Monogamy vs Polyamory: What Research Actually Shows (2025)
Does polyamory work? A critical analysis of the Deseret News op-ed claiming monogamy maximizes happiness. Examining relationship research, consensual non-monogamy studies, child welfare evidence, and methodological flaws in marriage research. Evidence-based review of what science actually shows about CNM.
The Monogamy vs. Polyamory Debate: What the Evidence Actually Shows
Meta Description: A critical analysis of the Deseret News op-ed on polyamory, examining what research actually reveals about monogamy, consensual non-monogamy, relationship satisfaction, and child welfare outcomes.
Focus Keywords: monogamy vs polyamory, consensual non-monogamy research, relationship satisfaction studies, polyamory evidence
CNM Research Visual Library
Evidence-based graphics from peer-reviewed studies
Research Papers & Data on Relationship Structures
Comprehensive meta-analysis examining monogamy and consensual non-monogamy
Key Findings
Research Quality
Relationship Satisfaction: Monogamous vs. CNM
Source: Anderson, J. R., et al. (2025). "Countering the Monogamy-Superiority Myth" - The Journal of Sex Research. Meta-analysis of 35 studies, N=24,489 participants.
Relationship Satisfaction
Sexual Satisfaction
Key Research Finding
After analyzing 35 studies with nearly 25,000 participants, researchers found no significant differences in relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction between monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships.
"People in consensually non-monogamous relationships experience similar levels of satisfaction in their relationships and sex lives as those in monogamous ones."
Meta-Analysis Published in The Journal of Sex Research
"Evidence for benefits of monogamy relative to other relationship styles is lacking."
Conley et al. (2013)
Personality and Social Psychology Review
"There's no one-size-fits-all model for a good relationship."
Goetz et al. (2019)
Frontiers in Psychology
Research Context
- Largest meta-analysis to date on CNM vs. monogamous relationship satisfaction
- Findings held across LGBTQ+ and heterosexual samples
- Consistent across different CNM types (open, polyamorous, monogamish)
- Examined trust, commitment, intimacy, and overall satisfaction
- Published in top-tier peer-reviewed journal
Introduction: Examining the Claims About Polyamory
A recent opinion piece in the Deseret News by Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox argues that we should "push back against the glamorization of polyamory" because "monogamous marriage maximizes happiness, child safety and the common good." The authors cite research on marriage and happiness, reference historical polygamy, and invoke child welfare to make their case.
But does the evidence support these sweeping conclusions? Let's examine what relationship research actually shows—and what the authors conveniently left out.
What the Deseret News Got Right (With Major Caveats)
Marriage Correlates with Happiness—But Causation Remains Unclear
The Claim: Married people report higher life satisfaction on average.
The Reality: This finding appears robust across many studies, but the research has serious methodological limitations:
Selection Effects
Happier, healthier, more economically stable people are more likely to marry in the first place
The correlation may reflect who gets married, not what marriage does to you
Longitudinal studies show bidirectional effects—happiness predicts staying married AND staying married predicts happiness
Uncontrolled Confounds
Economic stability (married couples pool resources, have higher household income)
Social support networks (married people often have more robust connections)
Health insurance and benefits (marriage provides institutional advantages)
Selection for conscientiousness and emotional stability
The Missing Context Being in a bad marriage is associated with worse health and happiness than being single. The average effect obscures huge variation in individual experiences.
Bottom Line: Marriage correlates with happiness, but we cannot conclude marriage causes happiness without better controls for confounds.
Sexual Exclusivity Predicts Satisfaction—For People Who Already Value It
The Claim: People with only one lifetime sexual partner report the highest marital satisfaction, and "the happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is 1."
The Problems with This Research:
Massive Selection Bias
Who has only one lifetime sexual partner? People who:
Are highly religious (often evangelical Christians)
Married very young (often as virgins)
Have strong pre-existing values about sexual exclusivity
May come from communities with intense social pressure around purity
Values-Behavior Alignment Effect
These individuals report satisfaction because their behavior matches their deeply held values. This doesn't prove that people with different values would be happier with one partner.
