Membuka hubungan ke non-monogami konsensual vs tetap monogami ketat
Jika Anda bertindak
Membuka ke non-monogami konsensual
15%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Tetap monogami ketat
21%
Persentase orang yang kemudian menyesali setiap pilihan. Diagram batang dan catatan lengkap ditampilkan di bawah.
Lifestyle
Terakhir ditinjau 2026-05-30
Kualitas bukti 4.25/5
Skor tinjauan delapan dimensi terhadap
rubrik kualitas
. Setiap dimensi dinilai 1–5.
D1 Verifikasi sumber
4/5
D2 Otoritas & independensi sumber
5/5
D3 Akurasi tingkat penyesalan
2/5
D4 Keterbandingan sumber
4/5
D5 Pola Gilovich
4/5
D6 Kualitas prosa
5/5
D7 Kelengkapan peringatan
5/5
D8 Kualitas sampel
5/5
Rata-rata4.25/5
Data proksi — tidak ada survei penyesalan langsung untuk keputusan ini. Tingkat diturunkan dari skor kepuasan dan data hambatan akses daripada pertanyaan yang langsung menanyakan tentang penyesalan. Lihat peringatan di bawah.
Penyesalan atas tindakan
Membuka ke non-monogami konsensual
15%
Proksi, bukan tingkat penyesalan. Yang sebenarnya diukur Conley et al. (2018) adalah paritas kepuasan: orang dalam hubungan terbuka melaporkan kepuasan seksual dan relasional yang setara dengan individu monogami. Tidak ada survei yang mengukur penyesalan atas membuka hubungan. Angka ~15% yang ditampilkan BUKAN tingkat penyesalan yang terukur atau diperkirakan; ini adalah placeholder tampilan yang dipatok pada batas paritas-kepuasan agar kedua sisi dapat ditampilkan berdampingan. Baca bilah ini sebagai 'orang dewasa yang membuka hubungan melaporkan kepuasan setara dengan orang dewasa monogami' — bukan sebagai '15% menyesal membuka hubungan'.
Orang dewasa AS yang pernah terlibat dalam CNM, sampel online dan sampel kenyamanan
potongan-melintang, sentimen retrospektif
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Tetap monogami ketat
21%
Proksi prevalensi, bukan tingkat penyesalan. Yang sebenarnya diukur Haupert et al. (2017) adalah prevalensi CNM seumur hidup: 21,9% (Studi 1) / 21,2% (Studi 2) orang dewasa lajang AS melaporkan pernah terlibat non-monogami konsensual pada suatu titik dalam hidup mereka. Ini adalah angka prevalensi perilaku / preferensi terungkap, BUKAN tingkat penyesalan-atas-monogami yang terukur — tidak ada survei yang menanyakan orang dewasa monogami apakah mereka menyesal tidak pernah mencoba. Persentase orang yang telah mencoba CNM ditampilkan di sini hanya sebagai batas bawah arah pada populasi yang penasaran-menyesal; ini bukan proporsi yang menyesal tetap monogami, dan kedua populasi tidak tumpang tindih (mereka yang mencoba CNM bukanlah kelompok monogami-dan-menyesal).
Orang dewasa AS lajang, dua sampel representatif nasional
seumur hidup, potongan-melintang
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Membuka ke non-monogami konsensualTetap monogami ketat
15%21%
inaction dominates — Tidak bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena tidak bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher and Garcia’s 2017 study in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, drawing on two nationally representative samples of single US adults (combined N=8,718), found that 21.9% in Study 1 and 21.2% in Study 2 reported engaging in consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lifetime, with the proportion stable across age, education, income, religion, region, political affiliation, and race. This 21% lifetime-engagement figure is used here as a revealed-preference floor on the inaction-side regret rate: at least this share of the US adult population has actually engaged in CNM, which traces a lower bound on the share of strictly-monogamous adults who would regret never having tried. The underlying pool of regret-curious-but-never-engaged adults — those constrained by partner agreement, social cost, or default inertia — is necessarily larger. No survey directly asks long-term monogamous adults “do you regret never having tried opening?”, so the 21% revealed-preference rate substitutes for the missing regret item. The OPEN 2025 Community Survey, conducted under Chapman University IRB by Dr. Amy Moors with 5,885 respondents from 65 countries, indicates that the CNM-identified population has grown substantially since the Haupert 2017 fieldwork, so the 21% should be treated as a conservative lower bound on current regret-curious population.
