here are complete-case estimates. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) estimates are reported for logistic regression.

To investigate associations between relationship agreements and relationship functioning (i.e. satisfaction, adaptive decision-making), t-tests were used. Analyses of variance were used to examine potential associations between agreement type (i.e. monogamous, open with restrictions, open without restrictions) and relationship functioning. All p values were two-tailed, and statistical significance was determined using a standard alpha level (a < 0.05) with Bonferroni correction. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS version 27 software.

Results

Descriptive Findings

Bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. CNM status was significantly associated with relationship duration and cohabitation. CNM participants were more likely to live with their partners (N = 266, 70.5%) than were monogamous participants (N = 204, 59.1%), X² (2, N = 722) = 10.35, p = .001. Age was significantly associated with relationship duration and participant gender and sexual identity. Age differed between participants who were transgender and gender diverse (M = 26.0, SD = 7.7) and cisgender (M = 30.9, SD = 9.6), t (722) = 6.83, p < .001, and between participants who reported attraction to one gender (M = 30.8, SD = 10.8) versus to more than one or regardless of gender (M = 28.77, SD = 8.6), t (722) = 2.54, p = .01. As such, age was entered as a covariate in regression models along with individual and relationship-level predictors of interest.

Table 2.

Correlations, means, and standard deviations.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	–
2. Relationship duration (years)	.53*	–
3. RDS: Relationship confidence	.08*	.21**	–
4. RDS: Warning signs	.13*	.12**	.35**	–
5. RDS: Deciding	−.01	.04	.22**	.29**	–
6. Relationship satisfaction	−.12**	−.04	.39**	.16**	.06	–
M	29.33	4.85	23.48	14.03	25.53	16.79
SD	9.3	6.03	4.08	3.96	5.23	3.98
Range	18–69	0.08–45	7–28	3–21	5–35	0–21

*p < .05; **p < .01. RDS = Relationship Deciding Scale.

Rates and Characteristics of Relationship Agreements

As reported in Table 1, the most common relationship status among participants was committed relationships, followed by dating one person. An additional 12.2% of participants (N = 88) wrote in their relationship status.

Just over one-third of participants described their current relationship structure as monogamous, followed by polyamorous and monogamish. An additional 12.2% of participants (N = 88) wrote in their relationship agreement.

Across all participants, 82.3% (N = 594) had a relationship agreement. The most described agreement allowed sexual or romantic connections with outside partners with some restrictions (30.3%); followed by no sexual or romantic connections with outside partners (25.2%); and sexual or romantic connections with outside partners without any restrictions (20.4%). The remainder of participants (N = 47, 6.5%) wrote-in their relationship agreement. Write-in responses were reviewed by the first author and a representative selection are presented in Table 3. Themes included clarifying that only sexual connections were allowed with outside partners (N = 10), with some participants further specifying that they could only have sex with outside partners as a couple (N = 6). N = 11 participants described their agreement as being open to connections with outside partners if it was discussed with their partner (N = 6) and/or if safe sex practices were followed (N = 6), with one participant indicating both were part of their agreement. Additional write-in response themes included having different agreements for each partner (N = 5), being in the process of discussing or evolving an agreement (N = 2), and being in a closed three-person relationship (e.g., polyfidelity triad, N = 3).

Table 3.

Participants’ write-in responses describing current relationship agreement (N = 47).

Theme	Representative example
Only sexual relationships allowed with outside partners (N = 10)	“We can have sexual outside partners if we are both present and participating.”
	“We can have other sexual connections as long as both of us are involved.”
Relationships with outside partners allowed if discussed (N = 6)	“We can do whatever we want, as long as we communicate openly rather than hide things.”
Relationships with outside partners allowed if safe sex practices are followed (N = 6)	“We can have all kinds of relationships without restriction, but we always practice safer sex”
Relationship agreement involves different rules for each partner in the couple (N = 5)	“I can sleep with women if I choose to, but he is not interested in sleeping with other people. His idea, not mine”
	“I can have same sex relationships outside our relationship only”
Relationship agreement is evolving or being discussed (N = 2)	“Our agreement is evolving; we are refraining from outside sexual or romantic connections for now, but intend to open to them as my partner is moving away”
Relationship agreement concerns a closed three-person relationship (N = 3)	“Sex only with us and K (triad fidelity)”
	“We can have a sexual relationship with the man in our triad”

Notes. The above summarizes write-in responses to the question, “Which of the following best describes the current agreement you have with your partner?” With response options: we cannot have any sex with an outside partner; we can have sex with outside partners but with some restrictions; we can have sex with outside partners without any restrictions; something else [write-in].

