A Theory of Overlap: Notes and References

Notes

1. Mark H. Davis, “Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, no. 1 (1983): 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113. Inspected source. Renate L. E. P. Reniers et al., “The QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy,” Journal of Personality Assessment 93, no. 1 (2011): 84–95. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484. Inspected source. These instruments distinguish empathy dimensions; neither supplies the proposed combined-trait population cutoff. ↩

2. Luke Brunning, “Compersion: An alternative to jealousy?,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 6, no. 2 (2020): 225–245. doi:10.1017/apa.2019.35. Inspected source. A philosophical account, not a prevalence study or proof that compersion is morally required. ↩

3. Sharon M. Flicker, Marie I. Thouin-Savard, and Michelle D. Vaughan, “Factors that Facilitate and Hinder the Experience of Compersion Among Individuals in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 51, no. 6 (2022): 3035–3048. doi:10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4. Inspected source. Klara Austeja Buczel, Paulina D. Szyszka, and Izu Mara, “Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 53, no. 8 (2024): 3285–3307. doi:10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5. Inspected source. Katherine Aumer et al., “The happy, green-eyed monogamist: Role of jealousy and compersion in monogamous and non-traditional relationships,” Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality (2014). Inspected source. Interview accounts and subgroup-specific associations do not establish a universal mechanism. Aumer’s detailed Results qualify its broader abstract. ↩

4. Daniel Cardoso, Patricia M. Pascoal, and Francisco Hertel Maiochi, “Defining Polyamory: A Thematic Analysis of Lay People's Definitions,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 50, no. 4 (2021): 1239–1252. doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y. Inspected source. Lay definitions vary; the current-practice event in the numerical illustration is narrower than the essay’s discussion of acceptance or desire. ↩

5. Thuy-vy T. Nguyen, Netta Weinstein, and Richard M. Ryan, “Who enjoys solitude? Autonomous functioning (but not introversion) predicts self-determined motivation (but not preference) for solitude,” PLOS ONE 17, no. 5 (2022): e0267185. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267185. Inspected source. Alva Tang et al., “Revisiting shyness and sociability: A preliminary investigation of hormone-brain-behavior relations,” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01430. Inspected source. Solitude motivation, shyness, and sociability are distinct constructs. ↩

6. Klara Austeja Buczel, Paulina D. Szyszka, and Izu Mara, “Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 53, no. 8 (2024): 3285–3307. doi:10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5. Inspected source. Channing R. Clemons-Castaños, “Polyamorous Individuals' Jealous and Compersive Responses to Their Partner's New Relationship Energy: The Role of Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, Distress Tolerance, and Empathy” (master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento, 2024), public thesis. For the Polish subgroup analyses, see pp.3298–3299 and 3302; for the thesis regression/mediation results, pp.42–43. Both are cross-sectional. ↩

7. Martin C. Melchers et al., “Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries,” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290. Inspected source. Thuy-vy T. Nguyen, Netta Weinstein, and Richard M. Ryan, “Who enjoys solitude? Autonomous functioning (but not introversion) predicts self-determined motivation (but not preference) for solitude,” PLOS ONE 17, no. 5 (2022): e0267185. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267185. Inspected source. EMP-007 Table 2 reports positive extraversion associations: EQ r=.306, perspective-taking r=.117, empathic concern r=.152. Neither study demonstrates empathy-driven withdrawal. ↩

8. Amy C. Moors, Dylan F. Selterman, and Terri D. Conley, “Personality correlates of desire to engage in consensual non-monogamy among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals,” Journal of Bisexuality 17, no. 4 (2017): 418–434. doi:10.1080/15299716.2017.1367982. Inspected source. Oscar Lecuona et al., “Does "open" rhyme with "special"? Comparing personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy of monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 50, no. 4 (2021): 1537–1549. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x. Inspected source. Willingness among LGB respondents and mixed relationship categories do not estimate personality prevalence among current polyamorous practitioners. ↩

9. YouGov, “Introvert and Extrovert Personality Poll,” March 14–16, 2023, question 5 (unweighted n=999; total survey n=1,000), public results. The 38% is 9% plus 29%. All other moderate inputs and the conditional substitutions are assumptions explained in Appendix B. ↩

10. Patrick Boudreau et al., “Time Management, Stigma, Jealousy, and More: A Content Analysis of the Challenges of Polyamory,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 52, no. 5 (2026): 530–543. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2026.2678253. Inspected source. Theme percentages count participants endorsing each challenge; multiple themes may apply to one person. ↩

11. Amy C. Moors, William Ryan, and William J. Chopik, “Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning,” Personality and Individual Differences 147 (2019): 102–110. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023. Inspected source. Alexander K. Tatum et al., “"I Know How to Identify and Communicate My Needs": A qualitative study of the self-perceived strengths of people in polyamorous relationships,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 52, no. 2 (2026). doi:10.1111/jmft.70119. Inspected source. Jennifer Arter and Sacha S. Bunge, “Perceived Impacts of Partners' Other Relationships on Oneself in Consensual Nonmonogamy,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 53, no. 4 (2024): 1415–1429. doi:10.1007/s10508-024-02823-7. Inspected source. Attachment associations, self-perceived strengths, and interview accounts have different evidentiary roles; none validates the proposed four-way cluster. ↩

Appendix A: Research Summary and Verification Limits

Empathy and introversion

Supported conclusion: Empathy has multiple dimensions; introversion, shyness, and motivation for solitude are distinct. EMP-007 reports positive extraversion–empathy correlations.

Boundary: No inspected study establishes empathy-driven withdrawal or the proposed four-way cluster.

Polyamory and broader CNM

Supported conclusion: Surveys distinguish lifetime experience, desire, current open relationships, and current relationship practices.

Boundary: US single, partnered and all-adult samples, Canadian adults, and other populations are not interchangeable.

Compersion

Supported conclusion: Full-source studies and conceptual work describe varied experiences, measurement approaches, correlates, and conditions.

Boundary: Subgroup nulls and mixed outcomes prevent a single universal mechanism; no retained source supplies a representative compersion-capacity prevalence rate.

Relationship outcomes

Supported conclusion: Results vary by outcome, relationship category, adjustment, and sample.

Boundary: Nonsignificance is not equivalence, association is not causation, and reported strengths do not demonstrate intrinsic superiority.

The numerical illustration

Supported conclusion: The three multiplications are reproducible.

Boundary: Their input definitions and unmeasured dependencies prevent population estimation.

The September 10, 2026 audit inspected relevant full-source content for 42 of the 47 source records. POLY-004, POLY-007, COMP-001, COMP-006, and COMP-014 remain limited to abstracts, previews, appendices, or author summaries as specified in their records. They are retained as disclosed research leads or limited construct background, not evidence for uninspected results or inputs to the numerical illustration. Historical verification statements do not establish present full-text access.

Where the primary sources themselves contain inconsistent totals or summaries, Appendix C preserves the discrepancy instead of inventing a resolution. Original participant-level analyses were not reproduced. Targeted checks for updates and corrections are not an exhaustive retraction clearance.

Appendix B: Calculations and Assumptions

Purpose

To provide a transparent, reproducible workbook for hypothetical overlap scenarios, with definitions, assumptions, source limitations, and dependencies explicit. It does not estimate population prevalence.

Workbook Rules

• All derived values must be traceable to source IDs listed in Appendix C.
• Raw values and derived estimates must be clearly separated.
• Confidence and rationale must be stated for each estimate.
• Sensitivity notes must be included for all key calculations.
• Values from Limited sources may inform framing but must not be treated as publication-ready evidence without disclosure.
• Every active source must be classified by contribution type before it is used in prose or modeling.
• A source may strengthen the essay without being eligible for the quantitative model.

Evidence Contribution Classes

Each active source is assigned a primary role. Appendix C preserves the individual audit record; this section explains how the sources enter the investigation.

• Observed prevalence or frequency evidence: INT-001, INT-003, EMP-004, POLY-001, POLY-002, CNM-001, OPEN-001. These sources provide reported percentages, but only some match the constructs needed by the model.
• Measurement, construct, or scale evidence: INT-004, INT-005, EMP-001, EMP-002, EMP-003, EMP-005, EMP-006, COMP-001, COMP-004, COMP-009, COMP-010. These sources define or measure constructs; most do not provide prevalence.
• Construct-boundary and definition evidence: INT-002, INT-006, POLY-003, COMP-018. These sources prevent overbroad definitions and keep the essay from confusing related constructs.
• Personality, attitude, and association evidence: EMP-007, POLY-007, CNM-005, PERS-001. These sources complicate simple introversion or empathy explanations by pointing toward agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, ambiguity tolerance, and CNM attitudes.
• Relationship-functioning and contextual evidence: POLY-004, POLY-005, POLY-008, CNM-002, CNM-003, CNM-004, POLY-006, POLY-009, COMP-002, COMP-003, COMP-005, COMP-006, COMP-007, COMP-008, COMP-011, COMP-012. These sources support, complicate, or contextualize the narrative but do not directly measure the four-way overlap.
• Theoretical or philosophical framework evidence: COMP-013, COMP-014, COMP-015, COMP-016, COMP-017. These sources clarify possible interpretations of compersion; they are not prevalence evidence.

Model inclusion is narrower than source inclusion. INT-001 and INT-003 inform the introversion sensitivity range. POLY-001, POLY-002, CNM-001, and OPEN-001 inform the scale of broader non-monogamy and polyamory-adjacent behavior, but the essay's current polyamory value remains modeled because none directly measures current emotionally significant polyamory. EMP-004 is preserved as an observed comparison point but is not used as the high-empathy model value because its definition does not match the essay's operational target. No verified source currently supplies a population value for compersion capacity.

Source Selection and Definition Alignment

No mathematical source-weighting procedure or pooled prevalence calculation was applied. The 38% introversion input is the selected result of INT-001; the other scenario values are assumptions. Source quality, sample size, recency, construct validity, and population match guide interpretation, but these considerations were not converted into numerical weights. Averaging incompatible measures would not repair the missing joint-distribution evidence.

The illustrative reference population is US adults. Its polyamory event means current participation in multiple consensual, emotionally significant romantic relationships, excluding desire or acceptance alone. No retained source directly estimates this exact event for that population. The empathy event requires a chosen measure and cutoff; the moderate scenario stipulates a top-quarter group, while the other scenarios change that cutoff. Compersion capacity has no validated threshold in this workbook. Those unresolved definitions prevent empirical interpretation of the outputs.

Introversion Workbook

Source IDs: INT-001, INT-002, INT-003, INT-004, INT-005, INT-006

Source Records

• INT-001
  • Raw value: 38%
  • Meaning: Self-identified as completely introverted or more introverted than extroverted
  • Sample size: 999
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2023
  • Method: Online survey
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Not a Big Five assessment; total is 9% + 29%
• INT-002
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Introversion did not consistently predict solitude preference or self-determined motivation for solitude
  • Sample size: 183 and 270 undergraduate participants
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2022
  • Method: Two daily diary studies
  • Value type: Contextual relationship evidence
  • Notes: Supports caution around equating introversion with solitude preference
• INT-003
  • Raw value: 44%
  • Meaning: Self-identified as an introvert when offered introvert, extrovert, and unsure responses
  • Sample size: 996
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2016
  • Method: Online survey
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Not a Big Five assessment. Different question wording and survey years limit comparison with INT-001; these surveys do not isolate a causal wording effect.
• INT-004
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: BFI-S formal Big Five assessment is usable in large-scale survey panels, with caveats for telephone interviewing and older adults
  • Sample size: 19,351 SOEP participants in 2005; 13,459 retest/stability participants; 1,200 recruited for the related CATI sample, with 1,178 complete personality records.
  • Geography: Germany
  • Year: 2011
  • Method: Open-access psychometric validation using representative German samples
  • Value type: Measurement framework
  • Notes: Formal trait measurement context; does not give an introversion prevalence rate
• INT-005
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Small cross-sectional age/cohort differences in extraversion; the authors interpret these as consistent with adult stability, but this comparison does not track individual change across adulthood.
  • Sample size: 10,063 NHANES I follow-up respondents; 654 ABLSA comparison participants
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 1986
  • Method: National probability follow-up study using neuroticism, extraversion, and openness survey measures
  • Value type: Measurement and stability evidence
  • Notes: Formal trait measurement context; no introversion cutoff or prevalence
• INT-006
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Shyness and sociability are conceptually and empirically orthogonal; shyness is not interchangeable with low sociability
  • Sample size: 24 selected from 152 undergraduate students; 22 provided usable imaging data.
  • Geography: Canada / undergraduate sample
  • Year: 2014
  • Method: Event-related fMRI, cortisol awakening response, and sociability measures
  • Value type: Construct-distinction evidence
  • Notes: Supports separating introversion, shyness, and sociability; no prevalence

Scenario Input

• Selected self-identification scenario input: 38% (INT-001; no weighting or averaging applied)

Confidence: Medium

Rationale: INT-001 reports 9% completely introverted plus 29% more introverted than extroverted. This selected self-labeling input is not a pooled estimate or formal Big Five cutoff. INT-002 and INT-004–006 clarify measurement and construct boundaries rather than contributing prevalence weights.

Sensitivity Notes: Selected inputs are 30%, 38%, and 44%. The 44% comes from a differently worded 2016 self-labeling poll; 30% is an assumption. These values are not confidence bounds or a harmonized empirical range.

High Empathy Workbook

Source IDs: EMP-001, EMP-002, EMP-003, EMP-004, EMP-005, EMP-006, EMP-007

Source Records

• EMP-001
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: IRI multidimensional empathy framework
  • Sample size: 677 male and 667 female undergraduates
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 1983
  • Method: Psychometric scale development
  • Value type: Measurement framework
  • Notes: Public full-text mirror inspected; no prevalence
• EMP-002
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: QCAE cognitive/affective empathy framework
  • Sample size: 640 exploratory; 318 confirmatory; 925 complete QCAE responses across studies
  • Geography: UK / Europe-heavy sample
  • Year: 2011
  • Method: Psychometric scale development
  • Value type: Measurement framework
  • Notes: Public author-uploaded full-text mirror inspected; no prevalence
• EMP-003
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Empathy measures review; 50 studies and 23 instruments assessed
  • Sample size: Review
  • Geography: International
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Systematic review/meta-analysis
  • Value type: Review evidence
  • Notes: Public full text inspected; no prevalence
• EMP-004
  • Raw value: 55%
  • Meaning: EU27 respondents classified as high empathy under a five-item emotional-empathy scale
  • Sample size: Nearly 13,000
  • Geography: EU27; deeper samples in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain
  • Year: 2020
  • Method: Representative public opinion survey
  • Value type: Observed survey classification
  • Notes: Incompatible with top-quartile model; high means above average on this survey's scale
• EMP-005
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Empathy Quotient score distribution and sex differences in nonclinical samples
  • Sample size: 90 controls; 197 general-population volunteers
  • Geography: United Kingdom
  • Year: 2004
  • Method: Scale development and group comparison
  • Value type: Measurement and distribution evidence
  • Notes: Public PDF inspected; small volunteer/control samples; not representative prevalence
• EMP-006
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Large Empathy Quotient (EQ) / Systemizing Quotient (SQ) dataset reported Type E / Extreme Type E category frequencies; this extraction does not establish empirical normality of the measured distributions.
  • Sample size: Discovery n=671,606 including 36,648 autistic people; validation n=14,354 including 226 autistic people
  • Geography: Online, mostly UK / Channel 4 recruitment
  • Year: 2018
  • Method: Large online self-report study using short EQ/SQ/AQ/SPQ forms and D-score brain-type classification
  • Value type: Distribution and measurement evidence
  • Notes: Type E means EQ greater than SQ, not high-empathy prevalence; self-selected online sample
• EMP-007
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Big Five associations with empathy were broadly similar across four countries; agreeableness and conscientiousness were more central empathy predictors than extraversion
  • Sample size: China n=438; Germany n=304; Spain n=62; US n=92
  • Geography: Cross-national convenience samples
  • Year: 2016
  • Method: EQ, IRI, and Big Five correlation/regression study
  • Value type: Personality-association evidence
  • Notes: Extraversion was positively correlated with EQ (r=.306), perspective-taking (r=.117), and empathic concern (r=.152) in Table 2. These associations are counterevidence to a simple introversion-specific empathy claim, not evidence for empathy-driven withdrawal.

