With more than 5% of the population in a non-monogamous configuration, it’s disappointing that there is no specific relationship therapy modality tailored towards consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. Relationship therapy suffers from a mononormative bias that emotional and sexual commitment to one individual constitutes the social norm for engaging in romantic relationships.

Couples therapy came into being in the 1930s and has existed in its modern form since the 1960s, emerging out of family therapy. With nearly a century under its belt, it has had ample time to step out of its dyadic (two-person) focus and become more pluralistic.

The lack of a specific CNM-based relationship therapy and mononormative bias of couples’ therapy make it hard for those in CNM relationships to find suitable support that’s adapted to their needs. Furthermore, the judgment of therapists and the lack of training and awareness complicate the problem.

While some couples therapy modalities have been adapted over the years to support CNM relationships, not all of them are created equal. Some modalities are better suited to CNM than others. Still, it can be hard to know which modality to choose without research or prior knowledge.

The following is a quick guide to the main forms of relationship therapy and their suitability for CNM. For simplicity’s sake, I have divided the modalities under three primary headers: Behavioural, Affective (emotion-based) and Systemic Therapies. This will hopefully remove some of the stress of finding supportive therapy when you’re in an CNM relationship.

Behavioural therapy

Gottman: Gottman Therapy is probably the most well-known form of relationship therapy. Gottman Therapy has a strong focus on mutual understanding, partner behaviour dynamics and conflict management and repair. In the Gottman model, couples are defined as ‘masters’ or ‘disasters’ of a relationship based on their ability to manage conflict and create shared meaning. Interestingly, research into CNM relationships indicates that those in CNM structures tend to be relationship masters, perhaps because CNM emphasises communication and boundary-setting skills, as well as identity and meaning-making.

However, Gottman therapy is intensely dyadic and mononormative. It doesn’t allow for relationships outside the primary couple relationship. It also doesn’t include interventions to support partners in exploring CNM. Preliminary research on CNM and Gottman suggests that Gottman approaches are more useful at the beginning of relationship therapy, during the assessment phase, with other modalities being preferable in the treatment phase.

Pros: Easy to find Gottman therapists. Clear structure for mutual understanding, repair, and relationship dynamics.

Cons: Highly mononormative. Gottman therapists are likely to be unskilled with CNM.

ACT for couples:  Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a form of values-based therapy that includes mindfulness and behavioural techniques to help individuals align with personal values. As a relationship therapy, it has been expanded to ACT for Couples, to help relationship systems do the same.

On the surface, ACT for Couples seems ideal for CNM, as it emphasises values, meaning, and being present with uncomfortable feelings without attempting to change them. Nonetheless, it suffers from the same issues as Gottman: it is dyadically focused and hasn’t been rigorously tested or adapted to work for CNM.

Further limitations of ACT that may not make it suitable for CNM include not adequately addressing underlying trauma or nervous system regulation and having less of an emphasis on conflict resolution, which may be problematic when working with CNM relationships.

Pros: Easy to find. Emphasis on values, meaning and managing distress.

Cons: Not adapted for CNM and less effective at working with dysregulated states or resolving conflict.

Affective therapy

EFT: Emotion Focused Therapy (EFT) was developed by the late Sue Johnston. The framework views relationship ruptures as indicative of underlying attachment wounds and has a strong focus on attachment repair. Research on EFT outcomes suggests it’s highly effective for attachment repair, and research on positive adaptation to CNM relationships exists.

EFT is very dyadic, however. EFT processes are constructed around one partner exploring a wound while the other partner attends and listens. Further, with a focus on attachment repair, it’s very limited when it comes to managing the nuts and bolts of being in an CNM relationship, such as boundaries, scheduling, paramours, and so on. Finally, a major criticism of EFT is that it doesn’t effectively handle internal power-dynamics within relationships and can be overwhelming when mis-handled by unskilled therapists.

Pros: Very effective at relationship repair and at addressing attachment issues.

Cons: Not nuanced and capable of dealing with some of the minutiae of CNM relationships.

Systemic therapy

Family & systemic therapy: Family therapy might seem like an odd choice for CNM relationships. Family therapy originated out of the work of pioneering systems theorist Gregory Bateson in the late 1960s and, early on, focused on traditional nuclear families. However, through the research and development of several feminist and postmodern therapists, family therapy has evolved to be inclusive of diverse family and relationship structures.

What sets family therapy apart is its focus on relationships as systems rather than on individual behaviours, a predominant focus of mainstream psychology. Because polycules are systems within systems, family therapy is well-equipped to provide systemic support. A small body of research supports this and suggests that structural family therapy is transferable to CNM relationships.

The major drawback of family therapy is that it remains a niche discipline, and it would be difficult to find therapists who have a solid understanding of CNM.

Pros: Well-suited to CNM systems.

Cons: Lack of therapists who understand CNM relationships.

PACT: The Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy is a relatively new approach, especially in Australia. PACT was derived from strategic family therapy and blended with attachment theory and neuroscience, with a strong emphasis on nervous system regulation, safety, and agreements. This makes it seem, on the surface, well-suited to CNM.

However, as the word ‘couple’ is in its name, PACT has historically had a strong mononormative bias. Nonetheless, in recent years, it has made an effort to become more inclusive of different relationship styles and has opened itself up (no pun intended!) to supporting CNM relationships.

Pros: Strong emphasis on safety, attachment, nervous system regulation and agreements

Cons: Not as many PACT therapists in Australia, and therapists may be mononormative.

Bottom line

No single therapeutic modality is perfect—even for couples—but this may help those in CNM relationships make more informed choices about which therapy best meets their relationship needs.

Nonetheless, as we have seen, some modalities do on the surface appear to be a better fit than others. When screening a prospective therapist, it can be a good idea to ask what modality they practice and how they have specifically adapted it to CNM.

More than modality, the most important criterion in undertaking therapeutic work is the relationship with your therapist. So, at the end of the day, it may be less about your therapist’s style and more about feeling understood and held by them.

If you are navigating an CNM relationship and need support, find out more about CNM-affirming relationship therapy.