Motivations for Relationship Agreements

Participants were instructed to check all primary reasons for making a relationship agreement, and most participants endorsed two or more reasons. Among participants with relationship agreements (N = 596), endorsement rates for each motivation were as follows: building trust and/or honesty (N = 477, 80.0%); protecting the relationship and partners’ feelings (N = 434, 72.8%); managing expectations (N = 398, 66.8%); and preventing HIV and STIs (N = 258, 43.3%). Additionally, 7.9% of participants (N = 47) wrote in their reasons for making an agreement; these responses were reviewed and coded by the first author following and a representative selection is provided in Table 4. Participants listed a range of motivations including: creating or respecting boundaries (N = 6), fulfilling unmet needs (N = 5), valuing monogamy (N = 5), fostering autonomy (N = 4), BDSM (N = 4), communication (N = 4), starting a family (N = 4), and navigating long-distance relationships (N = 2).

Table 4.

Participants’ write-in responses describing motivations for making a relationship agreement (N = 47).

Theme	Example responses
Boundaries (N = 6)	“Respecting each other’s boundaries”
Fulfilling unmet needs (N = 5)	“[My other partner] is ace and cannot give me what I want.”
Fulfilling unmet needs (N = 5)	“It fits our needs plus ensures safer sex practices.”
Valuing monogamy (N = 5)	“We both believe in monogamy.”
BDSM (N = 4)	“BDSM dynamic”
Communication (N = 4)	“Just making sure we’re on the same page.”
Communication (N = 4)	“Opening communication for deeper connection.”
Family/children (N = 4)	“Co-habitating, children”
Autonomy (N = 4)	“Not wanting to limit how we connect with others”
Autonomy (N = 4)	“Giving each other security and freedom”
Long distance (N = 2)	“Managing a long-distance relationship and sexual needs”

Note. The above summarizes write-in responses to the question, “What were your primary reasons for making a relationship agreement with your partner? Select all that apply.” With response options: building trust and/or honesty; protecting the relationship and partners’ feelings; managing expectations; preventing HIV and STIs; and something else.

Individual and Relationship-Level Predictors of Having an Agreement

Table 5 presents results for logistic regressions examining individual and relationship-level factors associated with having a relationship agreement. Binary relationship agreement outcome was regressed on age, gender identity (dummy coded for cisgender women and TGD people, cisgender men as reference group), sexual orientation (dummy coded for sexual minority status, heterosexual as reference group), CNM status (dummy coded for CNM, monogamous as reference group), cohabitation status (dummy coded for cohabiting, not cohabiting as reference group), and relationship duration. Because our research is exploratory and predictors were highly correlated, we report both unadjusted and adjusted scores. In unadjusted models, CNM status, cohabitation, and relationship length were associated with greater odds of having a relationship agreement. In the adjusted model, there remained main effects of CNM status and cohabitation, but not relationship length; such that holding other variables constant, identifying as CNM or being in a CNM relationship (compared to being monogamous) was associated with greater odds of having a relationship agreement, aOR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.1, 2.65, p = .017. There was also a main effect of cohabitation, such that living with your partner (compared to not) was associated with greater odds of having an agreement, aOR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.67, 4.43, p < .001. There were no main effects of gender identity or sexual orientation¹ on odds of having a relationship agreement in both unadjusted and adjusted models.

Table 5.

Individual and relationship-level predictors of having a relationship agreement.