Scenario Input

• Moderate scenario input: 25%, fixed by the stipulated top-quartile definition in the reference population; not an observed prevalence of a validated cognitive-plus-affective profile.

Confidence: Low

Rationale: Verified public sources support multidimensional empathy measurement, cognitive/affective empathy measurement, small-sample empathy-score distributions, one very large EQ/SQ online distribution study, and cross-national personality-association context. EMP-004 provides an observed "high empathy" classification in an EU public-opinion survey, EMP-005 provides Empathy Quotient score ranges, and EMP-006 provides Type E / Extreme Type E brain-type frequencies, but none are used as the essay's prevalence estimate because their definitions and samples do not match a top-quartile cognitive-plus-affective trait profile. The 25% value remains a modeled operational assumption.

Sensitivity Notes: The 15% and 35% scenarios change the threshold defining high empathy. They are not sampling uncertainty around a fixed top-quartile definition, which would remain 25% by construction.

Scenario input: E = 0.25 (MODELED VALUE)

Emotionally Significant Polyamory Workbook

Source IDs: POLY-001, POLY-002, POLY-003, POLY-004, POLY-005, POLY-006, POLY-007, POLY-008, POLY-009, CNM-001, CNM-002, CNM-003, CNM-004, CNM-005, OPEN-001, PERS-001

Source Records

• POLY-001
  • Raw value: 10.7%
  • Meaning: Previous engagement in polyamory, single adults
  • Sample size: 3,438
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Census-based quota sample
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Lifetime engagement; not current prevalence
• POLY-001
  • Raw value: 16.8%
  • Meaning: Desire to engage in polyamory, single adults
  • Sample size: 3,438
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Census-based quota sample
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Interest/desire only
• POLY-001
  • Raw value: 6.5%
  • Meaning: Knows someone who is or has been engaged in polyamory
  • Sample size: 3,438
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Census-based quota sample
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Familiarity measure
• POLY-002
  • Raw value: 4%
  • Meaning: Current open relationship among US adults currently in a relationship, not all US adults
  • Sample size: 2,270
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2012 data; 2018 publication
  • Method: National probability sample
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Open relationships broader than polyamory
• POLY-002
  • Raw value: 8%
  • Meaning: Current nonconsensual nonmonogamy among US adults currently in a relationship, not all US adults
  • Sample size: 2,270
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2012 data; 2018 publication
  • Method: National probability sample
  • Value type: Observed survey response
  • Notes: Not CNM; retained only to preserve distinction
• POLY-003
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Lay definitions of polyamory emphasize relationship behaviors, multiple relationships/feelings, emotional, sexual, and ethical aspects
  • Sample size: 463 valid answers
  • Geography: Portuguese-speaking web survey
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Qualitative thematic analysis
  • Value type: Definition evidence
  • Notes: Supports scope/definition, not prevalence
• POLY-004
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: The public abstract reports relationship-satisfaction and attachment differences across configurations; full methods and subgroup results remain unverified.
  • Sample size: Study 1 n=225; Study 2 n=360
  • Geography: Online polyamory samples; exact geography not extracted
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Two-sample comparative study of relationship satisfaction and attachment security
  • Value type: Limited research lead; not independently verified relationship evidence
  • Notes: Abstract and institutional metadata only as of September 10, 2026; author manuscript not inspected in this audit; no prevalence input.
• POLY-005
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Attachment associations were outcome-specific and differed for anxiety versus avoidance. Adjusted models found no cross-partner associations; this is neither a causal result nor a null for every unadjusted association.
  • Sample size: 357 people with at least two concurrent romantic partners
  • Geography: Online community sample; exact geography not extracted
  • Year: 2019
  • Method: Community sample study of attachment with multiple concurrent partners
  • Value type: Attachment and relational-functioning evidence
  • Notes: No prevalence; author manuscript publicly inspected
• CNM-001
  • Raw value: Study 1 21.2% (826/3,905); Study 2 21.9% (1,056/4,813). The source abstract reverses these study assignments; Methods/Results and Discussion support the assignments used here.
  • Meaning: Lifetime CNM engagement in two samples of single adults
  • Sample size: 3,905; 4,813
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2017
  • Method: Population-based cross-sectional surveys using census-based quota samples
  • Value type: Observed survey response from public full-text mirror
  • Notes: Broader than polyamory; context only
• CNM-002
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Scoping review synthesized 209 empirical studies on polyamory and CNM across seven major research domains
  • Sample size: 209 studies
  • Geography: Primarily North America and Europe
  • Year: 2024 final issue; first online 2023
  • Method: Scoping review using Academic Search Complete, PsycInfo, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, follow-up search, and hand-search
  • Value type: Review evidence
  • Notes: Useful for field scope and gaps; not prevalence
• CNM-003
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Meta-analysis found no overall relationship- or sexual-satisfaction advantage for monogamy over non-monogamy
  • Sample size: Author-reported 35 studies and N=24,489; Results also describes 32 records. Outcome-specific counts and unresolved effect-count inconsistencies are detailed in Appendix C; overlapping outcome Ns must not be added.
  • Geography: Mostly Western study base
  • Year: 2026 final issue; first online 2025
  • Method: Meta-analysis of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction by relationship orientation
  • Value type: Meta-analytic relationship-outcome evidence
  • Notes: No overall difference was detected; nonsignificance is not universal equivalence. Source-internal count discrepancies remain unresolved. Not a prevalence source.
• OPEN-001
  • Raw value: 2.4%; 4.0%; 19.6%; 12%
  • Meaning: Current, lifetime, and ideal open relationship status
  • Sample size: 2,003
  • Geography: Canada
  • Year: 2019
  • Method: Nationally representative online survey
  • Value type: Observed survey response from public full-text mirror
  • Notes: Open relationships broader than polyamory; context only; CIs available for current and lifetime values
• POLY-006
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Polyamorous participants named strengths including emotion management, compersion and/or low or well-managed jealousy, communication, challenging mononormativity, prior learning, resources, and financial privilege
  • Sample size: 63 US-based adults with current or prior polyamorous relationship experience
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2026
  • Method: Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses
  • Value type: Strengths and resilience evidence
  • Notes: Supports center/counterargument sections; no prevalence
• POLY-007
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Public abstract reports polyamorous participants scored higher on openness, risk taking in social/ethical domains, and ambiguity tolerance, and lower on conscientiousness
  • Sample size: 258 participants, including 119 polyamorous participants
  • Geography: Not extracted from public abstract
  • Year: 2024 / 2025 issue
  • Method: Comparative Big Five, risk-taking, and ambiguity-tolerance study
  • Value type: Limited personality-context evidence
  • Notes: Limited abstract/preview or author-summary material only; retained as a research lead or disclosed construct background, not verified empirical support or a prevalence input.
• POLY-008
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Polyamorous men and women reported greater intimacy than monoamorous counterparts; polyamorous men also reported stronger attitudinal and behavioral sociosexuality
  • Sample size: Survey n=390; main men/women comparison n=284
  • Geography: Mostly online polyamory and chain-referral recruitment; Canada/Ireland author teams, exact participant geography not extracted
  • Year: 2013 / online 2011
  • Method: Convenience-sample comparison of relationship well-being and sociosexuality
  • Value type: Relationship well-being and sociosexuality evidence
  • Notes: Not prevalence; source is relevant context but not a personality or overlap source
• POLY-009
  • Raw value: 72.6%; 48.0%; 35.2%; 27.4%; 21%; 15%; 10%; 9.1%; 8.7%; 7.3%; 5.5%
  • Meaning: Reported challenges among current polyamorous relationship participants, including time management, stigma, jealousy, emotional demands, communication, disclosure, legal recognition, lack of representation, insecurity, dating, and financial burden
  • Sample size: 219 current polyamorous relationship participants; 763 open-ended responses
  • Geography: Online sample; exact participant geography not extracted from this pass
  • Year: 2026
  • Method: Content analysis of open-ended responses
  • Value type: Counterargument and contextual challenge evidence
  • Notes: Public ResearchGate full text inspected on 2026-06-25; not prevalence and not a model input
• CNM-004
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Narrative review contrasts negative social views of CNM with empirical and lived evidence on CNM relationship functioning, stigma, internalized negativity, and relationship quality
  • Sample size: Narrative review
  • Geography: Mostly Western CNM literature
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Open-access narrative review
  • Value type: Review and counterargument evidence
  • Notes: Not prevalence; useful for stigma and misconception context
• CNM-005
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Among LGB respondents, openness predicted more positive CNM attitudes and greater willingness, while conscientiousness predicted more negative attitudes and less willingness; Big Five traits outperformed attachment orientations for these outcomes
  • Sample size: 108 LGB individuals
  • Geography: United States / LGB community sample
  • Year: 2017
  • Method: Survey study of Big Five, attachment, CNM attitudes, and willingness
  • Value type: Personality-attitude evidence
  • Notes: CNM desire/attitude study, not polyamory engagement or prevalence
• PERS-001
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Broad CNM and monogamous participants mostly did not differ; no significant extraversion difference; CNM participants were more open and less conscientious with small effects
  • Sample size: 372 Spanish participants; 193 non-monogamous practitioners
  • Geography: Spain / Spanish-speaking online sample
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Cross-sectional online survey using NEO-FFI-SF, NSSS, and DJTS
  • Value type: Personality-context evidence
  • Notes: Broad CNM, not polyamory-specific; not prevalence

Scenario Input

• Moderate scenario input: 2.5%, an assumption for current emotionally significant polyamory among US adults

Confidence: Low-Medium

Rationale: Existing records distinguish definitions, lifetime experience, current open relationships, attitudes, and relationship outcomes in different populations. None directly measures current emotionally significant polyamory in the reference population. The 2.5% input is an illustrative assumption, not an evidence-weighted bridge estimate; limited sources supply no numerical input.

Sensitivity Notes: Range for sensitivity: 1% (conservative) to 5% (aggressive).

Scenario input: P = 0.025 (MODELED VALUE)

Compersion Capacity Workbook

Source IDs: COMP-001, COMP-002, COMP-003, COMP-004, COMP-005, COMP-006, COMP-007, COMP-008, COMP-009, COMP-010, COMP-011, COMP-012, COMP-013, COMP-014, COMP-015, COMP-016, COMP-017, COMP-018, POLY-006

Source Records

• COMP-001
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: COMPERSe scale summary: 11 items, three subscales, and public preview CFA metrics
  • Sample size: 44 qualitative; 310 exploratory; 320 confirmatory
  • Geography: CNM
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Scale development
  • Value type: Measurement framework
  • Notes: Public publisher preview, appendix, and measure summary inspected; full article text limited
• COMP-002
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Facilitators and barriers to compersion
  • Sample size: 44
  • Geography: Mostly US CNM
  • Year: 2022
  • Method: Open-ended online survey; thematic analysis
  • Value type: Qualitative evidence
  • Notes: Full public PDF inspected; no prevalence
• COMP-003
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Compersion and jealousy are not simple opposites
  • Sample size: 3,530 polyamorous; 1,358 monogamous
  • Geography: Not extracted
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Convenience survey; hypothetical extradyadic scenarios
  • Value type: Relationship evidence
  • Notes: Public OSF preprint and publisher abstract inspected; no prevalence
• COMP-004
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Polish COMPERSe adaptation; compersion, jealousy, empathy, and relationship satisfaction associations
  • Sample size: 211 CNM and 169 monogamous study-comparison participants; complete-case CNM n=165, including polyamorous n=78 and open-relationship n=60.
  • Geography: Poland
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Scale adaptation; comparative survey
  • Value type: Measurement and relationship evidence
  • Notes: Full text inspected; pooled empathy association does not hold in the polyamorous subgroup; cross-sectional mediation is not causal; no prevalence.
• COMP-005
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Mindfulness associated with greater compersion, but empathy did not mediate the mindfulness-compersion path
  • Sample size: 122 polyamorous participants
  • Geography: Online polyamorous and AltSex communities
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Cross-sectional survey
  • Value type: Relationship evidence
  • Notes: Public thesis full text inspected; related 2025 journal article remains limited
• COMP-006
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Metamour closeness/knowledge positively predicted compersion; jealousy, envy, and attachment anxiety negatively predicted it
  • Sample size: 255
  • Geography: Online CNM and AltSex communities
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Online anonymous survey
  • Value type: Predictor evidence from public abstract
  • Notes: Limited abstract/preview or author-summary material only; retained as a research lead or disclosed construct background, not verified empirical support or a prevalence input.
• COMP-007
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Interview participants reported costs and benefits of partners’ other relationships; four cost themes and five benefit themes included compersion.
  • Sample size: 51
  • Geography: CNM adults, mostly long-experience sample
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Semi-structured interviews; reflexive thematic analysis
  • Value type: Qualitative evidence
  • Notes: Open-access full text; theme counts are contextual, not prevalence
• COMP-008
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Monogamous, CNM, and open-relationship participants differed in jealousy/distress/enjoyment responses to imagined extra-pair involvement
  • Sample size: Author-reported n=690; category counts total 688 and initial/excluded counts also conflict. See Appendix C; no corrected denominator is assumed.
  • Geography: Sample predominantly White and young adult; full geography not extracted
  • Year: 2019
  • Method: Comparative survey using imagined partner extra-pair involvement scenarios
  • Value type: Relationship evidence from public full-text mirror
  • Notes: Public author-uploaded mirror inspected; no prevalence
• COMP-009
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale identified compersion as one of nine CNM maintenance practices
  • Sample size: 429 CNM-experienced participants for item generation; 4,290 international survey participants for validation
  • Geography: International online sample
  • Year: 2026
  • Method: Open-access scale development and validation
  • Value type: Measurement and relationship-maintenance evidence
  • Notes: Includes compersion practice differences and relationship-quality associations; no prevalence
• COMP-010
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Compersion definition and synthesis; embodied and attitudinal compersion; COMPERSe subscales and predictor themes
  • Sample size: Review/reference entry
  • Geography: International
  • Year: 2023
  • Method: Encyclopedia entry synthesizing empirical and theoretical compersion research
  • Value type: Review and definition evidence
  • Notes: Public PDF mirror inspected; publisher page is subscription preview
• COMP-011
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Emotional jealousy and compersion were strongly negatively correlated, and compersion predicted satisfaction differently by relationship status
  • Sample size: 302
  • Geography: Online / relationship-status groups; geography not extracted
  • Year: 2014
  • Method: Survey of jealousy, compersion, relationship status, and relationship satisfaction
  • Value type: Early relationship evidence
  • Notes: Public author-uploaded mirror inspected; subgroup analyses require caution; no prevalence
• COMP-012
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Polyamorous participants often framed jealousy as insecurity, possessiveness, or unmet needs and usually communicated jealousy for validation/support rather than behavior change
  • Sample size: 141 participants; 423 open-ended responses
  • Geography: Online polyamory recruitment; geography not extracted
  • Year: 2018
  • Method: Qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses
  • Value type: Jealousy and communication context
  • Notes: Public PDF inspected with local text extraction; supports jealousy-management context, not compersion prevalence
• COMP-013
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Behavior-analytic framework for jealous and compersive responding; identifies contingencies that may foster compersion
  • Sample size: Conceptual article
  • Geography: International / theoretical
  • Year: 2022 final issue; first online 2021
  • Method: Behavior-analytic conceptual analysis
  • Value type: Theoretical framework
  • Notes: Public author-uploaded full text inspected; no empirical prevalence
• COMP-014
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Grounded-theory dissertation summary identifies empathic joy, gratitude, and dynamic/fluid/spectrum experience as major compersion themes
  • Sample size: 17 semi-structured interviews
  • Geography: CNM participants; geography not extracted from public summary
  • Year: 2021
  • Method: Grounded-theory dissertation, public author summary and ProQuest metadata
  • Value type: Limited qualitative evidence
  • Notes: Limited abstract/preview or author-summary material only; retained as a research lead or disclosed construct background, not verified empirical support or a prevalence input.
• COMP-015
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Buddhist philosophical account argues compersion is not only the opposite of jealousy and can be framed through the four brahmaviharas and their near enemies
  • Sample size: Theoretical article
  • Geography: International / philosophical
  • Year: 2024
  • Method: Open-access philosophical analysis
  • Value type: Theoretical framework
  • Notes: Public full text inspected; no empirical prevalence
• COMP-016
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Transpersonal/philosophical article frames compersion as sympathetic joy and argues jealousy can be transformed through contemplative qualities
  • Sample size: Theoretical article
  • Geography: International / philosophical
  • Year: 2019
  • Method: Open-access theoretical article
  • Value type: Theoretical framework
  • Notes: Public PDF inspected; no empirical prevalence
• COMP-017
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Philosophy-of-love chapter examines jealousy and compersion and treats compersion as a possible transformation of jealousy
  • Sample size: Book chapter
  • Geography: International / philosophical
  • Year: 2017
  • Method: Philosophical chapter
  • Value type: Theoretical framework
  • Notes: Public author-hosted PDF inspected; personal-use license notice present
• COMP-018
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Public full-text philosophical source argues compersion focuses on others' flourishing and should not be reduced to pride, vicarious enjoyment, or masochistic pleasure
  • Sample size: Theoretical article
  • Geography: International / philosophical
  • Year: 2020
  • Method: Philosophical article
  • Value type: Theoretical framework
  • Notes: Public ResearchGate full text inspected; no empirical prevalence
• POLY-006
  • Raw value: N/A
  • Meaning: Experiencing compersion and/or low or well-managed jealousy emerged as one of eight self-perceived strengths among polyamorous participants
  • Sample size: 63 US-based adults
  • Geography: US
  • Year: 2026
  • Method: Qualitative thematic analysis
  • Value type: Strengths-context evidence
  • Notes: Not prevalence; compersion appears as a self-described navigation strength, not a requirement

Scenario Input

• Moderate scenario assumption: 50% (conditional on current emotionally significant polyamory)

Confidence: Low

Rationale: Full-source studies support compersion as a measured or described experience in specific samples, but the pooled empathy association does not hold in every subgroup and correlational mediation does not establish a mechanism. Limited sources remain research leads or disclosed construct background. No retained source supplies a representative prevalence or validated capacity cutoff. The 50% conditional input is an illustrative assumption.