Comparing satisfaction across groups with fundamentally different value systems is comparing apples to oranges.
The Research Is Outdated
The "happiness-maximizing number is 1" claim is based on a 2004 survey—over 20 years old. This predates most modern research on consensual non-monogamy, and social attitudes have shifted considerably.
Conflation of Different Scenarios
"Multiple partners in previous year" includes:
Serial monogamy (breakup, then new relationship)
Infidelity (violating relationship agreements)
Consensual non-monogamy (not violating agreements)
Single people dating casually
These have completely different psychological meanings and shouldn't be lumped together.
What This Actually Shows: When people's relationship behavior aligns with their values, they report satisfaction. This is true for both monogamous AND non-monogamous people, but the authors only present half the picture.
Traditional Polygyny Has Been Harmful—But This Doesn't Apply to Modern Polyamory
The Claim: Historical polygamous societies show worse outcomes across multiple indicators.
The Research: This is actually legitimate. Societies with institutionalized polygyny show:
More despotic governance
Less economic development
Reduced scientific advancement
Lower female agency
The Fatal Flaw: Applying this research to modern polyamory is completely inappropriate.
False Equivalence
Traditional polygyny:
Institutionalized male privilege
Forced or coerced arrangements
One man with property rights over multiple women
Patriarchal legal structure
Modern polyamory:
Consensual agreements
Egalitarian (often)
Negotiated boundaries
No ownership model
Often queer and feminist
These are fundamentally different phenomena with different power dynamics, mechanisms, and outcomes.
Analogy: Using polygyny research to critique polyamory is like using research on arranged child marriages to argue against modern egalitarian marriage. Both involve "marriage," but the comparison is absurd because the power dynamics and consent structures are completely different.
The authors even acknowledge this distinction ("today's American polyamory apologists aren't advocating a return to polygyny"), but then cite the polygyny research anyway. This is intellectually dishonest.
What the Deseret News Got Wrong (Everything Else)
Problem #1: Conflating Completely Different Relationship Structures
Throughout the article, the authors treat these as interchangeable:
Infidelity and cheating (breaking monogamous agreements)
Unhappy "open marriages" entered under duress
Modern consensual polyamory (chosen, negotiated agreements)
Traditional patriarchal polygyny
Serial monogamy (sequential exclusive relationships)
These are not the same thing. The mechanisms, power dynamics, and outcomes are completely different.
This conflation allows them to:
Use research on infidelity to critique consensual non-monogamy
Use research on patriarchal polygyny to critique egalitarian polyamory
Use one person's unhappy open marriage memoir to indict all polyamory
It's rhetorical sleight of hand.
Problem #2: Falsely Claiming Research on Polyamory "Doesn't Exist"
The Authors Write: "These advocates cannot use data to support their aspirations. Because it doesn't exist."
This is demonstrably false.
Research on consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has been growing rapidly over the past 15 years. Here's what peer-reviewed studies actually show:
Relationship Satisfaction Studies
Conley et al. (2017): Meta-analysis finding CNM and monogamous relationships show similar satisfaction levels
Rubel & Bogaert (2015): No significant differences in relationship quality between CNM and monogamous relationships when controlling for relationship length and commitment level
Balzarini et al. (2019): CNM relationships show comparable relationship quality to monogamous relationships
Psychological Well-Being Research
Moors et al. (2017): CNM individuals report similar psychological well-being to monogamous individuals when controlling for stigma
Moors et al. (2021): CNM individuals score similarly on attachment security, life satisfaction, and self-esteem
Key Findings Across Studies
Satisfaction in CNM relationships correlates with:
Agreement between partners
Communication quality
Low external stigma
Values-behavior alignment
Satisfaction in monogamous relationships correlates with similar factors plus sexual exclusivity matching values.
What the Research Does NOT Show: Polyamory is superior to monogamy, works for everyone, or should be universally adopted.
What It DOES Show: For people who genuinely prefer CNM and whose partners agree, relationship quality is comparable to monogamous relationships.
The authors ignore all of this research—not because it doesn't exist, but because it contradicts their narrative.