	N (%)	OR [95% CI]	p	aOR [95% CI]	p
Gender identity
Cisgender man	105 (80.15)	Ref	–	Ref	–
Cisgender woman	290 (81.69)	1.09 [0.66, 1.82]	.720	0.94 [0.55, 1.62]	.826
Transgender or gender diverse	202 (84.87)	1.39 [0.79, 2.43]	.247	0.94 [0.67, 2.31]	.489
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/straight	98 (83.05)	Ref	–	Ref	–
Non-heterosexual	499 (82.34)	0.84 [0.56, 1.60]	.196	0.68 [0.38, 1.22]	.196
Relationship structure
Monogamous	196 (77.45)	Ref	–	Ref	–
CNM	401 (85.14)	1.67 [1.3, 2.46]	.010	1.71 [1.1, 2.65]	.017
Cohabitation
Do not live with partner	261 (75.4)	Ref	–	Ref	–
Live with partner	335 (88.86)	2.61 [1.74, 3.90]	<.001	2.72 [1.67, 4.43]	<.001
Relationship length	–	1.04 [1.00, 1.09]	.032	1.02 [.97, 1.07]	.444

Note. Models adjusted for age. OR = odds ratio; aOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; ref = reference group. Cell values represent proportion of each predictor group that reported having a relationship agreement and estimated adjusted odds ratios and associated CIs and p-values derived from logistic regression model. Predictors with p < .05 shown in bold.

Although not included in our planned analyses, it is conceivable given increased rates of relationship agreements amongst both CNM and sexual minority people that examining the interaction of these variables might further clarify predictors of agreement use. We therefore conducted post-hoc logistic regression models to examine whether the interaction of sexual orientation and CNM status predicted agreement use. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, there was no significant interaction effect of sexual orientation and CNM on having a relationship agreement (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = .53, 4.36, p = .44; aOR = 1.17, 95% CI = .43, 3.21, p = .76). Compared to the adjusted model results presented in Table 5, the adjusted model including the sexual orientation by CNM interaction yielded only one main effect, of cohabitation, such that living with your partner (compared to not) was associated with greater odds of having an agreement, aOR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.67, 4.44, p < .001.

Associations between Agreements and Relationship Functioning

Associations between relationship agreements and functioning were examined using t-tests. Compared to participants who reported not having a relationship agreement, participants with agreements reported greater relationship satisfaction, t (720) = −3.55, p < .001, d = 0.32 and higher scores on all three RDS subscales: relationship confidence, t (715) = −5.46, p < .001, d = 0.50; warning signs, t (715) = −2.86, p = .004, d = 0.28; and deciding, t (715) = −5.17, p < .001, d = 0.51. One-way ANOVAs were then conducted to examine whether relationship satisfaction or decision-making skills differed depending on the type of agreement (i.e. sexually and romantically exclusive, open with restrictions, open without restrictions). There was no significant effect of agreement type on reported relationship satisfaction, F (3, 593) = 2.40, p = .068 nor on the three decision-making subscales: relationship confidence, F (3, 586) = 0.35, p = .79; warning signs, F (3, 586) = 1.37, p = .79; or deciding, F (3, 586) = .31, p = .82.

Discussion

The present study is among the first to examine rates, characteristics, and motivations for relationship agreements in a large mixed-gender sample. We also assessed associations between having an agreement and two metrics of relationship functioning: satisfaction and adaptive decision-making. Results indicated that having relationship agreements is common, particularly (though not exclusively) among people who identify as or practice CNM. We also found that having a relationship agreement — no matter the type — was positively associated with relationship functioning. Overall, the current study extends previous research focused chiefly on gay and bisexual male couples to a sample of women, men, and transgender and gender diverse individuals across the sexual orientation spectrum and highlights the need for continued research on relationship agreements.

A key finding of the current study concerns the diversity of relationship agreements used by participants in the sample. Participants reported a variety of arrangements with their partners, from total romantic and sexual exclusivity (i.e. monogamy) to openness with or without restriction, to specific forms of hierarchical polyamory such as polyfidelity triads or having a primary and secondary partner, as well as non-hierarchical polyamory styles like relationship anarchy. The number of participants who wrote-in descriptions of their current agreements and motivations for forming them indicates that existing measures (such as those used in our study and in most of the extant agreements literature, see Rios-Spicer et al., 2019) may not capture the complexity and diversity of peoples’ arrangements. This finding echoes past research highlighting the diversity of relationship structures under the CNM umbrella (e.g. Barker & Langdridge, 2010) and indicates that future qualitative and mixed-methods research probing the nature and motivations for forming agreements will be critical for characterizing relationship agreements and improving future measurement. Specifically, future measurements of relationship agreements may benefit from incorporating measures of sexual behavior, as used in the sexual health literature (e.g. what sexual behaviors are/not allowed with other partners), as well as intimate/romantic behaviors (e.g. spending the night together, going on dates), in addition to the relational context in which agreements are formed.