Sensitivity Notes: Range for sensitivity: 30% (conservative) to 70% (aggressive).

Scenario input: Pr(C | P) = 0.50 (ASSUMED); it is already conditional on current emotionally significant polyamory.

Overlap Workbook

Source IDs: INT-001, INT-002, INT-003, INT-004, INT-005, INT-006, EMP-001, EMP-002, EMP-003, EMP-004, EMP-005, EMP-006, EMP-007, POLY-001, POLY-002, POLY-003, POLY-004, POLY-005, POLY-006, POLY-007, POLY-008, POLY-009, CNM-001, CNM-002, CNM-003, CNM-004, CNM-005, OPEN-001, PERS-001, COMP-001, COMP-002, COMP-003, COMP-004, COMP-005, COMP-006, COMP-007, COMP-008, COMP-009, COMP-010, COMP-011, COMP-012, COMP-013, COMP-014, COMP-015, COMP-016, COMP-017, COMP-018

Scenario Values

• Introversion
  • Conservative: 30%
  • Moderate: 38%
  • Aggressive: 44%
• High empathy
  • Conservative: 15%
  • Moderate: 25%
  • Aggressive: 35%
• Polyamory
  • Conservative: 1%
  • Moderate: 2.5%
  • Aggressive: 5%
• Compersion
  • Conservative: 30%
  • Moderate: 50%
  • Aggressive: 70%

Scenario Outputs

• Conservative: ~14 per 100,000
• Moderate: ~119 per 100,000
• Aggressive: ~539 per 100,000

Calculation Details

Conservative 100,000 × 0.30 × 0.15 × 0.01 × 0.30 = 13.5

Moderate 100,000 × 0.38 × 0.25 × 0.025 × 0.50 = 118.75

Aggressive 100,000 × 0.44 × 0.35 × 0.05 × 0.70 = 539

Confidence: Very low (exploratory only)

Rationale: No directly measured four-way overlap is available in the retained sources. These outputs depend on modeled thresholds, assumed marginal rates, an assumed conditional compersion rate, and additional unmeasured dependencies. They are not population estimates or bounds on the possible overlap.

Sensitivity Notes: Holding other inputs fixed, every factor has unit log elasticity: a 1% relative increase produces a 1% relative increase in the output. Across the chosen low-to-high inputs, polyamory changes the output fivefold, empathy and conditional compersion each 2.33-fold, and introversion 1.47-fold. These are scenario comparisons, not probabilistic uncertainty estimates.

Dependency Assumptions: The exact chain rule is Pr(I ∩ E ∩ P ∩ C) = Pr(P) × Pr(C | P) × Pr(I | P,C) × Pr(E | P,C,I). The illustration substitutes the general I and E values for the last two conditional rates. Those substitutions are untested; C is not an independent marginal because it is already conditional on P.

Compatibility Bounds: Under the moderate assumptions, Pr(P ∩ C)=.025×.50=.0125. With I=.38 and E=.25 but no further dependence information, the four-way probability can range from max(0,.38+.25+.0125−2)=0 to min(.38,.25,.0125)=.0125: zero to 1,250 per 100,000. These mathematical bounds assume the inputs and compatible definitions; they are not plausible demographic estimates. They demonstrate that 14–539 is neither a confidence interval nor an exhaustive possible range.

Appendix C: Source Library

INT-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: YouGov. (2023). Introvert and Extrovert Personality Poll. YouGov.
• Authors: YouGov
• Title: Introvert and Extrovert Personality Poll
• Publication: YouGov
• Publication Year: 2023
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rwpllcwimy/Introverts%20and%20Extroverts_poll_results.pdf
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public PDF opened directly on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=1,000 U.S. adult citizens; unweighted n=999 for the self introverted/extroverted question
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: March 14-16, 2023
• Methodology: Online survey
• Extracted Values: 9% completely introverted; 29% more introverted than extroverted; 31% equal mix; 15% more extroverted than introverted; 7% completely extroverted; 9% not sure.
• Value Type: Observed survey response
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: 38% of respondents self-identified as either completely introverted or more introverted than extroverted.
• Why Included: Provides a public, traceable self-identification estimate for introversion.
• Limitations: Not a formal Big Five personality assessment; self-report only.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: PDF summary p.2, question 5; detailed question 5 p.12; methodology. No raw-data replication claimed.

INT-002

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Nguyen, T.-v. T., Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2022). Who enjoys solitude? Autonomous functioning (but not introversion) predicts self-determined motivation (but not preference) for solitude. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267185. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267185
• Authors: Thuy-vy T. Nguyen; Netta Weinstein; Richard M. Ryan
• Title: Who enjoys solitude? Autonomous functioning (but not introversion) predicts self-determined motivation (but not preference) for solitude
• Publication: PLOS ONE
• Publication Year: 2022
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267185
• Full Source URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267185
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Study 1 n=183 participants, 1,227 day-level units; Study 2 final sample n=270 participants, 1,150 day-level units
• Geography: United States undergraduate samples
• Methodology: Two daily diary studies using Big Five introversion and dispositional autonomy measures
• Extracted Values: Study 1 found no significant association between introversion and self-determined motivation for solitude (beta = .07, p = .220) or preference for solitude (beta = .03, p = .470). Study 2 again did not support introversion as a predictor of preference for solitude after modeling Big Five traits.
• Value Type: Contextual relationship evidence
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Introversion should not be casually equated with preferring or enjoying solitude; autonomy and context matter.
• Why Included: Provides public, peer-reviewed support for treating introversion/solitude claims cautiously.
• Limitations: Undergraduate samples; does not provide a population prevalence estimate for introversion.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Study 1 Participants, Measures, Results; Study 2 Participants and Results. No raw-data replication claimed.

INT-003

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: YouGov. (2016). Introvert or Extrovert. YouGov.
• Authors: YouGov
• Title: Introvert or Extrovert
• Publication: YouGov
• Publication Year: 2016
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/tabs_OP_Introvert_or_Extrovert_20161010.pdf
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public PDF opened directly on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=1,000 U.S. adult citizens; unweighted n=996 for the introvert/extrovert self-rating question
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: October 6-10, 2016
• Methodology: Web-based YouGov survey using opt-in panel sample matching; weighted by gender, age, race, education, political ideology, geographic region, and voter registration; reported margin of error plus or minus 4.8% adjusted for weighting
• Extracted Values: 44% introvert; 31% extrovert; 25% not sure. In a separate item, 43% said an ideal free night would be home alone having quiet time, 45% said a relaxed night with friends and family, 6% said a fun loud night out, and 6% were not sure.
• Value Type: Observed survey response
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Provides a second public self-identification bound for introversion sensitivity analysis.
• Why Included: Replaces the previous unsupported 50% aggressive introversion bound with a traceable public value.
• Limitations: Introvert/extrovert self-labels with an unsure option, not a formal Big Five scale. Different response options and years limit comparison with INT-001; a causal wording effect was not measured.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: PDF pp.1–2, personality label and ideal-night items; final methodology page. No raw-data replication claimed.

INT-004

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 548-567. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
• Authors: Frieder R. Lang; Dennis John; Oliver Lüdtke; Jürgen Schupp; Gert G. Wagner
• Title: Short assessment of the Big Five: robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing
• Publication: Behavior Research Methods
• Publication Year: 2011
• DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: 19,351 SOEP participants in 2005; 13,459 SOEP retest/stability participants in 2009; 1,200 recruited for the related CATI probability sample, with 1,178 complete personality records.
• Geography: Germany
• Date Range: 2005 SOEP assessment; 2009 retest/stability assessment; related telephone survey wave
• Methodology: Psychometric validation of the 15-item BFI-S across face-to-face, self-administered, and computer-assisted telephone interviewing in probability samples
• Extracted Values: The BFI-S was designed for large-scale multidisciplinary surveys. The article reported strong robustness of Big Five self-report measures among young and middle-aged adults, with greater distortion and lower reliability under telephone interviewing among older adults. Face-to-face and self-administered formats were judged better suited than telephone surveys for personality assessment in age-heterogeneous samples.
• Value Type: Measurement framework
• Confidence: Medium-High for measurement-context claims; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate introversion prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Provides formal Big Five measurement context and prevents treating self-labeled introversion as equivalent to a trait-scale extraversion score.
• Why Included: Adds a public, peer-reviewed measurement source for introversion/extraversion assessment without importing an unsupported prevalence estimate.
• Limitations: German samples; measurement-mode study rather than prevalence study; BFI-S is a short Big Five instrument and does not directly define an introversion population cutoff.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods: SOEP and CATI samples; results/discussion on age and survey mode. No raw-data replication claimed.

INT-005

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology and Aging, 1(2), 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144
• Authors: Paul T. Costa, Jr.; Robert R. McCrae; Alan B. Zonderman; Helen E. Barbano; Barry Lebowitz; David M. Larson
• Title: Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness
• Publication: Psychology and Aging
• Publication Year: 1986
• DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Costa/publication/289765359_Cross-sectional_studies_of_personality_in_a_national_sample_II_Stability_in_neuroticism_extraversion_and_openness/links/5f767454a6fdcc00865015ec/Cross-sectional-studies-of-personality-in-a-national-sample-II-Stability-in-neuroticism-extraversion-and-openness.pdf
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144
• Public Access: Yes, through a public PDF mirror; the PDF is labeled public domain.
• Public Access Note: Public PDF mirror and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: 10,063 NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study respondents; 654 Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging comparison participants; NHANES variable-level sample sizes around 9,792 to 9,985 for the NEO items reported in the article
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: NHANES I follow-up and ABLSA comparison data; exact survey years not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Cross-sectional national-sample personality analysis using neuroticism, extraversion, and openness survey measures
• Extracted Values: The abstract reports cross-sectional analyses of 10,063 respondents and a comparison with 654 ABLSA participants. Older subjects were slightly lower in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness, but the reported age/cohort relationships were small. The article states that the findings support predominant personality stability in adulthood and do not support stereotypes of older adults as categorically introverted or conservative.
• Value Type: Measurement and stability evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for national-sample trait-measurement context; Low for prevalence because the source does not define an introversion cutoff or estimate introversion prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports treating introversion/extraversion as formal trait dimensions and prevents treating age-related stereotypes or self-labels as direct prevalence estimates.
• Why Included: Adds a public, national-sample trait-measurement source for extraversion/introversion context.
• Limitations: Older article; not a modern Big Five prevalence estimate; no introversion cutoff; public verification depends on a mirror rather than publisher-open access.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Journal pp.144–149; Abstract, Method, age comparisons and discussion. No raw-data replication claimed.

INT-006

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Tang, A., Beaton, E. A., Schulkin, J., Hall, G. B., & Schmidt, L. A. (2014). Revisiting shyness and sociability: A preliminary investigation of hormone-brain-behavior relations. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01430
• Authors: Alva Tang; Elliott A. Beaton; Jay Schulkin; Geoffrey B. Hall; Louis A. Schmidt
• Title: Revisiting shyness and sociability: A preliminary investigation of hormone-brain-behavior relations
• Publication: Frontiers in Psychology
• Publication Year: 2014
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01430
• Full Source URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01430/full
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public full text opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: 24 selected from 152 undergraduate students; 22 provided usable imaging data (Table 1). Selected and analyzed counts are distinct.
• Geography: Canada / undergraduate sample
• Date Range: Published December 23, 2014; data-collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Preliminary hormone-brain-behavior study using shyness, sociability, event-related fMRI response, and cortisol awakening response measures
• Extracted Values: The article states that shyness and sociability are conceptually and empirically distinct and can be treated as orthogonal dimensions. It emphasizes that shyness is not interchangeable with unsociability or low social interest.
• Value Type: Construct-distinction evidence
• Confidence: Medium for shyness/sociability distinction; Low for prevalence because the selected neuroimaging sample is small and not population-representative.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports separating introversion from shyness, social anxiety, withdrawal, and low sociability when defining the introversion circle.
• Why Included: Prevents the essay from using introversion as an umbrella term for all quiet, shy, or socially cautious behavior.
• Limitations: Small selected undergraduate sample; preliminary neuroimaging design; no introversion prevalence estimate.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Publisher header; Participants; Table 1 footnote; Introduction on shyness/sociability. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Authors: Mark H. Davis
• Title: Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach
• Publication: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Publication Year: 1983
• DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Full Source URL: https://www.academia.edu/1966558/Measuring_individual_differences_in_empathy_Evidence_for_a_multidimensional_approach
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• ResearchGate Public Preview URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215605832_Measuring_individual_differences_in_empathy_Evidence_for_a_multidimensional_approach
• Supporting Public Source URL: https://sjdm.org/dmidi/Interpersonal_Reactivity_Index.html
• Supporting Public PDF: https://backend.fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/EMPATHY-InterpersonalReactivityIndex.pdf
• Public Access: Yes, through a public full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: Public full-text mirror, ResearchGate preview, DOI metadata, and public IRI scale summaries opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, public scale descriptions, and metadata examined.
• Sample Size: 677 male and 667 female University of Texas introductory psychology students; WAIS vocabulary relationships used a smaller subsample of 60 male and 54 female participants
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: Spring 1979 and fall 1980 testing sessions
• Methodology: Psychometric scale development
• Extracted Values: IRI described as a 28-item self-report measure with four seven-item subscales: Fantasy, Perspective-Taking, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress. The article reported distinctive patterns of relationships between the four subscales and measures of social functioning, self-esteem, emotionality, sensitivity to others, and prior unidimensional empathy measures.
• Value Type: Measurement framework
• Confidence: Medium-High for scale structure and article-supported measurement claims; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Empathy can be operationalized multidimensionally; no population prevalence estimate.
• Why Included: Provides a foundational measurement framework for multidimensional empathy.
• Limitations: Public verification depends on a mirror rather than publisher-open access; undergraduate sample; no population prevalence for high empathy.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Journal pp.113–117; IRI description, Participants, Tables 1–3. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-002

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484
• Authors: Renate L. E. P. Reniers; Rhiannon Corcoran; Richard Drake; Nick M. Shryane; Birgit A. Völlm
• Title: The QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy
• Publication: Journal of Personality Assessment
• Publication Year: 2011
• DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2010.528484
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49707971_The_QCAE_a_Questionnaire_of_Cognitive_and_Affective_Empathy
• PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21184334/
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484
• Supporting Public Source URL: https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/the-qcae-a-questionnaire-of-cognitive-and-affective-empathy/
• Public Access: Yes, through an author-uploaded public full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, PubMed abstract, University of Birmingham record, DOI metadata, and EMERGE scale summary opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, abstract, metadata, and public scale summary examined.
• Sample Size: n=640 exploratory factor analysis; n=318 confirmatory factor analysis; n=925 complete QCAE responses across studies
• Geography: United Kingdom / Europe-heavy sample
• Methodology: Psychometric scale development
• Extracted Values: 31-item QCAE; five lower-order factors; broader two-factor cognitive/affective empathy model. Confirmatory fit indices in the public mirror included Model 1: chi-square(80)=193.897, p<.001; RMSEA=.067, 90% CI [.055, .079]; CFI=.947; TLI=.930; SRMR=.030; AIC=273.897. Model 2: chi-square(85)=244.309, p<.001; RMSEA=.077, 90% CI [.066, .088]; CFI=.925; TLI=.908; SRMR=.042; AIC=314.309.
• Value Type: Measurement framework
• Confidence: Medium-High for measurement claims; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Empathy can be measured through cognitive and affective dimensions; no population prevalence estimate.
• Why Included: Supports the essay’s distinction between cognitive and affective empathy.
• Limitations: Public verification depends on an author-uploaded mirror rather than publisher-open access; convenience samples; does not provide a population prevalence for high empathy.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods; Table 3, journal p.90; scale structure and discussion. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-003

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Lima, F. F. de, & Osório, F. de L. (2021). Empathy: Assessment Instruments and Psychometric Quality - A Systematic Literature Review With a Meta-Analysis of the Past Ten Years. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 781346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346
• Authors: Felipe Fernandes de Lima; Flávia de Lima Osório
• Title: Empathy: Assessment Instruments and Psychometric Quality - A Systematic Literature Review With a Meta-Analysis of the Past Ten Years
• Publication: Frontiers in Psychology
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346
• Full Source URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346/full
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Systematic review of 50 studies and 23 assessment instruments
• Geography: International
• Methodology: Systematic review with meta-analysis
• Extracted Values: 50 studies; 23 instruments; 13 proposed new instruments; 18 examined psychometric properties of existing instruments; 19 reported cross-cultural adaptations.
• Value Type: Review evidence
• Confidence: High for the existence and scope of reviewed instruments; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Empathy measurement is diverse, multidimensional, and lacks a single gold-standard instrument; no prevalence rate.
• Why Included: Provides public, full-text measurement context for empathy operationalization.
• Limitations: Does not provide prevalence data for "high empathy."
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods; Results, Table 1; Discussion of psychometric quality. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-004

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: De Vries, C. E., & Hoffmann, I. (2020). The Empathy Effect: Empathy and the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Public Opinion. eupinions / Bertelsmann Stiftung.
• Authors: Catherine E. de Vries; Isabell Hoffmann
• Title: The Empathy Effect: Empathy and the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Public Opinion
• Publication: eupinions / Bertelsmann Stiftung
• Publication Year: 2020
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://eupinions.eu/de/text/the-empathy-effect
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public report page opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Nearly 13,000 EU citizens
• Geography: Representative for the EU27 as a whole, with deeper country samples for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain
• Date Range: June 2020 survey
• Methodology: Public opinion survey using a five-item emotional-empathy scale derived from Davis-style empathic concern items; respondents were classified as high empathy when scoring above average on the scale
• Extracted Values: 55% of EU27 respondents were classified as high empathy and 45% as lower empathy. Country-level high-empathy shares included 65% in Italy, 66% in Spain, 61% in France, 54% in Poland, 49% in Belgium and Germany, and 45% in the Netherlands. Among respondents ages 16-25, 51% were classified as high empathy and 49% as lower empathy.
• Value Type: Observed survey classification
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Demonstrates that a public, representative survey can operationalize "high empathy," but also shows why high-empathy prevalence depends heavily on measurement definition.
• Why Included: Provides a traceable contextual benchmark for high-empathy prevalence rather than leaving the workbook with measurement instruments only.
• Limitations: EU public-opinion context; pandemic-era survey; emotional-empathy subset rather than full cognitive-plus-affective empathy; "high" means above average on the source scale and is not compatible with the essay's stricter top-quartile model.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Introduction and survey description; Figures 1–3 and high-empathy classification paragraph. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-005

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
• Authors: Simon Baron-Cohen; Sally Wheelwright
• Title: The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences
• Publication: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
• Publication Year: 2004
• DOI: 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
• Full Source URL: https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2004_BCandSW_EQ.pdf
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public PDF from the Autism Research Centre opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Study 1: 90 adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism and 90 controls; Study 2: 197 adults from a general population sample
• Geography: United Kingdom
• Methodology: Scale development and group comparison using the 60-item Empathy Quotient questionnaire, with 40 empathy items and 20 filler/control items
• Extracted Values: EQ scores range from 0 to 80. In Study 1, 81.1% of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism scored at or below 30, compared with 12.2% of controls. The abstract reports that Study 2 confirmed previously reported sex differences, with women scoring significantly higher than men.
• Value Type: Measurement and distribution evidence
• Confidence: Medium for EQ scoring and group-comparison values; Low for population prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports empathy-score distribution context and reinforces that public empathy measures produce different operational thresholds.
• Why Included: Adds a public, inspectable empathy-score source without treating its clinical/control cutoffs as a general high-empathy prevalence estimate.
• Limitations: Small clinical/control and volunteer samples; focused on group differences and sex differences, not representative high-empathy prevalence; not directly comparable with IRI, QCAE, or the essay's top-quartile modeled value.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Journal pp.163–175; Study 1 Participants and Table I; Study 2. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-006

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Greenberg, D. M., Warrier, V., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Testing the empathizing-systemizing theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism in half a million people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(48), 12152-12157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811032115
• Authors: David M. Greenberg; Varun Warrier; Carrie Allison; Simon Baron-Cohen
• Title: Testing the empathizing-systemizing theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism in half a million people
• Publication: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
• Publication Year: 2018
• DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1811032115
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328891377_Testing_the_Empathizing-Systemizing_theory_of_sex_differences_and_the_Extreme_Male_Brain_theory_of_autism_in_half_a_million_people
• Publisher DOI URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1811032115
• PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30420503/
• Public Access: Yes, through an author-uploaded public full-text mirror; the article is also listed as CC-BY 4.0.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, PNAS DOI page, PubMed record, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, abstract, table values, and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: Discovery sample n=671,606, including 36,648 autistic people; validation sample n=14,354, including 226 autistic people
• Geography: Online, mostly United Kingdom / Channel 4 recruitment; exact geographic distribution not extracted in this pass
• Date Range: Discovery data were collected in spring 2017; validation data range not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Large online self-report study using short Empathy Quotient, Systemizing Quotient, Autism Spectrum Quotient, and Sensory Perception Quotient forms, with brain-type classification using D-scores
• Extracted Values: In the discovery sample, controls included 241,355 males and 393,600 females; autistic participants included 18,188 males and 18,460 females. Control brain-type frequencies were Extreme Type E: 0.75% male and 2.89% female; Type E: 23.88% male and 40.01% female; Type B: 30.99% male and 29.81% female; Type S: 40.24% male and 25.59% female; Extreme Type S: 4.15% male and 1.69% female. The article defines empathy as including both cognitive empathy and the affective drive to respond appropriately.
• Value Type: Distribution and measurement evidence
• Confidence: Medium for EQ/SQ distribution claims; Low for prevalence because Type E means empathy score exceeds systemizing score and is not equivalent to high empathy.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports cognitive-plus-affective empathy framing and shows that large public datasets can classify empathy-related dimensions, while preventing Type E frequencies from being misused as high-empathy prevalence.
• Why Included: Adds a public, very large empathy-systemizing source to the source library without changing the modeled high-empathy assumption.
• Limitations: Online self-selected sample; Type E is relational to systemizing rather than a high-empathy cutoff; not a direct prevalence estimate for the essay's construct.
• Source consistency: The discovery headline n=671,606 differs by three from the reported control/autistic sex-category total of 671,603. The source does not resolve that discrepancy here; no exclusions are inferred. Category frequencies are retained as reported, not converted into representative high-empathy prevalence.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Full-text Table 3; Methods Participants; introductory discussion of distributions. No raw-data replication claimed.

EMP-007

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Melchers, M. C., Li, M., Haas, B. W., Reuter, M., Bischoff, L., & Montag, C. (2016). Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290
• Authors: Martin C. Melchers; Mei Li; Brian W. Haas; Martin Reuter; Lena Bischoff; Christian Montag
• Title: Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries
• Publication: Frontiers in Psychology
• Publication Year: 2016
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290
• Full Source URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290/full
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public full text opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Methods: China n=438; Germany n=304; Spain n=62; United States n=92. Spain gender counts in the demographic table sum to 63, an unresolved source discrepancy.
• Geography: China, Germany, Spain, and United States
• Date Range: Published March 8, 2016; data-collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Cross-national questionnaire study using the Empathy Quotient, Interpersonal Reactivity Index subscales, and Big Five personality measures
• Extracted Values: The article reports broadly similar empathy-personality patterns across four countries. Agreeableness was the most important predictor for central empathy measures, explaining roughly 11% to 18% of variance in empathy responding, and conscientiousness also contributed to EQ prediction. Reported Big Five models explained 14% to 46% of EQ variance, 5% to 22% of IRI component variance, and 24% to 36% of IRI personal-distress variance. Table 2 also reports positive extraversion associations with EQ (r=.306), perspective-taking (r=.117), and empathic concern (r=.152). These are direct counterevidence to a simple empathy–introversion hypothesis; the study did not test empathy-driven social withdrawal.
• Value Type: Personality-association evidence
• Confidence: Medium for association direction; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate high-empathy population rates.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports caution against treating empathy as simply introverted or extroverted; empathy is associated more clearly with other Big Five dimensions in this source.
• Why Included: Adds direct, public evidence for the empathy/personality part of the essay's argument.
• Limitations: Convenience samples; correlational design; not a high-empathy prevalence source.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Publisher header; Participants; Tables 2–5; Discussion and Limitations. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Moors, A. C., Gesselman, A. N., & Garcia, J. R. (2021). Desire, Familiarity, and Engagement in Polyamory: Results From a National Sample of Single Adults in the United States. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 619640. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619640
• Authors: Amy C. Moors; Amanda N. Gesselman; Justin R. Garcia
• Title: Desire, Familiarity, and Engagement in Polyamory: Results From a National Sample of Single Adults in the United States
• Publication: Frontiers in Psychology
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619640
• Full Source URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619640/full
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=3,438
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: Not specified in extracted notes; recruited via ResearchNow opt-in internet panels
• Methodology: United States Census-based quota sample of single adults
• Extracted Values: 10.7% previous engagement in polyamory; 16.8% desire to engage in polyamory; 6.5% knows someone who is/has engaged in polyamory; 14.2% respect polyamorous people but are not personally interested.
• Value Type: Observed survey response
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Provides public, source-specific values for lifetime engagement and desire regarding polyamory among single U.S. adults.
• Why Included: This is the best currently verified source for polyamory-specific prevalence, familiarity, and interest.
• Limitations: Not current relationship status; excludes married or partnered adults; quota sample rather than probability sample.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods: participants and polyamory items; Table 2; Results prevalence/desire. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-002

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T.-C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open Relationships, Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy, and Monogamy Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1439-1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7
• Authors: Ethan Czuy Levine; Debby Herbenick; Omar Martinez; Tsung-Chieh Fu; Brian Dodge
• Title: Open Relationships, Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy, and Monogamy Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2018
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7
• Full Source URL: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54149/cdc_54149_DS1.pdf
• Repository URL: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54149
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: CDC Stacks public PDF opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Analytic n=2,270 adults currently in relationships, after exclusions from the initial n=3,138 adult respondents.
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: 2012 survey data
• Methodology: Nationally representative probability sample; multinomial logistic regression and linear/logistic regression
• Extracted Values: Among currently partnered respondents: 89% monogamy, 4% open relationships, and 8% nonconsensual nonmonogamy (rounded values). Data were collected in 2012; publication was in 2018. These are not all-adult polyamory rates.
• Value Type: Observed survey response
• Confidence: High for open-relationship prevalence; Low for polyamory-specific inference because the measure is broader than polyamory.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Provides current-status open-relationship prevalence and reinforces the need to distinguish consensual from nonconsensual nonmonogamy.
• Why Included: Provides a verified current relationship-structure benchmark.
• Limitations: Measures open relationships, not emotionally significant polyamory; 2012 data.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Author manuscript pp.5–6, Participants and relationship structure; Results and discussion. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-003

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P. M., & Maiochi, F. H. (2021). Defining Polyamory: A Thematic Analysis of Lay People's Definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y
• Authors: Daniel Cardoso; Patricia M. Pascoal; Francisco Hertel Maiochi
• Title: Defining Polyamory: A Thematic Analysis of Lay People's Definitions
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: 463 valid answers from 609 initial responses; subgroup comparison n=55 CNM in-group and n=157 monogamous/unwilling out-group
• Geography: Portuguese-language web survey; exact country distribution not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Exploratory qualitative thematic analysis of responses to "What does polyamory mean?"
• Extracted Values: Participants defined polyamory mostly as relationship behaviors, followed by the potential for multiple relationships or feelings for multiple people. Definitions also included emotional, sexual, and ethical aspects. Participants in CNM relationships were more likely to include interpersonal feelings, ethics, and consent, and emphasized the non-central role of sex.
• Value Type: Definition evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports defining polyamory around multiple relationships/feelings with emotional, sexual, ethical, and consent-related dimensions, and supports distinguishing polyamory from broader open/CNM categories.
• Why Included: Provides public, peer-reviewed definition evidence for the essay's scope section.
• Limitations: Convenience sample; Portuguese-language survey; lay definitions rather than a formal diagnostic or population measure.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods and thematic Results; publisher correction notice, 30 July 2021. No raw-data replication claimed.

CNM-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675
• Authors: M. L. Haupert; Amanda N. Gesselman; Amy C. Moors; Helen E. Fisher; Justin R. Garcia
• Title: Prevalence of Experiences With Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships: Findings From Two National Samples of Single Americans
• Publication: Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy
• Publication Year: 2017
• DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675
• Full Source URL: https://www.academia.edu/32250223/Prevalence_of_Experiences_With_Consensual_Nonmonogamous_Relationships_Findings_From_Two_National_Samples_of_Single_Americans
• PubMed Search URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=10.1080%2F0092623X.2016.1178675
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675
• Public Access: Yes, through a public full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: Public Academia.edu mirror, PubMed search, Crossref metadata, and DOI record checked on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, abstract, and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: Study 1 n=3,905; Study 2 n=4,813
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: 2013 Singles in America survey data for Study 1; 2014 Singles in America survey data for Study 2
• Methodology: Population-based cross-sectional surveys using ResearchNow internet panels and census-based quota samples of single adults
• Extracted Values: Detailed source counts give Study 1: 21.2% (826/3,905) and Study 2: 21.9% (1,056/4,813) reporting lifetime CNM experience. The abstract reverses the two study percentages; the detailed participant counts and Discussion support the assignments used here. CNM means agreed sexual nonexclusivity, including polyamory, swinging, open relationships, and unlabeled arrangements, rather than current polyamory alone.
• Value Type: Observed survey response from public full-text mirror
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Context only: broader CNM lifetime engagement is substantially higher than polyamory-specific current-status estimates and should not be substituted for emotionally significant polyamory.
• Why Included: Helps distinguish polyamory from broader CNM in the literature.
• Limitations: Public verification depends on a mirror rather than publisher-open access; broader than polyamory; single adults only; lifetime experience rather than current status; not active in the overlap estimate except as context.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Full-text Study 1 and Study 2 Participants; Discussion; compare Abstract. No raw-data replication claimed.

CNM-002

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: S. Gupta, M. Tarantino, and C. Sanner, “A Scoping Review of Research on Polyamory and Consensual Non-monogamy: Implications for a More Inclusive Family Science,” Journal of Family Theory & Review 16, no. 2 (2024): 151–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12546. First published online November 27, 2023.
• Authors: Shivangi Gupta; Mari Tarantino; Caroline Sanner
• Title: A scoping review of research on polyamory and consensual non-monogamy: Implications for a more inclusive family science
• Publication: Journal of Family Theory & Review
• Publication Year: 2024 (online 2023)
• DOI: 10.1111/jftr.12546
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375966693_A_scoping_review_of_research_on_polyamory_and_consensual_non-monogamy_Implications_for_a_more_inclusive_family_science
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12546
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate full-text mirror; article is listed as CC BY 4.0.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, DOI metadata, and publisher DOI path opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: 209 empirical studies included in the scoping review
• Geography: Most reviewed studies were conducted in North America (147; 70.33%) or Europe (46; 22.01%); smaller numbers came from Australia/New Zealand, Asia, South America, and multi-continent samples
• Date Range: Initial search plus follow-up through April 2023
• Methodology: Scoping review using Academic Search Complete, PsycInfo, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, follow-up search, and hand-search; data extraction tracked study geography, questions, design, sample composition, named datasets, longitudinal status, key findings, and recommendations
• Extracted Values: The review included 209 empirical studies. It identified sharp research growth: 10 articles in the 1970s, three in the 1980s, none in the 1990s, 12 from 2000-2009, 94 from 2010-2019, and 90 from 2020 to mid-2023. Methods were quantitative in 117 studies (55.98%), qualitative in 78 (37.32%), and mixed-methods in 14 (6.69%). Seven broad research categories were identified: outcomes, attitudes/perceptions, antecedents, relational processes, identity development, families/parenting, and politics/discourse.
• Value Type: Review evidence
• Confidence: High for field-scope claims; Low for prevalence because it is not a prevalence study.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the claim that polyamory/CNM research is rapidly growing, methodologically mixed, and still uneven across theory, geography, race/ethnicity, and large-scale datasets.
• Why Included: Provides a public, recent, field-level map so the essay's source library can distinguish individual findings from the broader evidence base.
• Limitations: Review of published empirical literature rather than a primary dataset; public verification depends on a ResearchGate mirror.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods; Results: timing, research methods, seven research domains. No raw-data replication claimed.

CNM-003

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: J. R. Anderson et al., “Countering the Monogamy-Superiority Myth: A Meta-analysis of the Differences in Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction as a Function of Relationship Orientation,” The Journal of Sex Research 63, no. 1 (2026): 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988. First published online March 24, 2025.
• Authors: 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
• Publication: The Journal of Sex Research
• Publication Year: 2026 (online 2025)
• DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390144672_Countering_the_Monogamy-Superiority_Myth_A_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Differences_in_Relationship_Satisfaction_and_Sexual_Satisfaction_as_a_Function_of_Relationship_Orientation
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2462988
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate full-text mirror; article is listed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, publisher DOI path, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: 29 relationship-satisfaction effects with n=18,658; 17 sexual-satisfaction effects with n=12,962
• Geography: Mostly Western study base; exact country distribution not extracted in this pass
• Date Range: Article published online March 24, 2025; included-study date range not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Meta-analysis of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction by relationship orientation, coding Hedge's g effect sizes and checking subgroup moderators
• Extracted Values: Published overall relationship-satisfaction result: g=−.05, 95% CI [−.20,.10], p=.496. No overall advantage was detected; this is not evidence of universal equivalence. Reported outcome totals are 29 relationship-satisfaction effects (18,658 participants) and 17 sexual-satisfaction effects (12,962 participants); overlapping outcome samples must not be added. The abstract reports 35 studies, while Results describes 32 records. The relationship-direction counts (19 null, six favoring monogamy, six favoring non-monogamy) sum to 31 rather than the reported 29 effects. These source inconsistencies remain unresolved. Some sexual-satisfaction subgroup results favored polyamorous or swinging participants, but the study is not a prevalence source.
• Value Type: Meta-analytic relationship-outcome evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for broad relationship-satisfaction comparison; Low for source-level prevalence or emotionally significant polyamory estimates.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports caution against assuming monogamy has a uniform satisfaction advantage over non-monogamy, while keeping relationship satisfaction separate from the essay's overlap estimate.
• Why Included: Adds recent quantitative synthesis relevant to the essay's relationship-context claims.
• Limitations: Broad non-monogamy categories; public verification depends on a ResearchGate mirror; not a prevalence source; subgroup effects should not be overgeneralized.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Results: characteristics, relationship-satisfaction meta-analysis and subgroup analyses. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-004

Source Status: Limited

• Full Citation: Flicker, S. M., Sancier-Barbosa, F., Moors, A. C., & Browne, L. (2021). A closer look at relationship structures: Relationship satisfaction and attachment among people who practice hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 1401-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01875-9
• Authors: Sharon M. Flicker; Flavia Sancier-Barbosa; Amy C. Moors; Lindsay Browne
• Title: A closer look at relationship structures: Relationship satisfaction and attachment among people who practice hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01875-9
• Full Source URL: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/psychology_articles/246/
• Public PDF URL: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=psychology_articles
• Public Access: Limited: publisher abstract and institutional metadata; full author/publisher text could not be inspected in the September 10, 2026 audit.
• Public Access Note: September 10, 2026: publisher abstract and institutional metadata accessible, but no readable full manuscript obtained. The listed Chapman download is a research lead, not currently verified full-text access.
• Inspected Content: Limited Verification: Abstract Only. Historical full-text verification could not be reproduced; full methods, tables, and attenuation tests remain unverified.
• Sample Size: Study 1 n=225; Study 2 n=360
• Geography: Online polyamory samples; exact geography not extracted
• Date Range: Article published in 2021; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Two-sample comparative study of relationship satisfaction and attachment security among people practicing hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory
• Extracted Values: The abstract reports two samples (225 and 360), greater between-partner variation in attachment in hierarchical relationships, and lower satisfaction/security in some hierarchical comparisons. These are abstract-reported directions only; the full models, subgroup definitions, and attenuation with time could not be checked. Retained as a research lead, not primary evidence for uninspected findings.
• Value Type: Limited research lead
• Confidence: Low for substantive interpretation until the full source is inspected; no prevalence inference.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: No uninspected finding supplies the primary narrative’s empirical support. The abstract identifies relationship structure as a topic for further verification.
• Why Included: Preserves a relevant relationship-structure research lead and the unresolved access limitation.
• Limitations: Full methods/results uninspected; abstract-only research lead; no prevalence estimate; exact geography and collection dates not verified.
• September 2026 verification: Limited verification on September 10, 2026; full source not inspected: Publisher Abstract; Chapman repository metadata; Sacramento institutional metadata. Retained as a research lead; no uninspected result is treated as verified evidence.

POLY-005

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Moors, A. C., Ryan, W., & Chopik, W. J. (2019). Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023
• Authors: Amy C. Moors; William Ryan; William J. Chopik
• Title: Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning
• Publication: Personality and Individual Differences
• Publication Year: 2019
• DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023
• Full Source URL: https://willsryan.com/uploads/3/4/9/7/34971008/moors_ryan___chopik__2019_.pdf
• Public PDF URL: https://willsryan.com/uploads/3/4/9/7/34971008/moors_ryan___chopik__2019_.pdf
• Public Access: Yes, through the author manuscript hosted by William Ryan.
• Public Access Note: The full author PDF at William Ryan’s site was inspected September 10, 2026 after the Chapman repository route did not yield readable full text. Tables 3–4 and Results 4.2.1–4.2.2 were checked.
• Inspected Content: Yes; full author manuscript, including the relevant Methods, Results, and tables.
• Sample Size: n=357 people engaged in polyamory with at least two concurrent romantic partners
• Geography: Online community sample; exact geography not extracted
• Date Range: Article published in 2019; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Community sample study of attachment and relational functioning with two concurrent romantic partners
• Extracted Values: Participants generally reported low attachment avoidance and anxiety. Avoidance had broader negative within-partner associations with relationship functioning. Anxiety was not significantly associated with either partner’s sexual satisfaction or partner 2 commitment; outcomes must not be collapsed into one universal result. Adjusted models found no cross-partner associations, although a bivariate cross-partner association was present. Tables 3–4 and Results 4.2.1–4.2.2 support relationship-specific associations, not causal effects or the absence of every form of spillover.
• Value Type: Attachment and relational-functioning evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for relationship-specific attachment findings; Low for prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the idea that polyamorous bonds can be emotionally distinct and attachment-specific, which matters for evaluating secure compersion as a condition rather than a guaranteed trait.
• Why Included: Adds public evidence at the intersection of polyamory, attachment, and relationship functioning.
• Limitations: Author manuscript rather than final publisher PDF; online community sample; no prevalence estimate; exact geography and collection dates not extracted.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Author PDF Tables 3–4 and sections 4.2.1–4.2.2, journal pp.107–108. No raw-data replication claimed.

OPEN-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 695-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667
• Authors: Nichole Fairbrother; Trevor A. Hart; Malcolm Fairbrother
• Title: Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults
• Publication: The Journal of Sex Research
• Publication Year: 2019
• DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333702975_Open_Relationship_Prevalence_Characteristics_and_Correlates_in_a_Nationally_Representative_Sample_of_Canadian_Adults
• PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932711/
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667
• Supporting Institutional Summary URL: https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/more-than-one-in-10-canadians-want-to-be-in-an-open-relationship/
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate public full-text mirror and UBC institutional summary; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, PubMed abstract, DOI metadata, publisher page, and UBC institutional summary checked on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, abstract, metadata, and institutional summary inspected.
• Sample Size: n=2,003
• Geography: Canada
• Date Range: 2017 survey data
• Methodology: Nationally representative online questionnaire
• Extracted Values: 2.4% of all participants reported currently being in an open relationship, 95% CI [1.8, 3.0]. Among participants currently in a romantic relationship, 4.0% reported current open-relationship engagement, 95% CI [2.9, 5.2]. Lifetime open-relationship engagement was 19.6%, 95% CI [17.9, 21.5]. Men reported higher lifetime engagement than women, 24.7% versus 14.9%. Twelve percent reported open relationship as their ideal relationship type. Open relationships did not significantly differ from monogamous relationships in relationship satisfaction, while current/preferred relationship-type match was associated with greater satisfaction.
• Value Type: Observed survey response from public full-text mirror
• Confidence: Medium-High
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Provides non-U.S. context for open-relationship current status, prior engagement, and interest, while reinforcing that open relationships are broader than emotionally significant polyamory.
• Why Included: Adds a publicly traceable, nationally representative benchmark outside the United States.
• Limitations: Public verification depends partly on a public mirror rather than publisher-open access; measures open relationships rather than polyamory; not active in the overlap estimate except as context.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Journal pp.698–701; Results prevalence, Table 2 and relationship satisfaction; Table 4. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-006

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Tatum, A. K., Flicker, S. M., Albarak, N., Schroeder, J. M., Moomaw, A., Ugurluoglu, I., Whitman, A., Wiggins, A., Davis, D., & Fisher, R. (2026). "I Know How to Identify and Communicate My Needs": A qualitative study of the self-perceived strengths of people in polyamorous relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 52, e70119. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70119
• Authors: Alexander K. Tatum; Sharon M. Flicker; N. Albarak; J. M. Schroeder; A. Moomaw; I. Ugurluoglu; A. Whitman; A. Wiggins; D. Davis; R. Fisher
• Title: "I Know How to Identify and Communicate My Needs": A qualitative study of the self-perceived strengths of people in polyamorous relationships
• Publication: Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
• Publication Year: 2026
• DOI: 10.1111/jmft.70119
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400874283_I_Know_How_to_Identify_and_Communicate_My_Needs_A_Qualitative_Study_of_the_Self-Perceived_Strengths_of_People_in_Polyamorous_Relationships
• Repository URL: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/fppsych/116/
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70119
• Public Access: Yes, through ResearchGate public full text and institutional repository metadata; article is listed as CC BY 4.0.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full text, Illinois State repository record, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full text and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: 132 recorded responses; final analytic sample n=63
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: Published in 2026; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses from adults with current or prior polyamorous relationship experience
• Extracted Values: Inclusion criteria required age 18 or older, United States residence, and current or prior involvement in at least one polyamorous relationship. The final sample had mean age 34.7 years, range 20-69, and was 82.5% White; pluralities identified as women (49.2%) and bisexual (46.0%). Thematic analysis identified self-perceived strengths including personality traits, willingness to challenge mononormative socialization, ability to manage difficult emotions, experiencing compersion and/or low or well-managed jealousy, strong communication skills, lessons from prior relationships, self-help/professional resources, and financial privilege.
• Value Type: Strengths and resilience evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for the reported themes; Low for prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the center-of-overlap section and counters deficit-only narratives by documenting how some polyamorous participants describe skills, resources, and compersion/jealousy management as navigation strengths.
• Why Included: Adds a recent, public, polyamory-specific qualitative source that directly touches communication, emotion management, compersion, and mononormativity.
• Limitations: Reddit recruitment; small and mostly White U.S. sample; qualitative self-perception study; no prevalence estimate; source speaks to strengths among respondents, not requirements for polyamory.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Full-text author header; Method 2.1; Results theme table and narrative. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-007

Source Status: Limited

• Full Citation: Banaszkiewicz, P. (2025). Personality differences between individuals involved in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Sexualities, 28(3), 1207-1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607241252985
• Authors: Paulina Banaszkiewicz
• Title: Personality differences between individuals involved in polyamorous and monogamous relationships
• Publication: Sexualities
• Publication Year: 2025; first published online May 6, 2024
• DOI: 10.1177/13634607241252985
• Full Source URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607241252985
• Public Access: Limited
• Public Access Note: SAGE abstract, metadata, DOI, references, article information, ResearchGate request-full-text route, and UMCS publication record opened or rechecked on 2026-06-22 and 2026-06-25; full article text was not publicly verified in this pass.
• Inspected Content: Limited; public abstract and metadata inspected.
• Limited Verification: Abstract and metadata only; full article text not publicly verified.
• Sample Size: n=258, including 119 polyamorous participants; public abstract reports polyamorous subgroup as 70 women, 43 men, and six nonbinary participants, ages 18-52
• Geography: Not extracted from public abstract
• Date Range: First published online May 6, 2024; issue published March 2025
• Methodology: Comparative study of Big Five personality factors, risk taking, and ambiguity tolerance
• Extracted Values: The public abstract reports that polyamorous participants scored higher on openness to experience, risk taking in social and ethical domains, and ambiguity tolerance, and lower on conscientiousness. The abstract frames polyamory as a type of CNM involving multiple simultaneous emotional relationships.
• Value Type: Limited personality-context evidence
• Confidence: Medium for abstract-supported claims; Low for detailed personality interpretation until full text is public.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports a cautious claim that the public polyamory-specific personality evidence found in this pass points more toward openness/ambiguity tolerance/conscientiousness than toward a simple extroversion requirement.
• Why Included: Directly addresses personality differences between polyamorous and monogamous participants, but is kept Limited because only abstract-level evidence was publicly inspectable.
• Limitations: Abstract-only public verification; no public full-text inspection; geography, instruments, effect sizes, and full model details not extracted; no introversion/extraversion prevalence estimate in the public abstract.
• September 2026 verification: Limited verification on September 10, 2026; full source not inspected: Publisher Abstract and bibliographic header; author and ResearchGate records. Retained as a research lead; no uninspected result is treated as verified evidence.

POLY-008

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Ó Beaglaoich, C. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 4(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.631571
• Authors: Todd Graham Morrison; Dylan Beaulieu; Melanie Brockman; Cormac Ó Beaglaoich
• Title: A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality?
• Publication: Psychology & Sexuality
• Publication Year: 2013; published online November 17, 2011
• DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2011.631571
• Full Source URL: https://research-groups.usask.ca/morrison/documents/42.pdf
• ResearchGate URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254346976_A_Comparison_of_Polyamorous_and_Monoamorous_Persons_Are_There_Differences_in_Indices_of_Relationship_Well-Being_and_Sociosexuality
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.631571
• Public Access: Yes, through an author/institutional public PDF and ResearchGate public full-text route; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: University of Saskatchewan public PDF, ResearchGate public full text, publisher DOI path, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public PDF and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: Survey n=390; main comparison sample n=284 self-identified polyamorous and monoamorous men and women after excluding other-gender respondents from the men/women comparison
• Geography: Online polyamory recruitment and chain-referral recruitment; exact participant geography not extracted
• Date Range: Received May 16, 2011; final version received October 10, 2011; published online November 17, 2011; issue year 2013
• Methodology: Convenience-sample online survey comparing self-identified polyamorous and monoamorous respondents on psychometric indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality
• Extracted Values: The survey included 187 self-identified polyamorous respondents, 114 monogamous respondents, and smaller mixed/theoretical categories. The abstract reports that both polyamorous men and women evidenced greater intimacy than monoamorous counterparts. Polyamorous men also reported stronger attitudinal and behavioral sociosexuality, meaning more favorable attitudes toward uncommitted/casual sexual activity and a greater number of casual sexual partners. Reported differences remained statistically significant after controlling for age, income, educational attainment, and sexual orientation.
• Value Type: Relationship well-being and sociosexuality evidence
• Confidence: Medium for direction of reported comparison findings; Low for prevalence or broad generalization.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Adds early public comparison evidence that polyamory research has examined relationship well-being directly and that relational/sexual attitudes should not be collapsed into personality type or prevalence.
• Why Included: Relevant to the essay's polyamory context, stereotype counterarguments, and relationship-quality framing.
• Limitations: Convenience sample; online and chain-referral recruitment; older study; gender-comparison structure excluded other-gender respondents from the main men/women comparison; no introversion, empathy, compersion capacity, or prevalence estimate.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Author PDF Methods, relationship categories, Results with covariate-adjusted comparisons. No raw-data replication claimed.

POLY-009

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Patrick Boudreau et al., “Time Management, Stigma, Jealousy, and More: A Content Analysis of the Challenges of Polyamory,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 52, no. 5 (2026): 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2026.2678253. First published online May 25, 2026.
• Authors: Patrick Boudreau; Amy C. Moors; Liz McConnell; Kalyn Su; Sophie Camilleri
• Title: Time Management, Stigma, Jealousy, and More: A Content Analysis of the Challenges of Polyamory
• Publication: Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy
• Publication Year: 2026; published online May 25, 2026
• DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2026.2678253
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/405231977_Time_Management_Stigma_Jealousy_and_More_A_Content_Analysis_of_the_Challenges_of_Polyamory
• Publisher DOI URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2026.2678253
• Public Access: Yes, through an author-uploaded ResearchGate public full-text route; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full text, publisher DOI page, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-25.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full text and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: 219 people currently in a polyamorous relationship; 763 open-ended responses.
• Geography: Online sample; exact participant geography not extracted in this pass.
• Date Range: Published online May 25, 2026; data-collection dates not extracted in this pass.
• Methodology: Content analysis of open-ended survey responses about challenges in polyamorous relationship structures.
• Extracted Values: The four most frequently reported major challenges were time management issues (72.6%), stigma and negative evaluations (48.0%), jealousy (35.2%), and the emotionally demanding nature of polyamory (27.4%). Additional reported themes included communication issues (21%), disclosure and concealment concerns (15%), legal recognition and protection issues (10%), lack of representation and role models (9.1%), insecurity (8.7%), dating issues (7.3%), and financial burden (5.5%).
• Value Type: Counterargument and contextual challenge evidence.
• Confidence: Medium for reported themes in this sample; Low for population prevalence or generalization.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Preserves evidence that polyamory can involve substantial logistical, social, emotional, communication, disclosure, legal, representational, insecurity, dating, and financial challenges. This complicates any overly romanticized interpretation of the overlap.
• Why Included: The essay needs contradictory and complicating evidence, not only strengths or compatibility evidence. This source is recent, polyamory-specific, publicly inspectable, and directly relevant to counterarguments about emotional labor, complexity, jealousy, and stigma.
• Limitations: The sample is not nationally representative; responses came from people currently in polyamorous relationships; the prompt asked about challenges, so the percentages should not be interpreted as general prevalence of all polyamory experiences; it does not measure introversion, empathy, compersion capacity, or four-way overlap.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods; Table 1 and Results challenge themes, journal p.536 / manuscript p.7. No raw-data replication claimed.

CNM-004

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Rodrigues, D. L. (2024). A narrative review of the dichotomy between the social views of non-monogamy and the experiences of consensual non-monogamous people. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(3), 931-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02786-1
• Authors: David L. Rodrigues
• Title: A narrative review of the dichotomy between the social views of non-monogamy and the experiences of consensual non-monogamous people
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-023-02786-1
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02786-1
• Public Access: Yes; Springer lists the article as open access.
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access article page, DOI metadata, and ResearchGate public full-text mirror opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: N/A; narrative review
• Geography: Mostly Western CNM literature
• Date Range: Received September 15, 2022; accepted December 12, 2023; published January 4, 2024
• Methodology: Narrative review drawing from the consensual non-monogamies literature list, APA Division 44 Committee on CNM resources, and academic database searches
• Extracted Values: The abstract states that CNM people are targets of stigmatization despite research showing comparable relationship functioning and quality between CNM and monogamous relationships, and that CNM people can experience internalized CNM negativity under mononormative pressure. The introduction reports that some studies suggest about 3%-7% of adults may currently be in a CNM relationship and up to 25% may have had past CNM experiences, but the review is not itself a primary prevalence source.
• Value Type: Review and counterargument evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for review-level framing; Low for any pooled prevalence inference.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports counterarguments against mononormative stereotypes and helps distinguish stigma/social scripts from actual relational functioning evidence.
• Why Included: Provides recent open-access review context for stigma, relationship quality, and internalized negativity around CNM.
• Limitations: Narrative review; not a systematic review or primary dataset; prevalence figures are secondary summaries and should not replace primary prevalence sources.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Full-text sections on social views, relational functioning and internalized CNM negativity. No raw-data replication claimed.

CNM-005

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Moors, A. C., Selterman, D. F., & Conley, T. D. (2017). Personality correlates of desire to engage in consensual non-monogamy among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(4), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2017.1367982
• Authors: Amy C. Moors; Dylan F. Selterman; Terri D. Conley
• Title: Personality correlates of desire to engage in consensual non-monogamy among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals
• Publication: Journal of Bisexuality
• Publication Year: 2017
• DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2017.1367982
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320319415_Personality_Correlates_of_Desire_to_Engage_in_Consensual_Non-monogamy_among_Lesbian_Gay_and_Bisexual_Individuals
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2017.1367982
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate author-uploaded public full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full text, author publication page, publisher DOI path, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: Final analytic sample n=108 LGB individuals; 908 heterosexual respondents and 13 LGB respondents currently in CNM relationships were excluded from the primary analyses
• Geography: United States
• Date Range: Published online October 10, 2017; data-collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Online survey recruited from Craigslist and Facebook for a study of attitudes toward romantic relationships; measured Big Five traits, attachment, attitudes toward CNM, and willingness to engage in CNM
• Extracted Values: In bivariate correlations, openness correlated with more positive CNM attitudes, r = .31, p < .01, while no other personality variable correlated with the CNM outcomes. In hierarchical regressions, Big Five traits accounted for 20% of variance in CNM attitudes and 14% of variance in willingness to engage in CNM when entered before attachment dimensions. High openness and low conscientiousness predicted more positive CNM attitudes and greater willingness; low extraversion predicted attitudes in one model but became marginal after adding attachment. Attachment dimensions did not explain additional variance once Big Five traits were included for the key models.
• Value Type: Personality-attitude evidence
• Confidence: Medium for the reported association pattern; Low for prevalence or engagement inference.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the claim that public CNM personality evidence does not reduce interest in CNM to extroversion and instead repeatedly implicates openness and conscientiousness.
• Why Included: Directly tests Big Five personality correlates of CNM attitudes and willingness in a sexual-minority sample.
• Limitations: Small LGB sample; willingness and attitudes, not actual engagement; broad CNM categories; short Big Five inventory; public verification depends on a ResearchGate mirror.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Methods participants; Tables 1–2; hierarchical regressions and discussion. No raw-data replication claimed.

PERS-001

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Lecuona, O., Suero, M., Wingen, T., & de Rivas, S. (2021). Does "open" rhyme with "special"? Comparing personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy of monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1537-1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x
• Authors: Oscar Lecuona; Mar Suero; Tobias Wingen; Sara de Rivas
• Title: Does "open" rhyme with "special"? Comparing personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance and jealousy of monogamous and non-monogamous practitioners
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351293960_Does_Open_Rhyme_with_Special_Comparing_Personality_Sexual_Satisfaction_Dominance_and_Jealousy_of_Monogamous_and_Non-monogamous_Practitioners
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01865-x
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate author-uploaded public full-text mirror; publisher page provides abstract/metadata and may require access for full text.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full text, Springer abstract/metadata, DOI metadata, and OSF preprint/data route opened on 2026-06-22.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, publisher abstract/metadata, and public preprint/data route inspected.
• Sample Size: n=372 Spanish participants, including 193 non-monogamous practitioners
• Geography: Spain / Spanish-speaking online sample
• Date Range: Received July 4, 2019; accepted October 12, 2020; published May 3, 2021
• Methodology: Cross-sectional online survey comparing monogamous, cheating-monogamous, and non-monogamous practitioners on personality, sexual satisfaction, dominance, and jealousy
• Extracted Values: Public full text reports relationship-style counts including monogamy 158 (42.8%), cheating monogamy 18 (4.9%), swinger 14 (3.8%), open 42 (11.4%), hierarchical polyamory 42 (11.4%), egalitarian polyamory 33 (8.9%), relationship anarchy 44 (11.9%), and non-monogamy total 193 (52.3%). The sample was mostly cis-female (70.7%), median age 23, college degree or above 72.4%, and heterosexual 54.3%. Results reported no significant differences for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, sexual satisfaction, dominance, or jealousy, while non-monogamous participants were more open and less conscientious; effects were small.
• Value Type: Personality-context evidence
• Confidence: Medium for broad CNM personality comparison; Low for polyamory-specific inference.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Counters the assumption that CNM or polyamory should be treated as straightforwardly extroverted; the relevant public evidence points more consistently toward openness and conscientiousness, with broad CNM scope caveats.
• Why Included: Adds a public full-text personality comparison that is directly relevant to the introversion/polyamory and personality sections.
• Limitations: Broad CNM rather than polyamory-only; young, female-skewed, Spanish-speaking sample; cross-sectional self-report; not a prevalence source; authors caution against representativeness and very-small-effect claims.
• Source consistency: Reported relationship-style counts total 369 rather than the stated n=372. The generic non-monogamy category (18) completes the stated CNM total of 193. The source does not explain the three-person discrepancy; no missingness or exclusion explanation is assumed. Nonsignificant differences do not establish equivalence.
• September 2026 verification: Relevant full-source content inspected on September 10, 2026: Full-text Method; Table 1 demographics; trait comparisons and discussion. No raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-001

Source Status: Limited

• Full Citation: Flicker, S. M., Vaughan, M. D., & Meyers, L. S. (2021). Feeling Good About Your Partners' Relationships: Compersion in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1569-1585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01985-y
• Authors: Sharon M. Flicker; Michelle D. Vaughan; Lawrence S. Meyers
• Title: Feeling Good About Your Partners' Relationships: Compersion in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-01985-y
• Full Source URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01985-y
• Supporting Public Source URL: https://scholars.csus.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Feeling-Good-About-Your-Partners-Relationships/99257872084001671
• Public Preview URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352040884_Feeling_Good_About_Your_Partners%27_Relationships_Compersion_in_Consensually_Non-Monogamous_Relationships
• Measure Summary URL: https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_ycrsmiohdqcjk53/
• Public Access: Limited
• Public Access Note: Publisher abstract/appendix, DOI metadata, Sacramento State repository metadata, ResearchGate publisher preview, and EMERGE measure summary opened or rechecked on 2026-06-21 and 2026-06-25; full article text was not publicly verified in this pass.
• Inspected Content: Limited; publisher abstract, public preview, appendix, metadata, and measure summary examined.
• Limited Verification: Public preview, appendix, and measure summary only; full article text not publicly verified.
• Sample Size: Qualitative data n=44; exploratory factor analysis n=310; confirmatory factor analysis n=320
• Geography: CNM sample; exact geography not extracted.
• Methodology: Scale development and validation
• Extracted Values: Publisher abstract and public preview describe COMPERSe development from qualitative data, researcher/practitioner/community feedback, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and a three-factor scale. Public preview figure metrics include confirmatory factor analysis values: chi-square(24, N=320)=102.25, p<.001; GFI=.95; NFI=.97; IFI=.98; TLI=.98; CFI=.98; RMSEA=.07, 90% CI [.05, .08]. Public appendix says to score subscales by averaging items: Happiness about Partner/Metamour Relationship (items 2, 3, 6, 9, 11), Sexual Arousal (items 1, 5, 7), and Excitement for New Connections (items 4, 8, 10), and not to use a total compersion score.
• Value Type: Measurement framework
• Confidence: Medium for scale identity and subscale names; Low for full psychometric details until the full article is directly inspected.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Compersion has a named, published measurement scale; no population prevalence estimate.
• Why Included: Supports treating compersion as measurable rather than purely anecdotal.
• Limitations: Full article not publicly verified in this pass; public preview and appendix are inspectable but incomplete; no prevalence data.
• Unresolved fit-statistic check: The public caption reports chi-square=102.25, df=24, N=320 and RMSEA=.07. The conventional unscaled formula gives approximately .101. Estimator/scaling details are unavailable, so this is a compatibility question rather than a corrected RMSEA. The author-reported preview values above remain unverified against the full analysis.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Publisher abstract, first-page preview, public Figure 2 caption and appendix; full methods/results unavailable. Full-source verification remains withheld; this record supplies no empirical prevalence input.