Problem #3: Misusing Causation and Ignoring Selection Effects
Every correlation the authors cite suffers from selection bias, but they present findings as if they prove causation.
Example: "Marital happiness is much higher for couples who embrace faithful, monogamous marriage"
The Selection Problem:
People who strongly value monogamy → choose monogamous relationships → feel satisfied when behavior matches values
People who don't value monogamy as highly → may choose monogamous relationships due to social pressure → feel less satisfied
What This Doesn't Prove:
It doesn't prove polyamorous people would be happier if they became monogamous
It proves that values-behavior consistency predicts satisfaction
Example: "Those who say sex outside marriage is always wrong report higher marital satisfaction"
The Selection Problem: People with strong moral convictions about sexual exclusivity marry partners with similar values and report satisfaction consistent with their moral identity.
This measures moral identity consistency, not whether monogamy objectively produces more happiness.
The Missing Comparison: What about people who believe "sex outside marriage can be acceptable" and are in consensual non-monogamous relationships? Do they report satisfaction?
The authors don't tell us, because it would undermine their argument.
Problem #4: Using One Unhappy Memoir to Indict All Polyamory
The authors cite Molly Roden Winter's memoir "More," described as depicting constant misery.
Why This Isn't Evidence:
N = 1
A single case study proves nothing about a relationship structure
Memoirs about misery sell; memoirs about contentment don't
Publishing bias means we hear about disasters, not stable success stories
Selection Bias This woman may have:
Been coerced into opening her marriage
Had pre-existing relationship problems
Suffered from depression or mental health issues
Poor communication skills
Values misalignment with polyamory
Asymmetric Standards There are countless memoirs about miserable monogamous marriages. Should we use those to argue monogamy inevitably leads to suffering? Of course not—we recognize individual marriages fail for many reasons.
Why include this anecdote? Because it's emotionally compelling and supports the predetermined narrative. But it's not evidence.
Problem #5: Grossly Misapplying Child Welfare Research
This is where the article becomes actively misleading and potentially harmful.
The Claim: "Polygamy and polyamory are a direct threat to kids, both emotionally and physically."
Evidence Cited:
Boys whose parents never marry or divorce are more likely to go to prison
Kids without married parents report feeling sad more often
Those with an "unrelated adult" in the home are at higher risk of abuse
Wrong Comparison Groups
The research cited compares:
Married two-parent households vs. single-parent households
Biological parents vs. mothers' transient boyfriends
These studies are NOT about:
Stable consensual polyamorous families with multiple committed adults
Planned multi-parent households with long-term commitment
Uncontrolled Confounds
Children in single-parent households fare worse on average, but why?
Economic stress (single-parent households have much lower income)
Parental mental health (depression, trauma often precede family breakdown)
Relationship instability (high-conflict divorce, domestic violence)
Lack of social support (isolated parent)
These confounds—not family structure per se—drive poor outcomes.
The "Unrelated Adult" Research Is Misapplied
The child abuse research on "unrelated adults" examines:
Serial cohabitation (mother's boyfriend after father leaves)
Transient partnerships (high turnover of male partners)
Stepfamilies following divorce
Risk factors include: lack of biological connection + male violence + relationship instability + poverty
This research CANNOT be applied to:
Stable polyamorous families with long-term commitments
Planned multi-adult households where all adults are committed caregivers
Families where additional adults increase supervision and resources
No Data on Polyamorous Families
The authors provide ZERO research on child outcomes in consensual polyamorous families. Why? Because the research doesn't exist yet.
What We Can Say:
Children benefit from:
Stability
Low conflict
Economic security
Involved caregivers
Safe environments
Children suffer from:
Instability
High conflict
Economic stress
Neglect/abuse
Chaotic households
What We Cannot Say: Children in stable polyamorous families will have worse outcomes than children in stable monogamous families, because we have no data.
The authors are fearmongering by applying research from completely different family contexts without any empirical justification.