People who reported practicing some form of CNM (compared to monogamy) and those who lived with their partners (compared to those who did not) were more likely to have a relationship agreement, with cohabitation emerging as the stronger of the two predictors. Cohabitation status (but not relationship duration) predicted agreement use, perhaps indicating that commitment or other qualities not measured in this study, such as attachment security, trust, or communication quality, are important relational factors related to agreement use (Conley et al., 2017). The finding that people who practice CNM were more likely to have an agreement makes sense given that CNM relationships and subcultures tend to emphasize consensual, explicit communication between partners (Barker & Langdridge, 2010; Conley et al., 2017). Interestingly, our adjusted model showed no differences in odds of having an agreement by gender, sexual orientation, or relationship length, indicating that agreements are used by people across gender and sexual identities and may occur even in relationships of brief duration. This finding differs from population-based samples that show sexual minority (compared to heterosexual), and male (compared to female) adults are more likely to engage in CNM (Haupert, Moors, et al., 2017), but because our sample was mostly comprised of sexual minority people it is possible that differences by gender and sexual orientation were nonsignificant. Our post-hoc analyses investigating the possible interaction effect of sexual orientation and CNM status on relationship agreement use did not find a significant interaction, nor did CNM status retain its main effect. While this result is difficult to interpret in the current sample, more work is needed to understand the interplay of CNM status and sexual orientation conceptually and with specific regard to their role in relationship agreements. Taken together, these findings support the idea that relationship agreements are a relevant construct of study among the broader population, and that the extant literature developed among gay male couples can continue to be extended to women, gender diverse people, heterosexual people, and other understudied groups in this area.

Having an agreement was associated with greater adaptive relationship decision-making skills—confidence, decision-making, and recognition of warning signs—and more relationship satisfaction, regardless of agreement type. This finding, while preliminary, confirms ideas about the importance of communication and active decision-making for healthy relationships (Davila et al., 2017; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Stanley et al., 2006). That agreements were associated with all aspects of adaptive decision-making aligns with the idea that dedication to improve relationship quality for the benefit of all participants can buffer against potential risks of sliding/resigning to changes in relationships due to increased constraints (Stanley et al., 2006; Stanley & Markman, 1992). It is possible that constructing relationship agreements represents a dedication to mutuality in relationship and, as indicated in our participants’ responses regarding motivations for making agreements, a desire to protect the relationship and partners’ feelings. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine how communication, adaptive decision-making constructs, and agreement making are temporally related.

At the same time, our findings suggest that relationship agreements of any type — from complete sexual and romantic exclusivity to openness without restriction — may be important for satisfaction. This suggests that it may not be the structure of relationships that matters, but rather the intentionality with which that structure is created and maintained, or perhaps partners’ ability to communicate openly with their partner regarding their needs and wishes for the relationship. Future research should examine whether agreements are associated with other positive relationship qualities, such as absence of cheating and more frequent communication. Potential individual and relational moderators of the agreement-functioning link could also be examined, such as agreement investment and adherence (Rios-Spicer et al., 2019). Third variable explanations for the association between agreements and positive relationship functioning (e.g., future-orientation, belief in value and longevity of the relationship, compatibility of communication/thinking styles), should also be examined. Another important direction will be to consider whether having an agreement is similarly associated with positive relationship outcomes for individuals with multiple partners: that is, for multi-partnered individuals, are there differences between partners regarding use of agreements and associations with relationship functioning? Additionally, future research should examine reasons for not forming a relationship agreement, and whether these reasons may be associated with relationship functioning.

Given the nature of our sample, which is largely sexual minority regarding orientation and/or relationship structure, it is perhaps unsurprising that agreements were common and associated with satisfaction — indeed, people who engage in CNM without explicit relationship agreements may be traversing rough relational terrain. At the same time, some non-hierarchical CNM relationship styles, such as relationship anarchy, emphasize autonomy such that practitioners reject any rules governing or policing partners’ behavior (Nordgren, 2006). Viewed from this lens, our measure of agreements, which focuses on what is and is not “allowed” within and outside a given relationship, may be limited in capturing the process of consensual relating that occurs in some non-hierarchical CNM relationships. Likewise, it is possible that differences in the sociocultural norms and associated values of people who are heterosexual compared to those who are sexual minorities may influence how relationship agreements operate depending on the composition and structure of a given partnership. Further investigations of agreements among different types of relationships may benefit from within-group or qualitative approaches that may clarify how agreements operate within different relationship models.

