Our Process

This information is for those of you interested in the science behind the test.

How we developed the test

Initially the brain child of Jess, this test grew out of conversations with hundreds of people who wanted help figuring out what kind of relationship best suited them and how to express that to other people who might want to join in that relationship. While we as a team enjoyed personality tests and astrology apps, we were slightly suspicious of the results of some of the tests we encountered because they did not appear to be based in science at all.

Geeks and data nerds that we are, we decided to base our own test in empirical research on relationships, and we chose research on relationship satisfaction in a wide range of relationships, and eventually focused primarily on polyamorous relationships for a three main reasons. First, our lead researcher Dr. Elisabeth “Eli” Sheff has been studying polyamory for over 25 years and is very familiar with that literature. Second, because monogamy is the dominant relationship style, many researchers use monogamous or infidelitous people as comparisons to people in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Third, articles on polyamory often include discussion of other forms of consensual non-monogamy like swinging and relationship anarchy. Basically, the literature on polyamory covered monogamy and other forms of CNM as well, so it made the most sense to use it as a base. See our bibliography for the articles we used.

Dr. Eli reviewed the articles to determine what research identified as the main contributors to satisfaction in polyamorous relationships. The team discussed these factors that contribute to satisfaction in polyamorous relationships, added new twists for other forms of relationship, wrote questions that would get at each issue, tested the questions on each other, and rewrote them several times.

How we tested the test

Initially the development team took the test over and over, expanding it to over 60 questions at one point and then whittling it down to the most decisive questions that would determine bonding style preference. After several months of testing our various iterations on each other, we had a solid test that we felt might be useful for others. Then we started contacting people we know, asking them to take the test and then do a quick interview afterwards about what they thought of the questions, the accuracy of their results, and how they thought the test could be improved.

In addition to crafting the original test with the factors we identified from research, we contacted research partners in the field to get their feedback on the test. Watch this space for more on our research partners coming soon.

After getting peer research feedback, went back into development and created a refined test that we gave to different people and interviewed them about their thoughts about the test. This version that you are taking is the beta version that went through all that testing before we released it to the wider world for the real test of how effective it is in helping people identify their best boding style.

How you can improve the test

Are you the kind of geek who enjoys language and improving or developing ideas? Then we would love to hear your feedback about what you think about the test, how your results sit with you, and what kinds of test you would like to see us offer in the future. Criticisms and compliments are welcome, please email us at [email protected].

Developing more tests

One of the main ways in which we will expand this site in the future is to create more tests to help bonders to further refine their understandings of their boding styles. One of the ways we can do this is to using existing scales that our academic partners have already created. Another way is for us to build them ourselves to meet the needs that bonders have identified. That means, if you have a specific test you would like to take, please let us know what you want and we will try to do create it! You can contact us at [email protected].

Bibliography

Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177841.

Balzarini, R. N., Dobson, K., Kohut, T., Raposo, S., & Campbell, L. (2019). The Detriments of Unmet Sexual Ideals and Buffering Effect of Sexual Responsiveness.

Bricker, M. E., & Horne, S. G. (2007). Gay men in long-term relationships: The impact of monogamy and non-monogamy on relational health. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 6(4), 27-47.

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The mate retention inventory-short form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 322-334.

Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Campbell, L., Finkenauer, C., Karremans, J. C., & Kappen, G. (2017). Ideal standards, acceptance, and relationship satisfaction: Latitudes of differential effects. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1691.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 447-462.

Conley, T. D., Piemonte, J. L., Gusakova, S., & Rubin, J. D. (2018). Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 509-531.

Gerlach, T. M., Arslan, R. C., Schultze, T., Reinhard, S. K., & Penke, L. (2019). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 313.

Kean, J. J. (2017). Relationship structure, relationship texture: Case studies in non/monogamies research. Cultural Studies Review, 23(1), 18-35.

Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 40-51.

Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T. C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among US adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of sexual behavior, 47(5), 1439-1450.

Levy, J., Markell, D., & Cerf, M. (2019). Polar Similars: Using Massive Mobile Dating Data to Predict Synchronization and Similarity in Dating Preferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2010.

Mark, K. P., & Murray, S. H. (2012). Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(2), 198-215.

Mitchell, M. E., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. J. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(3), 329-339.

Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 407-417.

Mogilski, J. K., Mitchell, V. E., Reeve, S. D., Donaldson, S. H., Nicolas, S. C., & Welling, L. L. (2020). Life History and Multi-Partner Mating: A Novel Explanation for Moral Stigma Against Consensual Non-monogamy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3033.

Montesi, J. L., Fauber, R. L., Gordon, E. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2011). The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 591-609.

Moors, A. C., Conley, T. D., Edelstein, R. S., & Chopik, W. J. (2015). Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(2), 222-240.

Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships. European Psychologist.

Moors, A. C., Rubin, J. D., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy.

Muise, A., Laughton, A. K., Moors, A., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Sexual need fulfillment and satisfaction in consensually nonmonogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), 1917-1938.

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(4), 662.

Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., Gamarel, K. E., & Grov, C. (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669.

Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). “We agree and now everything goes my way”: Consensual sexual nonmonogamy, extradyadic sex, and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(6), 373-379.

Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961-982.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal relationships, 5(4), 357-387.

Shaw, J. L. (2018). Comparisons between Consensually Non-monogamous and Monogamous Sexual Relationships on Relationship Characteristics. Texas A&M University-Commerce.

Tahler, H. (2015). Relational Satisfaction in Long-Term, Non-monogamous, Heterosexual Relationships (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology).