Review and Critique of the Quantitative Literature Regarding Attitudes toward Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a review of the recent literature on attitudes toward consensual non-monogamy (CNM). These attitudes are constrained to evaluations of people who practice CNM, CNM relationships, and CNM concepts; willingness to engage in or personal interest in practicing CNM is not included in this review. Relevant published research was located through database searches, as well as by perusing references and citations. Based on over two dozen investigations, it is concluded that average attitudes toward CNM are around neutral, with some slightly negative and some slightly positive. Studies taking a comparative perspective—whereby monogamous couples are pitted against CNM couples—overwhelmingly find more favorable attitudes toward monogamy. This literature supports assertions of the prevalence of monocentrism/compulsory monogamy. Further, some researchers investigated sociodemographic and psychological variables as predictors of CNM attitudes. Considering demographic characteristics, those who identify as monogamous and heterosexual tend to be more negative toward CNM relative to their counterparts, and most of the research suggests there are no gender differences in CNM attitudes. In terms of psychological variables, those reflecting authoritarian ideological values tended to predict CNM attitudes the best. The psychological variables are interpreted within the broader dual-process motivational model of prejudice with attention to authoritarianism and social dominance. To conclude, measurement issues are discussed, existing instruments are critiqued, and recommendations are made for which instruments are appropriate for different research goals. Specifically, the Attitudes towards Polyamory scale is a concise, unidimensional instrument with sound psychometric properties, making it a good general assessment of polyamory or CNM. Created using excellent test construction techniques, the Multidimensional Measurement of Attitudes toward Consensual Non-Monogamy (MACS) is a very promising belief-based CNM attitudes scale with three factors. Finally, directions for future research are discussed with an emphasis on differentiating between beliefs and attitudes as suggested by attitude theory, with most CNM attitude scales conflating the former with the latter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".