Problem #6: Egregious Selective Citation
Let's compare what the authors cite versus what they ignore:
What They Cite:
Institute for Family Studies (conservative advocacy organization)
One 21-year-old study (2004) on sexual partners
Research on traditional polygyny (not relevant to modern polyamory)
One unhappy open marriage memoir
Child welfare research on single parents (not relevant to polyamorous families)
What They Completely Ignore:
15+ years of peer-reviewed research on consensual non-monogamy
Meta-analyses showing comparable satisfaction (Conley et al.)
Studies on psychological well-being in CNM (Moors et al.)
Research on values-behavior matching
Studies on how social stigma affects CNM relationships
Any longitudinal research on relationship stability in CNM
Institutional Conflicts of Interest
Brad Wilcox: Director of National Marriage Project, Institute for Family Studies (both conservative family advocacy organizations)
Deseret News: Owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (strong religious doctrine on marriage)
These affiliations are not prominently disclosed.
This is not neutral scientific synthesis. It's advocacy journalism masquerading as science.
What the Evidence Actually Shows (For Real This Time)
1. Most People Prefer and Thrive in Monogamous Relationships
This is well-supported. The majority of humans report preferring sexual and romantic exclusivity, and most report higher satisfaction in monogamous partnerships.
But: "Most" ≠ "all." Averages obscure individual differences.
2. Relationship Satisfaction Depends on Values-Behavior Alignment
The most consistent finding across relationship research:
People are happiest when their relationship structure matches their values.
✅ Monogamous people in monogamous relationships: High satisfaction
✅ CNM-oriented people in CNM relationships: Comparable satisfaction
❌ Monogamous people forced into CNM: Low satisfaction
❌ CNM-oriented people constrained to monogamy: Low satisfaction
This principle is well-established in psychology: Identity-behavior consistency predicts well-being across many domains (career, religion, sexuality, relationships).
3. Agreement Matters More Than Structure
Violating relationship agreements harms relationships, regardless of structure:
Cheating in monogamous relationships: Devastating
Breaking agreements in polyamorous relationships: Equally devastating
Maintaining agreements supports relationships, regardless of structure:
Monogamous couples honoring exclusivity: Strong relationships
Polyamorous people honoring negotiated agreements: Comparable relationship quality
The harm comes from betrayal and broken trust, not from specific sexual acts.
4. Research Quality Is Poor Across the Board
The research on ALL relationship structures has serious methodological limitations:
Monogamy Research Problems:
Selection effects (who gets/stays married?)
Confounds (income, health, social support)
Survivorship bias (comparing current marriages to all non-married)
Cross-sectional designs (can't prove causation)
WEIRD samples (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic)
CNM Research Problems:
Small samples (N = 50-200 typical)
Self-selected participants
Short follow-up periods (few longitudinal studies)
Stigma confound (hard to separate CNM effects from discrimination)
Lack of child outcome data
Bottom Line: We need better research on ALL relationship structures before making strong causal claims.
5. Child Welfare Depends on Stability, Not Structure (Probably)
The best evidence suggests children need:
Stability (low turnover of caregivers)
Low conflict (safe, nurturing environment)
Economic security
Involved, responsive caregivers (doesn't have to be two, doesn't have to be biological)
What harms children:
High-conflict relationships
Economic instability and poverty
Neglect and abuse
Caregiver mental illness or substance abuse
Frequent relationship turnover
What We Don't Know:
Outcomes for children in stable polyamorous families
Whether additional committed adults help or harm
Long-term effects into adulthood
We need longitudinal studies with better controls before making strong claims.
The Real Problem: Ideological Advocacy Dressed as Science
Here's what bothers me most about the Deseret News piece: It presents predetermined moral conclusions as if they're scientific findings.
The authors clearly believe monogamy is morally superior. That's fine—they're entitled to their values. Many people share those values, and monogamy works beautifully for most people.
But they don't argue honestly. Instead, they:
❌ Cherry-pick research supporting their position
❌ Ignore contradictory evidence (claim it doesn't exist)
❌ Conflate different phenomena (polygyny = polyamory)
❌ Misapply research (child abuse studies to polyamorous families)
❌ Use causal language for correlational findings
❌ Hide conflicts of interest
This undermines public trust in both science and journalism.