COMP-002

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Flicker, S. M., Thouin-Savard, M. I., & Vaughan, M. D. (2022). Factors that Facilitate and Hinder the Experience of Compersion Among Individuals in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(6), 3035-3048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4
• Authors: Sharon M. Flicker; Marie I. Thouin-Savard; Michelle D. Vaughan
• Title: Factors that Facilitate and Hinder the Experience of Compersion Among Individuals in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2022
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4
• Full Source URL: https://scholars.csus.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?download=true&filePid=13262694820001671&instCode=01CALS_USL
• PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35876980/
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public PDF opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=44
• Geography: 75% United States; remaining participants from Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands
• Date Range: Participants involved in at least one CNM relationship within the past 12 months; exact collection dates not extracted.
• Methodology: Open-ended online survey; targeted Reddit recruitment; thematic analysis
• Extracted Values: Three main themes: individual/intrapersonal factors, experiences in and characteristics of partner relationships, and feelings/judgments about metamours.
• Extracted Qualitative Factors: Facilitators included self-worth, needs being met, communication, and positive regard for metamours; barriers included insecurity, jealousy, mental-health strain, partner opacity, and distrust/dislike of metamours.
• Value Type: Qualitative evidence
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Compersion appears shaped by individual security, partner communication, needs being met, and metamour regard; no prevalence estimate.
• Why Included: Public full-text evidence for compersion facilitators and barriers.
• Limitations: Small targeted CNM sample; participants had already experienced compersion; not prevalence research.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full published article in Sacramento State public PDF. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-003

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Balzarini, R. N., McDonald, J. N., Kohut, T., Lehmiller, J. J., Holmes, B. M., & Harman, J. J. (2021). Compersion: When Jealousy-Inducing Situations Don't (Just) Induce Jealousy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1311-1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01853-1
• Authors: Rhonda N. Balzarini; James N. McDonald; Taylor Kohut; Justin J. Lehmiller; Bjarne M. Holmes; Jennifer J. Harman
• Title: Compersion: When Jealousy-Inducing Situations Don't (Just) Induce Jealousy
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01853-1
• Full Source URL: https://osf.io/download/wy926/
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01853-1
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: OSF public PDF and publisher abstract opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Polyamorous n=3,530; monogamous n=1,358
• Geography: Not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Convenience survey using hypothetical partner extradyadic-relations scenarios
• Extracted Values: Polyamorous participants reported less jealousy and more compersion with partners; personal experience with a partner's extradyadic romantic interests predicted more compersion and less jealousy; anticipated compersion was associated with greater relationship satisfaction, while jealousy and ambivalence were not associated with relationship satisfaction in the reported abstract.
• Value Type: Relationship evidence
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the claim that compersion and jealousy are not strict opposites and that positive and negative reactions can coexist around partner extradyadic relationships.
• Why Included: Replaces the previously invalid compersion/jealousy source entry with a verified DOI and public full-text preprint.
• Limitations: Convenience sample; hypothetical scenarios; not prevalence research.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full author manuscript from OSF, identity cross-checked with publisher DOI metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-004

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Buczel, K. A., Szyszka, P. D., & Mara, I. (2024). Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(8), 3285-3307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5
• Authors: Klara Austeja Buczel; Paulina D. Szyszka; Izu Mara
• Title: Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5
• PMC URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11335843/
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text and PMC article page opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: CNM n=211 and monogamous comparison n=169 recruited/retained for the reported study comparisons; complete-case CNM analysis n=165, including polyamorous n=78 and open-relationship n=60.
• Geography: Poland
• Methodology: Polish COMPERSe adaptation; confirmatory factor analysis; comparative survey; relationship and validity analyses
• Extracted Values: The original three-factor COMPERSe model did not fit this Polish sample well; revision produced a seven-item, two-factor solution. CNM participants reported higher compersion and cognitive empathy and less jealousy than monogamous participants; polyamorous participants reported more compersion and less aversion to partner autonomy than open-relationship participants. In the combined complete-case CNM analysis, cognitive empathy was associated with compersion. In the polyamorous subgroup (n=78), however, that association and the total/indirect effects were not significant; the open subgroup (n=60) differed. A direct compersion–satisfaction association was reported in the polyamorous subgroup. Cross-sectional mediation describes modeled indirect associations and does not establish that compersion decreases jealousy. See pp.3298–3299 and 3302.
• Value Type: Measurement and relationship evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Pooled empathy and compersion associations coexist with a polyamorous subgroup null. Measurement and subgroup differences limit the proposed empathy mechanism; no prevalence or causal conclusion follows.
• Why Included: Adds publicly inspectable quantitative evidence on compersion, jealousy, cognitive empathy, relationship satisfaction, and CNM relationship type.
• Limitations: Polish sample; scale adaptation context; not prevalence research; some findings may not generalize across cultures or CNM subtypes.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full Springer article/PDF and Table 6; PMC route also identified. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-005

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Clemons-Castaños, C. R. (2024). Polyamorous Individuals' Jealous and Compersive Responses to Their Partner's New Relationship Energy: The Role of Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, Distress Tolerance, and Empathy [Master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento].
• Authors: Channing R. Clemons-Castaños
• Title: Polyamorous Individuals' Jealous and Compersive Responses to Their Partner's New Relationship Energy: The Role of Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, Distress Tolerance, and Empathy
• Publication: California State University, Sacramento graduate thesis repository
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://scholars.csus.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?download=true&filePid=13282983970001671&instCode=01CALS_USL
• Repository URL: https://scholars.csus.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/Polyamorous-individuals-jealous-and-compersive-responses/99258173563201671
• Related Article: Clemons-Castaños, C. R., & Flicker, S. M. (2025). Polyamorous Individuals' Jealous and Compersive Responses to Their Partner's New Relationship Energy: The Role of Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, Distress Tolerance, and Empathy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(4), e70068. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70068
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public Sacramento State PDF opened and extracted on 2026-06-21; related journal article remains limited to PubMed/publisher abstract in this pass.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=122 completed surveys; 661 participants followed the Qualtrics link, 406 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 133 were excluded for insufficient data
• Geography: Recruited from online polyamorous and AltSex communities; exact geography not extracted
• Date Range: Thesis published Spring 2024; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Anonymous online Qualtrics survey; linear regression and Baron-Kenny-style mediation analyses
• Extracted Values: Mindfulness was associated with compersion (beta=.21, t=2.40, p=.018, R-squared=.05) and empathy (beta=.22, t=2.51, p=.01, R-squared=.05). Empathy was not a significant predictor of compersion (beta=.12, t=1.30, p=.20). Mindfulness was associated with lower jealousy (beta=−.30, t=−3.41, p<.001, R-squared=.09); compersion was also associated with lower jealousy (beta=−.65, t=−9.40, p<.001). In the mediation model, beta=−.62, t=−8.85, p<.001 is the adjusted compersion-to-jealousy path, not the indirect effect. Sobel z=2.32, p=.02 tests the indirect association. Cross-sectional data do not establish causal mediation; the later journal article is not an independent replication of this thesis sample.
• Value Type: Relationship evidence
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the claim that mindfulness predicted greater compersion, while empathy did not mediate the mindfulness-compersion pathway in this sample.
• Why Included: Replaces abstract-only evidence for the mindfulness/compersion claim with a publicly inspectable full-text thesis.
• Limitations: Master's thesis rather than the final peer-reviewed article text; small online sample; cross-sectional analyses; not prevalence research.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full 2024 master’s thesis; related 2025 journal article only abstract/metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-006

Source Status: Limited

• Full Citation: Flicker, S. M., & Sancier-Barbosa, F. (2024). Your Happiness Is My Happiness: Predicting Positive Feelings for a Partner's Consensual Extra-Dyadic Intimate Relations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(3), 941-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02766-5
• Authors: Sharon M. Flicker; Flavia Sancier-Barbosa
• Title: Your Happiness Is My Happiness: Predicting Positive Feelings for a Partner's Consensual Extra-Dyadic Intimate Relations
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-023-02766-5
• Full Source URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38177605/
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02766-5
• Public Preview URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377155222_Your_Happiness_Is_My_Happiness_Predicting_Positive_Feelings_for_a_Partner%27s_Consensual_Extra-Dyadic_Intimate_Relations
• Pre-registration URL: https://aspredicted.org/m7nv8.pdf
• Public Access: Limited
• Public Access Note: PubMed route, publisher abstract/preview, ResearchGate publisher preview/request page, DOI metadata, and AsPredicted pre-registration opened or rechecked on 2026-06-21 and 2026-06-25; full article text was not publicly verified in this pass.
• Inspected Content: Limited; public abstract and publisher previews only.
• Limited Verification: Abstract and public preview only; full article text not publicly verified.
• Sample Size: n=255
• Geography: Online CNM and AltSex communities; exact geography not extracted
• Methodology: Online anonymous survey testing hypotheses derived from prior qualitative work
• Extracted Values: Stronger supported positive predictors of compersion included closeness with a metamour and knowledge about the partner/metamour relationship. Stronger supported negative predictors included jealousy, envy, and attachment anxiety. Individual-level predictors were weak predictors of compersion. Sexual-arousal compersion was weakly endorsed and had distinct predictors from other compersion subtypes.
• Value Type: Predictor evidence from public abstract
• Confidence: Medium for abstract-supported directional findings; Low for model details not inspected in full text.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the attachment, jealousy/envy, and metamour-relationship predictor claims in the research snapshot, with abstract-level limitation disclosed.
• Why Included: Replaces the earlier unverified candidate predictor source with a verified DOI and public abstract.
• Limitations: Abstract-level verification; convenience sample; no prevalence estimate.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Publisher/PubMed abstract and public preview; full article could not be inspected. Full-source verification remains withheld; this record supplies no empirical prevalence input.

COMP-007

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Arter, J., & Bunge, S. S. (2024). Perceived Impacts of Partners' Other Relationships on Oneself in Consensual Nonmonogamy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53, 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02823-7
• Authors: Jennifer Arter; Sacha S. Bunge
• Title: Perceived Impacts of Partners' Other Relationships on Oneself in Consensual Nonmonogamy
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-024-02823-7
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02823-7
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: n=51
• Geography: Snowball recruitment through personal contacts; the authors explicitly avoided recruitment through specific CNM organizations or online forums. Interviews took place February 2019–June 2020; a population geography is not inferred.
• Methodology: Semi-structured interviews; reflexive thematic analysis
• Extracted Values: The Results identify four cost themes and five benefit themes, not three mirrored cost/benefit domains. At least one cost was reported by 50 of 51 participants and at least one benefit by all 51. Compersion was reported by 27 participants as one benefit. These interview mentions are not a standardized measure or population estimate of compersion capacity. See Table 1 and Results, article pp.1419–1424.
• Value Type: Qualitative evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports a nuanced account in which partners' other relationships can create both costs and benefits for the focal person, including jealousy, comparison, reflection, compersion, and improved partner relationships.
• Why Included: Adds open-access, directly relevant qualitative evidence on how CNM partners' other relationships are experienced by individuals.
• Limitations: Snowball interview sample, not prevalence research. Experience ranged from 3 to 50 years; four participants had 3–4 years despite a five-year recruitment target. Recruitment concerned familiarity with metamours or partners knowing one another; at least two current concurrent relationships was not a universal inclusion rule.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full Springer article/PDF and Table 1. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-008

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Mogilski, J. K., Reeve, S. D., Nicolas, S. C. A., Donaldson, S. H., Mitchell, V. E., & Welling, L. L. M. (2019). Jealousy, Consent, and Compersion Within Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1811-1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4
• Authors: Justin K. Mogilski; Simon D. Reeve; Sylis C. A. Nicolas; Sarah H. Donaldson; Virginia E. Mitchell; Lisa L. M. Welling
• Title: Jealousy, Consent, and Compersion Within Monogamous and Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2019
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330119107_Jealousy_Consent_and_Compersion_Within_Monogamous_and_Consensually_Non-Monogamous_Romantic_Relationships
• PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30607710/
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate author-uploaded public full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, PubMed abstract, Springer metadata, and DOI record opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror, abstract, and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: Author-reported final n=690; category counts are monogamous 529, CNM 94, and open 65 (sum 688). Methods also reports 756 initial respondents minus 63 exclusions, which equals 693 rather than 690, and discusses three further exclusions. The accounting is unresolved; 690 is retained as reported, not silently corrected.
• Geography: Predominantly White sample; exact country/geography not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: Comparative survey of imagined romantic partner extra-pair involvement scenarios
• Extracted Values: Final sample included 510 women, 169 men, and 11 participants who identified as "other"; age M=22.26 years, SD=6.86, range 18-71. CNM participants reported current partner counts of 54.3% two partners, 27.7% three partners, and 17.1% four or more partners. CNM relationship descriptors included primary/secondary relationships (n=54), equally involved with two people (n=23), equally involved with more than two people (n=12), and involvement in a poly web/family/intimate network (n=24). Monogamous participants reported greater emotional jealousy toward partners than CNM participants reported toward primary or secondary partners; CNM participants reported greater cognitive jealousy than monogamous participants in the comparisons reported in the public mirror.
• Value Type: Relationship evidence from public full-text mirror
• Confidence: Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Background only: relationship structure and consent context appear to shape jealousy, distress, and enjoyment responses to partner extra-pair involvement.
• Why Included: This is a directly relevant compersion/jealousy source with inspectable public text, useful for background on how relationship structure and consent framing shape responses to partner extra-pair involvement.
• Limitations: Public verification depends on an author-uploaded mirror rather than publisher-open access; scenario method; young and demographically skewed sample; no prevalence estimate; not active in calculations.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full original article content in public author-uploaded ResearchGate mirror; publisher metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-009

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Justin K. Mogilski et al., “How Do People Maintain Consensual Non-Monogamy? An International Development and Validation of the Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 55 (2026): 517–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03334-9. The complete 36-author list is recorded below.
• Authors: Justin K. Mogilski; Geoffrey F. Miller; Peter K. Jonason; Katarzyna Grunt-Mejer; Jaroslava Varella Valentova; Rhonda Balzarini; David L. Rodrigues; Elisabeth Sheff; Laith Al-Shawaf; Zsófia Csajbók; Andrew G. Thomas; Tamas David-Barrett; Cezar Giosan; Daniel J. Kruger; David J. Ley; Justin J. Lehmiller; Heath A. Schechinger; Amy C. Moors; Stefano Ciaffoni; Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair; Stephen Whyte; Zuzana Štěrbová; Klára Bártová; Ryan G. Witherspoon; Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska; Pavol Prokop; Virgil Zeigler-Hill; David P. Schmitt; Adil S. Sarıbay; Magdalena Lipnicka; Ivana Goláňová; Ezra Hampikian; William Costello; Limor Gottlieb; Cory J. Cascalheira; Michelle A. Larva
• Title: How Do People Maintain Consensual Non-Monogamy? An International Development and Validation of the Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale
• Publication: Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Publication Year: 2026
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-025-03334-9
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03334-9
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: Study 1 n=429 CNM-experienced participants for item generation; Study 2 full sample n=4,290 international participants for validation
• Geography: International online sample
• Date Range: Article published online March 16, 2026; data collection dates not extracted in this pass
• Methodology: International scale development and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, measurement-invariance analyses, and relationship-quality correlates
• Extracted Values: The MRMS validation produced a nine-factor, 24-item model. The nine factors included extra-pair attraction disclosure, jealousy regulation, childcare willingness, compersion, shared extra-pair sexual experiences, partner hierarchy, thoughtfulness about resource distribution, sexual health maintenance, and reputation management. The compersion factor had alpha = .90. CNM participants reported higher compersion than monogamous participants in relationship-identity comparisons. The discussion states that the nine practices were correlated with relationship quality but did not establish causality.
• Value Type: Measurement and relationship-maintenance evidence
• Confidence: Medium-High for measurement and relationship-maintenance claims; Low for prevalence because the source does not estimate compersion prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports treating compersion as a measurable CNM maintenance practice, while distinguishing measurement evidence from prevalence evidence.
• Why Included: Adds open-access, recent, international scale-validation evidence that directly situates compersion among CNM relationship-maintenance practices.
• Limitations: Scale validation rather than prevalence research; some MRMS factors had low inter-item reliability; correlation with relationship quality is not causal evidence.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full Springer article/PDF and Crossref publisher-deposited metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-010

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Thouin-Savard, M. I., & Flicker, S. M. (2023). Compersion. In T. K. Shackelford (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior (pp. 1-7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2472-1
• Authors: Marie I. Thouin-Savard; Sharon M. Flicker
• Title: Compersion
• Publication: Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior
• Publication Year: 2023
• DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2472-1
• Full Source URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d845f7bfecaba75e37f75a8/t/6465289f39ae7e77aad3a48b/1684351135814/Thouin%2Band%2BFlicker%2B%282023%29%2Bcompersion%2Bspringer%2Bentry.pdf
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2472-1
• Public Access: Yes, through a public PDF mirror; publisher page is a subscription preview.
• Public Access Note: Public PDF mirror, Springer page, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: N/A; review/reference entry
• Geography: International literature synthesis
• Date Range: First published online April 29, 2023
• Methodology: Encyclopedia entry synthesizing empirical and theoretical compersion research
• Extracted Values: The entry defines compersion as positive emotions, attitudes, thoughts, and actions around a partner's extradyadic intimate relation or another person's gratifying experience. It distinguishes embodied from attitudinal compersion, summarizes qualitative themes and COMPERSe's three subscales, states that COMPERSe has no total score, and describes predictor themes including attachment/security, jealousy/envy, metamour closeness/knowledge, relationship length, and weak individual-level predictors.
• Value Type: Review and definition evidence
• Confidence: Medium for synthesis and construct-background claims; Low for prevalence because the entry does not estimate prevalence.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the working distinction between jealousy absence, attitudinal compersion, embodied compersion, and predictor conditions.
• Why Included: Adds a compact public synthesis that helps normalize compersion definitions and limitations across the source library.
• Limitations: Secondary/reference source; empirical details should trace back to primary sources when used for final claims; public access depends on a mirror rather than publisher-open access.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full seven-page author-hosted reference-entry PDF. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-011