The action side — adults who opened their relationship and regret having done so — is the harder side to estimate. Conley, Matsick, Moors and Ziegler’s 2017 review in Perspectives on Psychological Science (PMID 28346120) synthesizes the comparative literature and finds few differences in relationship functioning between monogamous and CNM individuals. Conley, Piemonte, Gusakova and Rubin’s 2018 study in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships reports that monogamous people report slightly lower sexual satisfaction and lower orgasm rates than CNM individuals, with swingers reporting higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals and those in open relationships reporting equivalent satisfaction; relationship satisfaction did not differ between groups. Satisfaction parity is not the same as low regret, but it bounds the regret rate: if the average CNM participant reports satisfaction comparable to the average monogamous person, the lifetime-regret share among opened adults cannot be dramatically higher than the monogamy baseline. The 15% shown on the action side is not a measured or derived regret rate — it is a display placeholder pinned to that satisfaction-parity bound, because no survey directly asks opened adults whether they regret the decision. The cross-sectional satisfaction samples also partly miss the elevated dissolution rate during the opening transition itself, since dissolved CNM-attempting couples are absent from the currently-in-CNM populations, so even the parity bound is read loosely.
The directional finding — inaction-side regret modestly exceeds action-side regret — is consistent with Roese and Summerville’s 2005 meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets, which identifies romance as the third-largest lifetime regret domain (14.8%) and finds inaction regrets persist longer than action regrets because they reflect greater perceived opportunity. A long-term monogamous adult who was curious about CNM but never explored falls squarely in the missed-opportunity-in-romance pattern. The delta is small (6 percentage points) and should be held loosely on magnitude: both rates are proxy constructions, the action-side rate is particularly speculative because no survey separates opened-and-stayed-open adults from opened-and-closed-again adults, and the published CNM-satisfaction literature faces non-trivial publication and researcher bias in both directions (Conley et al. document that polyamory-favorable findings face more bias accusations, while the field is dominated by CNM-sympathetic researchers). The r/OpenMarriageRegret subreddit with 16,000+ members is sometimes cited as evidence of high action-side regret; we have not used it because it is a self-selected community with no denominator. The 21%/15% rates are US-adult averages and do not generalize cleanly across gendered or orientation gradients — Haupert found higher CNM engagement among men and LGB respondents, so the regret-curious population is itself gendered.
Sumber: tindakan
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
[1]Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (Conley, Piemonte, Gusakova & Rubin) — Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships
Telaah sejawat
Across two samples, monogamous people reported slightly lower sexual satisfaction and lower orgasm rates than CNM individuals; relationship satisfaction did not differ between CNM and monogamous groups; swingers reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals, while those in open relationships reported equivalent satisfaction
Kutipan
“"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] Monogamous people reported slightly lower sexual satisfaction and lower orgasm rates than CNM individuals. Swingers consistently reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals, whereas those in open relationships had equivalent levels of satisfaction to those in monogamous relationships. Relationship satisfaction did not differ between CNM and monogamous groups."
”
Data sumber dari
2018-04-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Perhitungan
Conley, Piemonte, Gusakova & Rubin (2018), Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4), 509-531. DOI 10.1177/ 0265407517743078. Peer-reviewed comparison of sexual and relationship satisfaction across monogamous and CNM groups. Used here to establish parity: people who have opened are not systematically dissatisfied with their decision relative to monogamous comparators. Parity in satisfaction is not the same as low regret, but it bounds the regret rate: if the average CNM participant reports satisfaction comparable to or higher than the average monogamous person, the lifetime-regret share cannot be much higher than the monogamy baseline. The 15% action-side figure is NOT a measured or derived regret rate — it is a display placeholder pinned to this satisfaction-parity bound so the action side can be shown alongside the inaction side. No regret-of-opening survey exists to populate this side.
[2]Perspectives on Psychological Science (Conley, Matsick, Moors & Ziegler) — Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships
Telaah sejawat
Across a basic comparative analysis of monogamous and CNM relationships, few differences in relationship functioning emerged; researcher-bias analysis shows polyamory-favorable findings are accused of bias more than monogamy-favorable findings
Kutipan
“"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] The premise that monogamy is the exemplary form of romantic partnership underlies much theory and research on relationship quality... We find few differences in relationship functioning between individuals engaged in monogamy and those in consensually nonmonogamous relationships."
