Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual Desire, Jealousy, and Conflict Resolution in Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is interesting and valuable as it discusses major differences between monogamous and consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. The authors focus on four issues: relationship satisfaction, sexual desire, jealousy, and the general wellbeing of the members. The differences found by the authors are generally not big, but still of explanatory value. I would suggest to further discuss the implications of the results to the understanding of romantic relationships.

As I am not psychologist, I cannot comment on the methodological aspects of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

 

Thank you very much for your comments.

It's very nice to know that you found our research interesting.

We appreciate your comment and we would have liked to explore the philosophy underlying monogamous and non-monogamous relationships in more detail but It is not possible to address the complexity of monogamous relationships in this article

It becomes crucial to start from an intersectional perspective, one that takes into account issues such as social class, gender, and sexual orientation, among many other factors, when understanding both monogamy and its opposite, non-monogamy, as well as romantic love, since they will not always operate the same way for all social groups or in all contexts, just as we cannot ignore the agency of the subjects themselves. If the triad composed of love, heterosexuality, and monogamy as the core and social institution had the effect of reproducing an unequal system, ethical non-monogamies should, first and foremost, address all those people who fall outside of what is normatively accepted .

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examines the differences between individuals committed to monogamous relationships and people engaged in Consensual Non-Monogamous (CNM) relationships. To this purpose, it uses a sample of Spanish participants who completes several scales, validated for this context, that measure relationship satisfaction, sexual desire, jealousy, and styles of conflict resolutions. The results point out some interesting variations that the author then discusses in relation to the existent scholarship. The research is well conducted and follows the conventional methodological canons in the social psychology of interpersonal relationships. However, although promising, there are nevertheless several weaknesses that need to be addressed before this manuscript is suitable for publication.

 

1. Introduction: The introduction could benefit from a better historical contextualization of romantic/sexual relationships in Western societies that would briefly point out the major transformative processes started in the nineteenth century and accelerated during the twentieth century.
2. Introduction: A better conceptual delineation between Consensual Non-Monogamous (CNM) relationships and other, partially overlapping, types of relationships (such as polyamory and open relationships) is needed.
3. References: The references are arranged alphabetically, which means that the works are cited in the body of the manuscript in non-consecutive order (e.g., the first cited work is [3]).
4. Article statement: “this study aims to […] promote the destigmatization and normalization of diverse relationship types.” This statement adds an explicit activist aim to the research, which follows quite a conventional model of scientific analysis. Therefore, if left undeveloped (as it stands now), it goes against the rest of the article, which does not seem to embrace an activist ethos, but a strict scientific method.
5. Materials and Methods/Participants: It would be useful to specify the geographical context of the research, more exactly, that the participants are Spanish, and perhaps also the region where the research was based.
6. Tables: I suggest replacing “Woman, Man” with “Female, Male” throughout the tables.
7. Figure 1 and Figure 2: The graphs will look cleaner if the authors remove the case labels and leave only the boxes and the whiskers.
8. Results: The results reported in the paper are overly descriptive, mainly due to the fact that the authors resort to unsophisticated statistical analyses. This produces some rather superficial findings, while the variations between groups are also left uncontrolled by other variables (e.g., age). To compensate for this, I suggest authors develop a more sophisticated analytical approach, such as a multiple linear regression model, for instance.
9. Conclusions: The two paragraphs are insufficient; the conclusions need to be significantly expanded so as to explore the implications of the findings, acknowledge the limitations of the research, and perhaps point out some future lines of inquiry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores an interesting and relatively unknown topic: consensual non-monogamous couples (CNM) and how they compare to monogamous couples in terms of relational indicators, including gender differences. The topic is  relevant and contributes to  discussion in relationship research. However, there are significant issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

The first major problem lies in how the literature and data are presented. The author/authors introduce existing studies and data as if they were well-established facts, but in reality the literature on CNM is quite limited and fragmented. There are no solid data points to rely on and key contextual details are missing. For example, it is unclear which countries the data come from, whether there are cultural variations or how trends have evolved over time. Given these uncertainties, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations and avoid presenting the current knowledge as definitive.

The most critical issue is the methodology. The study relies on a sample of only 210 individuals, which is already quite limited. Moreover, the selection process is non-probabilistic, using self-selection through the internet and snowball sampling. This introduces significant biases and makes the findings difficult to generalize. Additionally, there is a considerable gender imbalance, with 143 women and only 64 men. The comparison groups are also uneven—162 monogamous individuals compared to just 48 CNM participants. With such small numbers, it is not possible to conduct  quantitative analyses or compare relationship types and gender groups . Generalizations should be avoided entirely, as the data only offer a description of the participants rather than insights that can be extended to a broader population. Another major limitation is the absence of clear working hypotheses, which weakens the study’s overall structure and purpose.

The results and discussion sections also have major weaknesses. The findings remain purely descriptive and do not go beyond summarizing the responses of the participants. There is no real theoretical engagement and any  interpretation of the results is missing. Furthermore, the discussion section only starts linking the findings to theoretical perspectives at a very late stage, whereas this should have been done much earlier in the manuscript.

Finally, the conclusions overstate the significance of the findings. For example, the phrase "...demonstrate that..." is misleading, as the non-probabilistic nature of the sample means that no causal or generalizable conclusions can be drawn. The claims about gender differences and relationship types go beyond what the data can support and need to be reconsidered entirely.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have addressed most of the issues pointed out in the evalution report. Therefore, I am satisfied with the way the authors revised the paper and I support the publication of this manuscrip.t

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the contribution you have made to our manuscript. Thank you so much

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although some considerations have been added in this second version of the paper, especially in the conclusions, to acknowledge the main methodological issue of the research (the sample is small and non-probabilistic), the data remain the same as those presented in the first version of the paper.

In my opinion, the data do not support the analyses and the conclusion conducted on them.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your perspective. We regret that we cannot modify your suggestion.

Regarding the sample size, while a larger participation rate would have been desirable, we don't know if it's really too small, as there are no statistics on the representation of these particular characteristics in the Spanish population. In any case, this is something we cannot change, and we believe this research can serve as a starting point for further investigation into this topic.