Nurturance, Eroticism, and Relationship Satisfaction Among People in Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satisfying romantic relationships often feature high levels of nurturance and eroticism. Consensually non-monogamous (CNM) individuals may experience these with additional partners, potentially reducing the need for both to be present in a primary relationship to achieve satisfaction. We assessed how nurturance and eroticism relate to relationship satisfaction in single-partnered (n = 289) and multi-partnered (n = 335) individuals. We also compared relationship behavior (single vs multiple current partners) and identity (monogamous, n = 217 vs CNM, n = 399). Compared to multi-partnered individuals’ reports of their primary relationship, single-partnered individuals reported similar satisfaction and nurturance, and higher eroticism. Across single- and multi-partnered individuals, nurturance and eroticism were positively associated with relationship satisfaction, with no upper level interactions. Instead, interactions emerged when assessing relationship identity. Among monogamous individuals, nurturance and eroticism also did not interact, meaning the positive association of one was consistent across levels of the other. For CNM-identified individuals, however, nurturance and eroticism interacted; nurturance was more strongly linked to satisfaction when eroticism was low, while eroticism was only linked to satisfaction when nurturance was low. When nurturance was high, there was no association between eroticism and satisfaction. Longer relationship durations were linked to lower eroticism and higher nurturance, regardless of partner number or age. Findings suggest that nurturance and eroticism contribute to satisfaction differently for monogamous and CNM individuals, with CNM individuals fostering highly satisfying relationships even when eroticism is low. This study provides a nuanced understanding of how these factors contribute to satisfaction across diverse relationship forms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".