Countering the Monogamy-Superiority Myth: A Meta-Analysis of the Differences in Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction as a Function of Relationship Orientation.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Sex Research Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-24 DOI:10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988
Joel R Anderson, Jordan D X Hinton, Alena Bondarchuk-McLaughlin, Scarlet Rosa, Kian Jin Tan, Lily Moor
{"title":"Countering the Monogamy-Superiority Myth: A Meta-Analysis of the Differences in Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction as a Function of Relationship Orientation.","authors":"Joel R Anderson, Jordan D X Hinton, Alena Bondarchuk-McLaughlin, Scarlet Rosa, Kian Jin Tan, Lily Moor","doi":"10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are key predictors of wellbeing and can substantially contribute to quality of life. Assumptions are often made that relationship and sexual satisfaction are heightened for those in monogamous relationship configurations. This meta-analytic review challenges such assumptions by comparing the degree of relationship and sexual satisfaction of monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. A literature search using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycEXTRA, CINAHL, LGBT+ Source, and SOCIndex, and an additional call for unpublished data, identified 35 suitable studies (<i>N</i> = 24,489). Meta-analytic results show null effects overall, suggesting that both relationships (<i>k</i> = 29; <i>g</i> = -0.05, 95% CIs [-0.20, 0.10], <i>p</i> = .496) and sex (<i>k</i> = 17; <i>g</i> = 0.06, 95% CIs [-0.07, 0.18], <i>p</i> = .393) are equally satisfactory for monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. Sub-group analyses revealed that these overall effects did not vary according to sampling characteristics (e.g. LGBTQ+ vs. heterosexual samples), non-monogamy agreement types (e.g. open vs. polyamorous vs. monogamish), or relationship satisfaction dimension (e.g. trust vs. commitment vs. intimacy). There was no evidence of publication bias. Methodological challenges and directions for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sex Research","volume":" ","pages":"130-142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sex Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are key predictors of wellbeing and can substantially contribute to quality of life. Assumptions are often made that relationship and sexual satisfaction are heightened for those in monogamous relationship configurations. This meta-analytic review challenges such assumptions by comparing the degree of relationship and sexual satisfaction of monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. A literature search using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycEXTRA, CINAHL, LGBT+ Source, and SOCIndex, and an additional call for unpublished data, identified 35 suitable studies (N = 24,489). Meta-analytic results show null effects overall, suggesting that both relationships (k = 29; g = -0.05, 95% CIs [-0.20, 0.10], p = .496) and sex (k = 17; g = 0.06, 95% CIs [-0.07, 0.18], p = .393) are equally satisfactory for monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. Sub-group analyses revealed that these overall effects did not vary according to sampling characteristics (e.g. LGBTQ+ vs. heterosexual samples), non-monogamy agreement types (e.g. open vs. polyamorous vs. monogamish), or relationship satisfaction dimension (e.g. trust vs. commitment vs. intimacy). There was no evidence of publication bias. Methodological challenges and directions for future research are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对抗一夫一妻制优越神话:关系满意度和性满意度差异的元分析——关系取向的函数。
关系满意度和性满意度是幸福的关键预测因素,可以极大地提高生活质量。人们通常认为,在一夫一妻制的关系中,关系和性满意度会提高。本荟萃分析综述通过比较一夫一妻制和非一夫一妻制个体的关系程度和性满意度来挑战这些假设。使用PsycINFO、PsycARTICLES、PsycEXTRA、CINAHL、LGBT+ Source和SOCIndex进行文献检索,并额外调用未发表的数据,确定了35项合适的研究(N = 24,489)。meta分析结果总体上显示无效,表明两种关系(k = 29;g = -0.05, 95% CIs [-0.20, 0.10], p = .496)和性(k = 17;g = 0.06, 95% ci [-0.07, 0.18], p = .393)对一夫一妻制和非一夫一妻制个体同样满意。亚组分析显示,这些总体影响不会因抽样特征(如LGBTQ+与异性恋样本)、非一夫一妻制协议类型(如开放、多角、一夫一妻制)或关系满意度维度(如信任、承诺、亲密)而变化。没有证据表明存在发表偏倚。讨论了未来研究的方法挑战和方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sex Research (JSR) is a scholarly journal devoted to the publication of articles relevant to the variety of disciplines involved in the scientific study of sexuality. JSR is designed to stimulate research and promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary sexual science. JSR publishes empirical reports, theoretical essays, literature reviews, methodological articles, historical articles, teaching papers, book reviews, and letters to the editor. JSR actively seeks submissions from researchers outside of North America.
期刊最新文献
Of Lolitas and Jailbaits: An Exploration of Incel Discourse Surrounding Sex with Minors. Dyspareunia and Functioning Among Somali Women Who Have Experienced Female Genital Cutting. Perceptions of (In)action Against Sexual Misconduct, Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate, Racism, and Hazing Intersect to Build a Campus Climate of Institutional Betrayal. Sexual Communication and Satisfaction in Queer Relationships: A Dyadic Approach. Trajectories of Sexual Self-Efficacy in Middle and Later Life: Do Gender and Time-Varying Contexts of Marital and Menopausal Transitions Matter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1