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Katherine Aumer, William Bellew, Brendan Ito, Elaine Hatfield, and Ronald Heck, “The Happy, Green-Eyed Monogamist: Role of Jealousy and Compersion in Monogamous and Non-Traditional Relationships,” Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 17 (2014). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269106220_The_Happy_Green_Eyed_Monogamist_Role_of_Jealousy_and_Compersion_in_Monogamous_and_Non-Traditional_Relationships
• Authors: Katherine Aumer; William Bellew; Brendan Ito; Elaine Hatfield; Ronald Heck
• Title: The happy, green-eyed monogamist: Role of jealousy and compersion in monogamous and non-traditional relationships
• Publication: Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality
• Publication Year: 2014
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269106220_The_Happy_Green_Eyed_Monogamist_Role_of_Jealousy_and_Compersion_in_Monogamous_and_Non-Traditional_Relationships
• Original Journal URL: http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/happy.html
• Public Access: Yes, through a public author-uploaded mirror; original journal URL was unstable during this pass.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror opened on 2026-06-21; original journal URL did not provide reliable direct access during this pass.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror examined.
• Sample Size: n=302
• Geography: Online / relationship-status groups; exact geography not extracted
• Date Range: Article published November 2014; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Survey of jealousy, compersion, relationship status, and relationship satisfaction
• Extracted Values: Detailed Results show compersion–satisfaction differences for single and open-relationship women, but no such effect for monogamous or polyamorous women or for men. Emotional-jealousy satisfaction differences within monogamous/polyamorous women were not significant; the happier-monogamous-women result is a between-category comparison. The abstract’s broader account should not be read as showing that jealousy improves monogamous satisfaction or that compersion predicts satisfaction across all nontraditional groups. Men reported higher compersion than women overall (M=5.30 vs.4.53, t(248)=3.74, p<.001, d=.53). Small subgroup sizes and cross-sectional analyses limit interpretation.
• Value Type: Early relationship evidence
• Confidence: Low-Medium
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Background only: supports caution that jealousy, compersion, and relationship satisfaction can interact differently by relationship structure.
• Why Included: Adds early public compersion/jealousy relationship evidence and preserves limitations instead of treating it as prevalence evidence.
• Limitations: Older convenience sample; subgroup analyses, especially for men, were small and require caution; original journal access was unstable; no prevalence estimate.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full original article content in author-uploaded ResearchGate mirror; original journal unstable. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-012

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Rubinsky, V. (2018). Bringing up the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and communicating jealousy with a partner who has other partners. The Qualitative Report, 23(6), 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3297
• Authors: Valerie Rubinsky
• Title: Bringing up the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and communicating jealousy with a partner who has other partners
• Publication: The Qualitative Report
• Publication Year: 2018
• DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3297
• Full Source URL: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss6/11/
• Public PDF URL: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3297&context=tqr
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Public article landing page opened on 2026-06-21; direct PDF returned HTTP 200 and was inspected with local PDF text extraction.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: 141 participants; 423 open-ended responses analyzed
• Geography: Online polyamory recruitment; exact geography not extracted
• Date Range: Published June 17, 2018; survey collection dates not extracted
• Methodology: Qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses from people in polyamorous partnerships
• Extracted Values: The abstract and full PDF state that participants often defined jealousy as an umbrella term for insecurity, possessiveness, and needs not being met. Participants commonly discussed jealousy with partners to seek affirmation, validation, or support rather than to demand behavior change. The article notes that polyamorous communities often orient toward compersion, but compersion is not realized for all people.
• Value Type: Jealousy and communication context
• Confidence: Medium-High for qualitative theme claims; Low for prevalence because the source is not prevalence research.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports separating compersion from jealousy-management practices and supports the claim that jealousy can be discussed as a need, insecurity, or communication issue in polyamorous contexts.
• Why Included: Adds public qualitative evidence for the jealousy/compersion boundary and communication context.
• Limitations: Qualitative open-ended survey; online recruitment; no compersion prevalence estimate; exact geography not extracted.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full published article PDF from journal repository. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-013

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Glenna Hunter and August Stockwell, “Toward a Behavior-Analytic Understanding of Jealousy and Compersion in Romantic and Sexual Relationships,” European Journal of Behavior Analysis 23, no.1 (2022): 78–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2021.1981751. First published online September 21, 2021.
• Authors: Glenna Hunter; August Stockwell
• Title: Toward a behavior-analytic understanding of jealousy and compersion in romantic and sexual relationships
• Publication: European Journal of Behavior Analysis
• Publication Year: 2022 (online 2021)
• DOI: 10.1080/15021149.2021.1981751
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354759926_Toward_a_behavior-analytic_understanding_of_jealousy_and_compersion_in_romantic_and_sexual_relationships
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2021.1981751
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate author-uploaded full-text mirror; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate public full-text mirror, publisher DOI path, and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full-text mirror inspected.
• Sample Size: N/A; conceptual article with no human or animal participants
• Geography: International / theoretical
• Date Range: Published online September 21, 2021
• Methodology: Behavior-analytic conceptual analysis of jealous and compersive responding in romantic and sexual relationships
• Extracted Values: The article defines jealousy as an emotional response to a real or imagined threat to an important relationship and compersion as joy in response to a partner experiencing emotional or sexual attraction toward and interactions with another person. It presents a contingency analysis of jealous responding, discusses contingencies that may be altered to reduce jealous responding when that is a goal, and proposes contingencies involved in fostering compersive responding when compersion is desired.
• Value Type: Theoretical framework
• Confidence: Medium for behavior-analytic conceptual framing; Low for empirical claims because the article is not an empirical study.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports treating jealousy and compersion as responses shaped by context and contingencies, not fixed moral facts or prevalence variables.
• Why Included: Adds a public theoretical source that helps separate compersion capacity from both jealousy suppression and trait essentialism.
• Limitations: Conceptual analysis; no prevalence data; public verification depends on a ResearchGate mirror.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full author-uploaded article content, plus publisher DOI metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-014

Source Status: Limited

• Full Citation: Thouin-Savard, M. I. (2021). Compersion in consensually nonmonogamous relationships: A grounded theory investigation [Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies].
• Authors: Marie I. Thouin-Savard
• Title: Compersion in consensually nonmonogamous relationships: A grounded theory investigation
• Publication: California Institute of Integral Studies doctoral dissertation / ProQuest
• Publication Year: 2021
• DOI: N/A
• Full Source URL: https://www.whatiscompersion.com/research
• ProQuest URL: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2561893892
• Public Access: Limited
• Public Access Note: Public author research page and ProQuest metadata link opened or rechecked on 2026-06-21 and 2026-06-25; full dissertation text was not publicly verified in this pass.
• Inspected Content: Limited; public author summary and abstract inspected.
• Limited Verification: Author summary and abstract only; full dissertation text not publicly verified.
• Sample Size: 17 semi-structured, in-depth interviews
• Geography: CNM participants; exact geography not extracted from public summary
• Date Range: Dissertation defended February 19, 2021; interview dates not extracted
• Methodology: Grounded-theory qualitative dissertation
• Extracted Values: Public abstract reports three major experiential themes: empathic joy, gratitude for benefits derived from a partner's other relationship(s), and compersion as dynamic, fluid, and on a spectrum. It also reports three factor categories affecting compersion: individual, relational, and social. Individual factors include ideological commitment to CNM values and security/comfort within oneself; relational factors include security and connectedness, positive integration of partner's other relationships, and perception of outside relationships as additive; social factors include coming into community.
• Value Type: Limited qualitative evidence
• Confidence: Medium for author-summary-level themes; Low for detailed dissertation claims until full dissertation text is publicly inspected.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Background only: supports conceptualizing compersion as a dynamic, multi-factor experience rather than a binary trait.
• Why Included: The dissertation is repeatedly referenced by later compersion literature and has a public author summary, but it should remain limited until the full text is directly inspected.
• Limitations: Full dissertation not publicly verified; no prevalence estimate; public source is author summary rather than full dissertation text.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Author research-page summary/abstract and dissertation identity; ProQuest/full-dissertation access unsuccessful. Full-source verification remains withheld; this record supplies no empirical prevalence input.

COMP-015

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Yuen, H. S., Zörlein, L., & Walter, S. (2024). It is not just "the opposite of jealousy": A Buddhist perspective on the emotion of compersion in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Asian Journal of Philosophy, 3, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-024-00171-w
• Authors: Hin Sing Yuen; Luu Zörlein; Sven Walter
• Title: It is not just "the opposite of jealousy": A Buddhist perspective on the emotion of compersion in consensually non-monogamous relationships
• Publication: Asian Journal of Philosophy
• Publication Year: 2024
• DOI: 10.1007/s44204-024-00171-w
• Full Source URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-024-00171-w
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: Springer open-access full text and DOI metadata opened on 2026-06-21.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: N/A; theoretical article
• Geography: International / philosophical
• Date Range: Published June 17, 2024; received November 12, 2023; accepted May 20, 2024
• Methodology: Philosophical analysis of compersion through Buddhist ethical concepts, especially the four brahmaviharas and their near enemies
• Extracted Values: The article argues that compersion is not merely jealousy's opposite, that compersion and jealousy can co-occur, and that compersion should be understood as having affective, evaluative, and conative aspects. It frames compersion through the four immeasurables and their near enemies to avoid both mononormative stereotypes and self-deceptive misconceptions within CNM relationships.
• Value Type: Theoretical framework
• Confidence: Medium for conceptual claims; Low for empirical inference because it is not an empirical study.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the essay's caution that compersion should not be reduced to the absence of jealousy and may include more than one emotional or ethical dimension.
• Why Included: Adds open-access philosophical work that directly responds to current compersion theory and helps refine the concept model.
• Limitations: Philosophical/theoretical; no prevalence data; not a source for empirical rates.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full Springer philosophical article/PDF. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-016

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Ferrer, J. N. (2019). From romantic jealousy to sympathetic joy: Monogamy, polyamory, and beyond. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2019.38.1.185
• Authors: Jorge N. Ferrer
• Title: From romantic jealousy to sympathetic joy: Monogamy, polyamory, and beyond
• Publication: International Journal of Transpersonal Studies
• Publication Year: 2019
• DOI: 10.24972/ijts.2019.38.1.185
• Full Source URL: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol38/iss1/13/
• Public PDF URL: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=ijts-transpersonalstudies
• Public Access: Yes
• Public Access Note: CIIS Digital Commons source record loaded on 2026-07-05 with the article title, author, DOI, abstract, citation, license, and download link. The stable source record is the primary URL; the direct PDF route remains listed as secondary public access.
• Inspected Content: Yes; source record, abstract, DOI route, citation, license, and repository download route inspected.
• Sample Size: N/A; theoretical article
• Geography: International / philosophical and transpersonal studies context
• Date Range: Published in 2019
• Methodology: Transpersonal/philosophical article connecting contemplative qualities, jealousy, monogamy, polyamory, and sympathetic joy
• Extracted Values: The article explores how contemplative qualities can transform sexual/emotional responses and relationship choices; reviews evolutionary-psychology findings on jealousy and monogamy; argues for the possibility of transforming jealousy into sympathetic joy or compersion; addresses common objections to polyamory/nonmonogamy; and challenges the belief that only celibacy or monogamy are spiritually correct sexual options. It describes compersion as a novel extension of sympathetic joy into intimate relationships that would conventionally evoke jealousy.
• Value Type: Theoretical framework
• Confidence: Medium for abstract-supported conceptual claims; Low for empirical inference.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Background only: supports the lineage connecting compersion with sympathetic joy and contemplative transformation.
• Why Included: Adds public theoretical context referenced by later compersion philosophy.
• Limitations: Theoretical article; no prevalence data; evolutionary-psychology claims should be checked against primary empirical sources before being used as evidence.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full published PDF from CIIS repository. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-017

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: de Sousa, R. (2017). Love, jealousy, and compersion. In C. Grau & A. Smuts (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Love. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.30
• Authors: Ronald de Sousa
• Title: Love, jealousy, and compersion
• Publication: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Love
• Publication Year: 2017
• DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.30
• Full Source URL: https://sousa.artsci.utoronto.ca/COMPERSION.pdf
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.30
• Public Access: Yes, through an author-hosted PDF; publisher access may remain restricted.
• Public Access Note: Author-hosted PDF opened and inspected on 2026-06-21; PDF includes a personal-use Oxford Handbooks license notice.
• Inspected Content: Yes
• Sample Size: N/A; book chapter
• Geography: International / philosophical
• Date Range: Online publication date February 2017
• Methodology: Philosophy-of-love chapter analyzing jealousy, emotional framing, and compersion
• Extracted Values: The abstract rejects biological and moral defenses of jealousy and argues that jealousy-eliciting sexual or romantic situations can sometimes be reframed as occasions for compersion: joy taken in the loved one's pleasure and happiness. The chapter defines compersion as pleasure taken in the thought of one's lover enjoying love or sex with another and argues that emotional responses may depend on framing stories rather than biological necessity alone.
• Value Type: Theoretical framework
• Confidence: Medium for philosophical framing; Low for empirical claims.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the essay's treatment of compersion as a possible reframing or transformation of jealousy rather than a simple absence of jealousy.
• Why Included: Adds a public philosophy-of-love source that later compersion philosophy cites directly.
• Limitations: Philosophical chapter; author-hosted PDF has a personal-use license notice; no prevalence data.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full author-hosted OUP chapter PDF, including license and publication header. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

COMP-018

Source Status: Verified

• Full Citation: Brunning, L. (2020). Compersion: An alternative to jealousy? Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 6(2), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.35
• Authors: Luke Brunning
• Title: Compersion: An alternative to jealousy?
• Publication: Journal of the American Philosophical Association
• Publication Year: 2020
• DOI: 10.1017/apa.2019.35
• Full Source URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340298669_Compersion_An_Alternative_to_Jealousy
• Public PDF URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luke-Brunning/publication/340298669_Compersion_An_Alternative_to_Jealousy/links/6040b15792851c077f1640c9/Compersion-An-Alternative-to-Jealousy.pdf
• Publisher URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/abs/compersion-an-alternative-to-jealousy/E28461B0B07014AA8B4433065FAF2010
• Publisher DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.35
• Public Access: Yes, through a ResearchGate public full-text mirror; Cambridge Core exposes abstract, metadata, and reference list.
• Public Access Note: ResearchGate source record and direct public PDF loaded on 2026-07-05 as the Brunning article.
• Inspected Content: Yes; public full text and metadata inspected.
• Sample Size: N/A; theoretical article
• Geography: International / philosophical
• Date Range: Published online March 31, 2020; volume 6, issue 2 (2020). The 2019 component of the DOI is an identifier, not a publication date.
• Methodology: Philosophical article
• Extracted Values: The article argues that compersion is not simply jealousy's opposite and is best understood as a positive response to the flourishing of others in intimate contexts. It distinguishes compersion from pride, vicarious enjoyment, masochistic pleasure, and mere lack of jealousy. It also argues that failure to experience compersion does not by itself show lack of love or commitment and that mononormative culture helps normalize jealousy as an expected romantic response.
• Value Type: Theoretical framework
• Confidence: Medium for philosophical argument; Low for empirical inference because the article is not empirical.
• Key Findings Used By This Essay: Supports the essay's treatment of compersion as a positive orientation toward another person's flourishing rather than a moral requirement, a lack of jealousy, or a proof of love.
• Why Included: The article is a key philosophy source in later compersion discussions and is now publicly inspectable through a full-text route.
• Limitations: Theoretical article; no prevalence data; public verification depends on a ResearchGate mirror while publisher-hosted full text may require access.
• September 2026 verification: September 10, 2026: Full article content in public author-uploaded ResearchGate mirror and publisher metadata. Relevant full-source content inspected; no raw-data replication claimed.

Revision History

September 10, 2026 — Source, citation, and model corrections

Corrected author identities, publication metadata, recruitment descriptions, theme counts, and outcome/subgroup summaries. Added narrative notes, retained positive extraversion evidence and polyamorous subgroup nulls, and distinguished adjusted associations from causal claims. Replaced the unfinished research-summary template with an evidence summary and current access limitations.

The numerical workbook now describes hypothetical scenarios with explicit conditional assumptions, definition changes, and dependence bounds. It does not estimate the population overlap. Unresolved inconsistencies in the original sources and five partial-access records remain disclosed rather than silently repaired. Personal observations and the proposed relational orientation remain distinct from empirical findings.