Limitations

Limitations of the present study include the use of cross-sectional and individual data. Future studies should conduct longitudinal investigations of how, when, and why people form, change, or break relationship agreements to better understand the dynamic nature of relationships. Additionally, because we collected data from only one partner in a relationship, we are unable to assess concordance between partners regarding agreement, or to see whether having an agreement is associated with better relationship functioning for all partners involved. Additionally, it is possible that participants may have overreported use of relationship agreements due to the broadness of the question and to social desirability bias. Further, the agreements measure used focuses on sexual behaviors and is limited in its ability to capture agreements related to romance/intimacy, which may have contributed to the number of write-in responses.

Further, as has recently been noted by Sakaluk (2021), there is only emerging evidence for the validity of relationship functioning measures among CNM samples. Although the measure of satisfaction used in our study has demonstrated validity among CNM samples (Flicker et al., 2021; Hangen et al., 2020), the measure of adaptive relationship decision-making has not to our knowledge previously been used with CNM individuals. It is possible that the adaptive relationship decision-making construct may apply differently to monogamous compared to CNM relationships. For example, the Warning Signs subscale was developed to examine individuals’ ability to recognize warning signs early in relationship formation, with the idea that people who can detect these signs are less likely to get into a committed relationship that is destructive (Vennum & Fincham, 2011). For CNM individuals, some “warning signs,” like partner withdrawal or invalidation, may stem from distress related to relationship uncertainty or transitions in the context of fluctuating relationship structure, new partners, etc. (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). Likewise, CNM individuals’ adaptive decision-making may include recognition of internal warning signs, like jealousy, as a cue to investigate unmet needs, improve communication, and potentially renegotiate agreements (Rubinsky, 2018). Examinations of measurement invariance of this and other relationship functioning constructs will be needed to support future work seeking to expand extant theories of healthy relationship structures to include people with diverse relationship structures.

Finally, and importantly, rates of relationship agreements must be interpreted in the context of the sample and sampling strategy applied. Given that the present analyses and parent study were designed to examine sexuality and relationship experiences among people of diverse sexual orientations and relationship structures, rates for these individual and relationship factors differ from population-prevalence levels and, although they inform and broaden the existing literature on agreements, should not be generalized to broader populations. Future work in this area of research should strategically recruit across sexual orientation and monogamy to facilitate investigation of how relationship agreement rates may differ among, for example, sexual minority women versus men and between gay/lesbian and bi/pan/queer participants. Although our sample was very diverse in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, and reasonably so in terms of socioeconomic status, the sample was majority non-Latina/o/e White. Underrepresentation of participants of color in our study, as in the broader field of relationships science and in particular the study of CNM relationships, poses challenges for generalizability of our findings and the degree to which they may inform future research (Hamilton et al., 2021).

Implications and Conclusion

This study extended research on relationship agreements among gay and bisexual men and CNM practitioners to a sample of people with diverse sexual and gender identities and relationship structures. Findings indicate that relationship agreements are common among people who are non-heterosexual and/or who practice CNM and indicate considerable diversity in agreement type. Our results also support past findings that relationship agreements are positively associated with relationship functioning, both relationship satisfaction and adaptive romantic decision-making. The present results have important implications for couples/relationship researchers and clinicians. Researchers developing and testing theories of healthy relationships should continue assessing the agreements partners make with one another regarding their relationship structures and allowed behaviors. Of particular importance will be continued improvement of measurement of relationship agreements to capture the diversity of agreement types. Our results also have implications for practitioners working with couples/families/relationship issues. Practitioners could consider assessing relationship agreements when working with couples/relationship partners and individuals presenting with relationship concerns. In relationship education programs and couples/relationship therapy settings, relationship agreements could be promoted as a tool to support improved communication and adaptive decision-making in relationships. Learning about and discussing different types of relationship agreements could also serve as a mechanism for partners to identify differences in expectations and needs for their relationship that could protect against future ruptures or infidelity. Understanding the characteristics, motivations, and correlates of relationship agreements is an important step towards illuminating components of healthy relationships that have received limited attention in research and clinical practice.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

