10 Journal of Clinical Psychology, xxxx 2017
also risk friends and families blaming the issue on nonmonogamy. This can get in the way of
their offering much needed care and support.
Mark and Sarah were fortunate in that they already had a supportive poly community who
understood breaches of this nature and believed that this was a wound that could be healed. This
support is immensely important to people with such arrangements. Their respective partners
were also supportive of their marriage and primary partnership and were willing to do what
they could to support healing and harmony. Joseph, in particular, was clear that something was
wrong and urged Sarah to fix it.
This case happened to be with a husband and wife without children, but those who have kids
and choose open relationships have additional stressors and questions that a skilled clinician
needs to be able to address or at least provide needed resources.
This couple provides the example that, as in all relationships, people’s needs and agreements
may change and need to be addressed. Relationships in which people stay the same and want
the same things over the span of time are unusual. Relationships do grow and people do change
over time. Partners need to learn how to grow together. The strongest relationships appear to
be those that can adapt to such changes (or as Gottman would say, can adjust to shifts in life
dreams).
Although John Gottman and Sue Johnson’s evidence-based treatment approaches were ap-
plied to this case, there is no data on using such interventions on those who practice CNM. The
point must be made that those who are working with alternative sexualities may have to provide
practice-based evidence until more research is done on those who are in open relationships.
Selected References and Recommended Readings
Busby, D. M., Crane, D. R., Larson, J. H., & Christensen, C. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construction hierarchy and multidimensional
scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289–308.
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please!: How polyamorous relationship strategies
might oxygenate marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.
2014.876908
Easton, D., & Hardy, J.W. (2009). The ethical slut: A guide to infinite sexual possibilities (2nd ed.). Berkeley,
CA: Celestial Arts
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. G. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Available at:
http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl
Gottman, J. (n.d.). The scientific basis for the Orcas Island couples’ retreat. Retrieved from
http://www.gottmancouplesretreats.com/about/sound-relationship-house-theory.aspx
Gottman, J. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INo8RSgnviA
Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2016). Prevalence of experiences
with consensual non-monogamous relationships: Findings from two nationally representative sam-
ples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 0715(May), 00–00. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675
Henrich, R., & Trawinski, C. (2016). Social and therapeutic challenges facing polyamorous clients. Sexual
and Relationship Therapy, 1994(June), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2016.1174331
Hutzler, K. T., Giuliano, T. a., Herselman, J. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Three’s a crowd: Pub-
lic awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102
Johnson, S., Hunsley, J., Greenberg, L., & Schindler, D. (1999). Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy:
Status & challenges (A meta-analysis). Journal of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(1), 67–79.
Labriola, K. (2013). The jealousy workbook: Exercises and insights for managing open relationships.
Gardena, CA: Greenery Press.
Loving More http://www.lovemore.com/faq/
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & Anders, S. M. Van. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity:
A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories. Pyschology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 2(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000098