”
Data sumber dari
2017-03-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Perhitungan
Conley, Matsick, Moors & Ziegler (2017), Perspectives on Psychological Science 12(2), 205-232. PMID 28346120. Peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical synthesis. Used as the methodological anchor for treating CNM and monogamous outcomes as comparable: the authors' core finding is that the assumed superiority of monogamy as a relationship configuration is not supported by direct comparison of functional outcomes. Establishes the empirical license to construct action-side regret as not systematically higher than the monogamy baseline.
Sumber: tidak bertindak
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
2/3 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher & Garcia) — Prevalence of Experiences With Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships: Findings From Two National Samples of Single Americans
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
More than 1 in 5 (21.9% in Study 1, 21.2% in Study 2) of single US adults report engaging in consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lifetime; the proportion is stable across age, education, income, religion, region, political affiliation, and race
Kutipan
“"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] More than 1 in 5 (21.9% in Study 1; 21.2% in Study 2) participants reported engaging in CNM at some point in their lifetime. This proportion remained constant across age, education level, income, religion, region, political affiliation, and race. The proportion varied with gender and sexual orientation: men and people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were more likely to report previous engagement in CNM."
”
Data sumber dari
2017-04-20
Diakses
2026-05-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher & Garcia (2017), Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 43(5), 424-440. Two nationally representative samples of single Americans (combined N=8,718). DOI 10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675. The 21% figure is a revealed-preference floor on the share of US adults who would regret never having tried CNM: at least this fraction of the population has actually engaged in CNM at some lifetime point, and the underlying pool of adults curious about it but constrained by partner agreement or social cost is necessarily larger. The inaction-side regret rate is constructed by treating ever-engagement as a behavioural revealed preference — adults who have done it at least once are not the regret- of-monogamy population, but they trace the floor of the regret-curious population. The 21% rate is conservative because (a) it is conditional on singlehood at survey time, (b) it captures only realized engagement, not regret among adults who never engaged despite curiosity. Not a direct regret-of-monogamy measure.
[2]OPEN — Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy (Moors, Chapman University, IRB #26-13) — 2025 Community Survey Report
Sumber referensi
5,885 respondents from 65 countries and 52 US states and territories — largest dataset of non-monogamous experiences compiled to date, conducted as formal academic research
Kutipan
“"The 2025 Community Survey gathered 5,885 respondents from 65 countries and 52 US states and territories, representing the largest dataset of non-monogamous experiences compiled to date. The survey was conducted as formal academic research in partnership with Dr. Amy Moors of Chapman University (IRB #26-13)."
”
Data sumber dari
2025-04-15
Diakses
2026-05-30
Perhitungan
OPEN 2025 Community Survey — largest CNM-population dataset to date, conducted under IRB by Dr. Amy Moors. Used here as the anchor establishing that a large and growing population of US adults are CNM-active and willing to participate in academic research about their experiences. Not used for a direct regret-of-monogamy rate — the survey does not include retrospective regret-of-monogamy items because the population is already in CNM. Used as scaffolding for the claim that the Haupert 21% figure understates current CNM-curious population, because OPEN's 5,885 respondents represent a community of actively-CNM adults that has grown substantially since the Haupert 2017 fieldwork.
[3]Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Roese & Summerville) — What We Regret Most ... and Why
Terverifikasi
↗ 13 other entries
Telaah sejawat
Romance is among the top three lifetime regret domains (14.8%); regrets of inaction persist longer than regrets of action because they reflect greater perceived opportunity within affected life domains
Kutipan
“"Regrets of inaction persist longer than regrets of action in part because they reflect greater perceived opportunity. Education (32.2%), career (22.3%), and romance (14.8%) top lifetime regret domains; the common thread is missed opportunity for self-actualization."
”
Data sumber dari
2005-09-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Roese & Summerville (2005), PSPB 31(9), 1273-1285. Foundational meta-analysis. The romance domain consistently ranks in the top three regret categories across 11 datasets, and the inaction-dominant pattern (84% of biggest-regrets are inactions per Gilovich & Medvec 1994) applies particularly to romance because the opportunity window closes with partner commitment. Used as theoretical anchor: a long-term monogamous adult who never explored CNM despite curiosity falls squarely in the missed-opportunity-in-romance-domain pattern, which Roese and Summerville identify as the most regret-generative category. Supports the directional finding that inaction-side regret modestly exceeds action-side regret in this dilemma.