A More Honest Conversation About Relationship Values
We can advocate for our values without misrepresenting science. Here's what an intellectually honest version of this argument would look like:
"We believe monogamy is best for most people because..."
✅ Values argument: "Our religious/philosophical tradition teaches that exclusive commitment reflects the deepest form of love"
✅ Pragmatic argument: "Most people report preferring monogamy, and social infrastructure supports it"
✅ Child welfare argument: "We're concerned about normalizing relationship instability, which we know harms children"
✅ Honest about uncertainty: "We don't have good data on polyamorous families, but we're concerned about potential risks"
What This Honest Argument Would NOT Do
❌ Claim research on polyamory "doesn't exist" when it does
❌ Use polygyny research to critique consensual polyamory
❌ Apply child abuse research to stable polyamorous families without evidence
❌ Ignore research showing some people thrive in CNM
❌ Present values-based concerns as if they're scientific conclusions
What About the "Glamorization" Claim?
The authors claim polyamory is being "glamorized" and monogamy is under threat. Let's reality-check this:
Media Visibility of Polyamory
A few New York Times features
One Peacock reality show
Some podcasts and online communities
Media Visibility of Monogamy
Entire wedding industry ($72 billion annually)
Every romantic comedy ever made
Marriage plotlines in most TV shows
Valentine's Day, anniversary cards, couple's products everywhere
Legal benefits (1000+ federal rights for married couples)
Social infrastructure entirely built around couple norms
Stigma Experienced
Polyamorous people: Employment discrimination, housing discrimination, child custody losses, social ostracism
Monogamous people: Celebrated, supported, legally protected
Claiming polyamory is being "glamorized" while monogamy faces existential threat is absurd. It's like claiming veganism threatens the meat industry. Yes, there's increased visibility, but the traditional option still dominates by every measure.
What's actually happening: A tiny minority is exploring alternative relationship structures, and some media outlets are covering it. This doesn't threaten monogamy any more than vegetarians threaten omnivores.
Conclusion: Science Requires Intellectual Honesty
I'm not advocating for polyamory. Most people will be happier in monogamous relationships. That's fine.
But I am advocating for intellectual honesty.
When we:
Misrepresent research
Practice selective citation
Conflate different phenomena
Ignore contradictory evidence
Present values as science
We undermine:
Public trust in science
Quality of public discourse
Our own credibility
People's ability to make informed choices
What We Can Say With Confidence
✅ Most people prefer and thrive in monogamous relationships
✅ Some people prefer and thrive in consensual non-monogamous relationships
✅ Matching relationship structure to values and personality is key
✅ Agreement, communication, and stability matter more than specific structure
✅ We need better research on all relationship types before making strong causal claims
We can advocate for our values without lying about science.
Further Reading & References
Research on Consensual Non-Monogamy
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205-232.
Critiques of Marriage Research Methodology
Cherlin, A. J. (2020). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 62-80.
Child Welfare Research Complexities
McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399-427.
Relationship Quality and Values Alignment
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Join the Conversation
What do you think? Have you seen other examples of research being misrepresented in relationship debates? How do we have honest conversations about values when science is uncertain?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Complete Reference List
[1] Baer, M., & Wilcox, B. (2025, October 18). Perspective: It's time to push back against the glamorization of polyamory. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/10/18/polyamory-monogramy-marriage-common-good/
[2] Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419-436.
[3] Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 326-347.
[4] Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592-615.
[5] Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It's not just who you're with, it's who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 925-964.
[6] Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 451-471.
[7] Wolfinger, N. H. (2016). Does sexual history affect marital happiness? Institute for Family Studies. https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness
[8] Brooks, A. C. (2008). Gross National Happiness. Basic Books. [Citing Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Money, sex and happiness: An empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393-415.]
[9] Regnerus, M., & Uecker, J. (2011). Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying. Oxford University Press.
[10] Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497.
[11] Wilcox, W. B., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2016). Soul mates: Religion, sex, love, and marriage among African Americans and Latinos. Oxford University Press.
[12] Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Money, sex and happiness: An empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393-415.
[13] Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public's interest in information related to relationships beyond "the couple" increased over time? The Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 677-684.