The present study is a revised and extended version of an oral presentation at the Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies 2021 Conference.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gabriella Catanuto for contributions to the literature review of this paper and Nicholas Eaton and Marci Lobel for their comments on an earlier draft.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ellora Vilkin

Joanne Davila

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available upon request. The data can be obtained by emailing ellora.vilkin@stonybrook.edu. The materials used in the research are available upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing ellora.vilkin@stonybrook.edu.

Note

References

Barker

Langdridge

(2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460710384645

Bertens

M. G. B. C.

Wolfers

M. E. G.

van den Borne

Schaalma

H. P.

(2008). Negotiating safe sex among women of Afro-Surinamese and Dutch Antillean descent in The Netherlands. AIDS Care, 20(10), 1211–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120802009070

Blow

A. J.

Hartnett

(2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01555.x

Brewster

M. E.

Soderstrom

Esposito

Breslow

Sawyer

Geiger

Morshedian

Arango

Caso

Foster

Sandil

Cheng

(2017). A content analysis of scholarship on consensual nonmonogamies: Methodological roadmaps, current themes, and directions for future research. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 6(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000074.

Clifford

C. E.

Vennum

Busk

Fincham

F. D.

(2017). Testing the impact of sliding versus deciding in cyclical and noncyclical relationships. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12179

Conley

T. D.

Matsick

J. L.

Moors

A. C.

Ziegler

(2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616667925

Conley

T. D.

Moors

A. C.

Matsick

J. L.

Ziegler

(2013a). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x

Conley

T. D.

Moors

A. C.

Ziegler

Matsick

J. L.

Rubin

J. D.

(2013b). Condom use errors among sexually unfaithful and consensually nonmonogamous individuals. Sexual Health, 10(5), 463–464. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH12194

Davila

(2020. July 24). Studying relationships in today’s world. Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCdYQ9nj6SA

10.

Davila

Mattanah

Bhatia

Latack

J. A.

Feinstein

B. A.

Eaton

N. R.

Daks

J. S.

Kumar

S. A.

Lomash

E. F.

Mccormick

Zhou

(2017). Romantic competence, healthy relationship functioning, and well-being in emerging adults. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12175

11.

Fairbrother

Hart

T. A.

Fairbrother

(2019). Open relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667

12.

Feinstein

B. A.

Dellucci

T. V.

Sullivan

P. S.

Mustanski

(2018). Characterizing sexual agreements with one’s most recent sexual partner among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention: Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS, 30(4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2018.30.4.335

13.

Flicker

S. M.

Sancier-Barbosa

Moors

A. C.

Browne

(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.

14.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

15.

Gamarel

K. E.

Reisner

S. L.

Darbes

L. A.

Hoff

C. C.

Chakravarty

Nemoto

Operario

(2016). Dyadic dynamics of HIV risk among transgender women and their primary male sexual partners: The role of sexual agreement types and motivations. AIDS Care, 28(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2015.1069788

16.

Green

A. I.

Valleriani

Adam

(2016). Marital monogamy as ideal and practice: The detraditionalization thesis in contemporary marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12277

17.

Hamilton

L. D.

De Santis

Thompson

A. E.

(2021). Introduction to the special section on consensual non-monogamy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02055-z

18.

Hangen

Crasta

Rogge

R. D.

(2020). Delineating the boundaries between nonmonogamy and infidelity: Bringing consent back into definitions of consensual nonmonogamy with latent profile analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(4), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1669133

19.

Haupert

M. L.

Gesselman

A. N.

Moors

A. C.

Fisher

H. E.

Garcia

J. R.

(2017). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675

20.

Haupert

M. L.

Moors

A. C.

Gesselman

A. N.

Garcia

J. R.

(2017). Estimates and correlates of engagement in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0121-6

21.

Hoff

C. C.

Beougher

S. C.

(2010). Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 774–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9393-2

22.