Catatan
TIDAK ADA ANGKA YANG MERUPAKAN TINGKAT PENYESALAN. Tidak ada survei terpublikasi yang secara langsung menanyakan orang dewasa AS "apakah Anda menyesal membuka hubungan Anda?" atau "apakah Anda menyesal tetap monogami?" Angka sisi-tindakan 15% BUKAN tingkat penyesalan yang terukur atau dikonstruksi — ini adalah placeholder tampilan yang dipatok pada batas paritas-kepuasan: Conley et al. (2017, 2018) menemukan orang dalam hubungan terbuka melaporkan kepuasan seksual dan relasional yang setara dengan individu monogami, yang membatasi (tetapi tidak mengukur) penyesalan pasca-pembukaan. Angka sisi-diam 21% adalah statistik prevalensi perilaku / preferensi terungkap — proporsi orang dewasa lajang AS yang benar-benar pernah terlibat CNM pada suatu titik seumur hidup (Haupert et al. 2017, gabungan N=8.718 di dua sampel representatif nasional) — BUKAN proporsi orang dewasa monogami yang menyesal tidak pernah mencoba. Kedua populasi tidak tumpang tindih. Baca kedua bilah sebagai konstruk yang sebenarnya diukur masing-masing sumber (paritas kepuasan; prevalensi CNM seumur hidup), bukan sebagai tingkat penyesalan.
PARITAS KEPUASAN BUKANLAH PARITAS PENYESALAN. Temuan Conley et al. (2018) bahwa individu CNM dan monogami melaporkan kepuasan relasional yang sebanding adalah jangkar empiris terkuat untuk tingkat sisi-tindakan, tetapi paritas kepuasan membatasi penyesalan, bukan mengukurnya. Periode transisi — bulan dan tahun tepat setelah membuka hubungan yang sebelumnya monogami — adalah jendela penyesalan tertinggi, dan sampel lintas-seksi Conley mencakup orang dewasa yang bertahan melewati transisi itu. Bias seleksi kemungkinan meremehkan penyesalan periode-transisi: pasangan yang mencoba CNM dan bubar sebagian absen dari sampel yang saat ini menjalani CNM.
BUKTI SUBREDDIT TIDAK REPRESENTATIF. Subreddit r/OpenMarriageRegret (16.000+ anggota) kadang dikutip sebagai bukti penyesalan sisi-tindakan yang tinggi; kami tidak menggunakannya karena ia adalah komunitas yang memilih sendiri untuk orang yang secara khusus mengalami penyesalan, tanpa penyebut. Keberadaan forum itu menunjukkan bahwa penyesalan-setelah-membuka adalah fenomena yang dikenali, tetapi tidak mengatakan apa-apa tentang tingkatnya pada tingkat populasi.
LITERATUR KEPUASAN CNM TERPUBLIKASI MENGHADAPI BIAS PUBLIKASI. Conley et al. (2017) secara eksplisit mendokumentasikan bahwa temuan yang mendukung poliamori menghadapi lebih banyak tuduhan bias daripada temuan yang mendukung monogami, dan para penulis berpendapat bahwa default-monogami dalam bidang ini menggelembungkan bukti terpublikasi untuk superioritas monogami. Temuan paritas karenanya mungkin konservatif. Di sisi lain, literatur penelitian CNM didominasi oleh peneliti yang bersimpati pada CNM, yang mungkin menarik ke arah berlawanan. Kami memperlakukan temuan paritas-kepuasan sebagai kokoh secara arah tetapi tidak presisi secara besaran.
GRADIEN GENDER DAN ORIENTASI. Haupert et al. menemukan keterlibatan CNM yang lebih tinggi di kalangan pria dan responden LGB; angka utama 21% adalah rata-rata lintas-kohort dan populasi yang penasaran-menyesal bersifat tergender. Perempuan heteroseksual, yang terwakili kurang dalam keterlibatan CNM di semua tahap kehidupan, mungkin juga terwakili kurang dalam penyesalan sisi-diam. Angka 21% harus dibaca sebagai rata-rata dewasa AS, bukan tingkat per-demografi.
PERTUMBUHAN TERBARU DALAM KETERLIHATAN CNM. OPEN 2025 Community Survey (N=5.885) — kumpulan data populasi CNM terbesar hingga saat ini, dilakukan di bawah IRB Chapman University oleh Dr. Amy Moors — menunjukkan pertumbuhan substansial dalam populasi yang teridentifikasi-CNM sejak kerja lapangan Haupert 2017. Angka keterlibatan-seumur-hidup Haupert 21% karenanya adalah batas bawah konservatif atas populasi yang penasaran-CNM saat ini.