[14] McCants, A. E. C., & Seligson, D. (2020). The institutional roots of gender inequality in wealth: Insights from polygamy. Social Science History, 44(4), 711-735.
[15] Sheff, E. (2014). The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families. Rowman & Littlefield.
[16] Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 657-669.
[17] 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 & Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424-440.
[18] Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205-232.
[19] Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961-982.
[20] Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0177841.
[21] Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D. (2017). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual non-monogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 52-69.
[22] Moors, A. C., Rubin, J. D., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). It's not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy. Journal für Psychologie, 22(1).
[23] Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 407-417.
[24] Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 494-508.
[25] Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48(4), 232-256.
[26] Fortenberry, D. (2024, January 24). More love? Commonweal Magazine. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/more-love
[27] Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641.
[28] Baer, M., & Wilcox, B. (2025, October 18), citing general family structure research without specific citations to studies.
[29] Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1996). Violence against stepchildren. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(3), 77-82.
[30] McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399-427.
[31] Schnitzer, P. G., & Ewigman, B. G. (2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: Household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics, 116(5), e687-e693.
[32] Pallotta-Chiarolli, M., & Burnett, S. (2019). 'We had to change it': Australian children of polyamorous families negotiating challenges from school communities. Education and Urban Society, 51(7), 936-956. [Note: This is one of the very few studies on children in polyamorous families, with a small sample size]
[33] Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce and death with fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 370-386.
[34] For a comprehensive review of CNM research, see Conley et al. (2017) and Moors, A. C. (2022). Consensual Non-Monogamy: A Diversified Approach to Relationships (Chapter 1). Routledge.
[35] Wilcox, W. B. (n.d.). About. Institute for Family Studies. https://ifstudies.org/about
[36] Romboy, D. (2016, June 15). Church announces new name for Deseret News, Deseret Digital Media. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/2016/6/15/20591134/church-announces-new-name-for-deseret-news-deseret-digital-media
[37] Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124-141.
[38] Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 494-508; Also see Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
[39] Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497; Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Houghton Mifflin.
[40] Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 217-230.
[41] Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
[42] Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205-232; Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public's interest in information related to relationships beyond "the couple" increased over time? The Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 677-684.
[43] Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting children's adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16(2), 98-111.
[44] Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce and death with fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 370-386; Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital Conflict and Children: An Emotional Security Perspective. Guilford Press.
[45] McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399-427; Cherlin, A. J. (2020). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 62-80.
[46] IBISWorld. (2024). Wedding services market size in the US. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/wedding-services-industry/
[47] U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Defense of Marriage Act: Update to prior report (GAO-04-353R). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-04-353r
[48] Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D. (2017). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual non-monogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 52-69; Robinson, M. (2013). Polyamory and monogamy as strategic identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 21-38.
Reference Organization by Topic
Marriage and Happiness Research
References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Sexual Exclusivity and Satisfaction
References 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Consensual Non-Monogamy Research
References 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34, 37, 42
Values and Well-Being
References 10, 24, 25, 38, 39
Historical Polygyny
References 14, 15, 16
Child Welfare and Family Structure
References 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 44, 45
Relationship Agreement and Infidelity
References 40
Research Methodology and Bias
References 27, 41
Institutional Context
References 35, 36
Social Context and Stigma
References 46, 47, 48
Memoirs and Popular Writing
Reference 26
Published: May 21, 2025
Last Updated: October 23, 2025
Reading Time: 18 minutes
Category: Relationship Research, Science Communication
Tags: #monogamy #polyamory #relationship-research #consensual-non-monogamy #research-methodology #science-communication #relationship-science #marriage-research
Embracing Wholeness: Understanding Resistance and Enhancing Intimacy in LDS Relationships
As Latter-day Saints, we can apply Carl Gustav Jung's wisdom to our relationships, seeking to enhance intimacy and personal growth by acknowledging and integrating the aspects of ourselves that we may be resisting. Resistance is a normal human response to change, discomfort, or perceived threats, often appearing as avoidance, denial, or procrastination. By resisting or suppressing the negative aspects of ourselves, we inadvertently give them more control over our lives and impact our LDS relationships.