Hoff

C. C.

Beougher

S. C.

Chakravarty

Darbes

L. A.

Neilands

T. B.

(2010). Relationship characteristics and motivations behind agreements among gay male couples: Differences by agreement type and couple serostatus. AIDS Care, 22(7), 827–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120903443384

23.

Jones

J. S.

Stephenson

Wall

K. M.

Sullivan

P. S.

(2014). Relationship agreements and willingness to participate in couples HIV testing and counseling among heterosexuals in the US. The Open AIDS Journal, 8(50). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874613601408010050.

24.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

25.

Lee

J.-Y.

Mitchell

J. W.

(2017). Brief report: Who has a sexual agreement among mixed-sex partnered adults in the U.S. International Journal of Sexual Health, 29(4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2017.1329766

26.

Levine

E. C.

Herbenick

Martinez

T.-C.

Dodge

(2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 national survey of sexual health and behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7

27.

Maniaci

M. R.

Rogge

R. D.

(2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008.

28.

McAnulty

R. D.

Brineman

J. M.

(2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2007.10559848

29.

Mitchell

J. W.

(2014). Aspects of gay male couples’ sexual agreements vary by their relationship length. AIDS Care, 26(9), 1164–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2014.882491

30.

Mitchell

J. W.

Lee

J.-Y.

Woodyatt

Bauermeister

Sullivan

Stephenson

(2017). Illuminating the context and circumstances of male couples establishing a sexual agreement in their relationship. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(3), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316655528

31.

Mitchell

V. E.

Mogilski

J. K.

Donaldson

S. H.

Nicolas

S. C. A.

Welling

L. L. M.

(2020). Sexual motivation and satisfaction among consensually non-monogamous and monogamous individuals. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(6), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.018

32.

Murphy

A. P.

Joel

Muise

(2020). A prospective investigation of the decision to open up a romantic relationship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619897157

33.

Newcomb

M. E.

Swann

Moskowitz

Bettin

Macapagal

Whitton

S. W.

(2021). Interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on sexual satisfaction in young male couples: Analyses of actor-partner interdependence models. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1820933

34.

Nordgren

(2006). The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy. The Anarchist Library. Retrieved from https://theanarchistlibrary.org

35.

Owen

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

(2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097

36.

Rios-Spicer

Darbes

Hoff

Sullivan

P. S.

Stephenson

(2019). Sexual agreements: A scoping review of measurement, prevalence and links to health outcomes. AIDS and Behavior, 23(1), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2212-4

37.

Ritchie

Barker

(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

38.

Rubel

Bogaert

(2014). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722

39.

Rubinsky

(2018). Bringing up the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and communicating jealousy with a partner who has other partners. The Qualitative Report, 23(6), 1441–1455. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3297

40.

Sakaluk

J. K.

Quinn-Nilas

Fisher

A. N.

Leshner

C. E.

Huber

Wood

J. R.

(2021). Sameness and difference in psychological research on consensually non-monogamous relationships: The need for invariance and equivalence testing. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 1341–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01794-9.

41.

Schechinger

H. A.

(2018). Benchmarks and demographic forms for working with clients engaged in consensual non-monogamy.pdf. APA Division 44 CNM Taskforce.

42.

Séguin

L. J.

Blais

Goyer

M.-F.

Adam

B. D.

Lavoie

Rodrigue

Magontier

(2017). Examining relationship quality across three types of relationship agreements. Sexualities, 20(1–2), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716649337

43.

Sizemore

K. M.

Olmstead

S. B.

(2017). A systematic review of research on attitudes towards and willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy among emerging adults: Methodological issues considered. Psychology and Sexuality, 8(1–2), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017.1319407

44.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(1992). Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245.

45.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x

46.

Swan

D. J.

Thompson

S. C.

(2016). Monogamy, the protective fallacy: Sexual versus emotional exclusivity and the implication for sexual health risk. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.1003771

47.

Vennum

Fincham

F. D.

(2011). Assessing decision making in young adult romantic relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 739–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023287

48.

Waite

L. J.

Gallagher

(2001). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off Financially. Broadway Books.

49.

Wood

Desmarais

Burleigh

& Milhausen

(2018). Reasons for sex and relational outcomes in consensually nonmonogamous and monogamous relationships: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743082

50.

Wosick-Correa

(2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology and Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634471