However, embracing and confronting our resistance can lead to personal growth and increased intimacy in our relationships. By acknowledging, understanding, and accepting the aspects of ourselves that we have been resisting, we can foster self-awareness, compassion, and a deeper understanding of our true selves. Cultivating self-awareness, approaching our shadow with curiosity and compassion, discovering healthy ways to express and explore our shadow, and endeavoring to incorporate our shadow into our self-concept are some steps to welcome the shadow and nurture personal growth in LDS couples.
By acknowledging and integrating the shadow, we can transform resistance into growth, ultimately leading to more balanced and fulfilling lives and LDS relationships. As Latter-day Saints, embracing our resistance can be an invaluable catalyst for change and self-discovery in our journey to improve LDS relationship intimacy.
EMBRACING WHOLENESS: UNDERSTANDING RESISTANCE AND ENHANCING INTIMACY IN LDS RELATIONSHIPS
Introduction
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, famed for his invaluable insights into the human psyche, opined, "What you resist not only persists, but will grow in size." For Latter-day Saints, incorporating this philosophy into our relationships opens the door to increased closeness and personal evolution. It's achieved by recognizing and merging the elements of our personalities that we may initially resist. Dive into Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an exhaustive study of Jung's oeuvre. For further reading on Jung's work, you can check out Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Role of Resistance in LDS Relationships
Resistance is a normal human response to change, discomfort, or perceived threats, often appearing as avoidance, denial, or procrastination. Jung's observation highlights that when we resist specific thoughts, feelings, or experiences, we unintentionally empower them, causing them to persist and possibly grow in magnitude.
Central to this idea is the concept of the "shadow," a term introduced by Jung to describe the repressed or disowned aspects of our psyche. The shadow represents parts of ourselves that we might view as negative, shameful, or unacceptable. By resisting or suppressing these aspects, we inadvertently give them more control over our lives and impact our LDS relationships. If you're interested in a comprehensive understanding of the "shadow" concept, you can refer to this Verywell Mind article.
The Gift of Resistance for Personal Growth in LDS Couples
Although it may seem counterintuitive, embracing and confronting our resistance can lead to personal growth and increased intimacy in our relationships. When we deny or suppress parts of ourselves, we hinder our potential and create internal conflict. The paradox is that by facing what we resist, we can move beyond it, fostering self-awareness, compassion, and a deeper understanding of our true selves. For guidance on strengthening relationships within the LDS context, please check this resource.
Welcoming the Shadow to Improve LDS Relationship Intimacy
Jung believed that by integrating the shadow, we could achieve psychological wholeness and a more balanced personality. This process involves acknowledging, understanding, and accepting the aspects of ourselves that we have been resisting. Here are some steps to welcome the shadow and nurture personal growth in LDS couples:
Self-awareness: Cultivate self-awareness to recognize and understand our resistance. Pay attention to recurring patterns, emotional triggers, and areas of discomfort in your life. These may point to unresolved issues or repressed aspects of your psyche that affect your LDS relationship.
Compassion: Approach your shadow with curiosity and compassion. Instead of judging or condemning these aspects of yourself, seek to understand the root causes and the role they play in your life and LDS relationship.
Expression: Discover healthy ways to express and explore your shadow. This could involve journaling, creating art, or participating in open and honest conversations with trusted friends or a therapist.
Integration: Endeavor to incorporate your shadow into your self-concept. Recognize that these aspects are a part of you and that they hold valuable insights and lessons for personal growth and LDS relationship enhancement.
For an interesting perspective on the resistance in the context of psychological growth, visit this Psychology Today article.
Conclusion
Jung's insight that "what you resist not only persists, but will grow in size" serves as a powerful reminder of the significance of facing our inner obstacles and embracing our authentic selves. By acknowledging and integrating the shadow, we can transform resistance into growth, ultimately leading to more balanced and fulfilling lives and LDS relationships. As Latter-day Saints, we understand the importance of continual progression, and embracing our resistance can be an invaluable catalyst for change and self-discovery in our journey to improve LDS relationship intimacy. For professional insights into how therapy can help with shadow work, refer to this GoodTherapy article.