Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the frequency of partner-directed mate retention behaviors and several self- and partner-rated romantic relationship evaluations (i.e., sociosexuality, relationship satisfaction, mate value, and partner ideal measures) within monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. Measures were compared (1) between monogamous and CNM participants and (2) between two concurrent partners within each CNM relationship (i.e., primary and secondary partners). We found that individuals in currently monogamous relationships (n = 123) performed more mate retention behaviors compared to those currently in CNM relationships (n = 76). Within CNM relationships, participants reported engaging in more mate retention behaviors with primary partners compared to secondary partners. Likewise, CNM participants reported talking about their extra-dyadic sexual experiences and downplaying these sexual experiences more often with their primary partner compared to their secondary partner. There were no significant differences between ratings of monogamous and primary partners in participants’ overall relationship satisfaction. However, monogamous participants reported less satisfaction with the amount of communication and openness they had with their partner compared to CNM participants’ reports of their primary partner, but not secondary partner. By comparison, CNM participants reported higher overall relationship satisfaction with primary compared to secondary partners and considered their primary partner to be more desirable as a long-term mate than their secondary partner. We interpret these results within the context of previous research on monogamous and CNM relationships and hypothesize that these relationship configurations are alternative strategies for pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Statistics are available from the corresponding author upon request.

  2. Statistics are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  • Alcock, J. (1980). Natural selection and the mating systems of solitary bees. American Scientist, 68, 146–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anapol, D. (1997). Polyamory: The new love without limits. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S. J., & Duvall, D. (1994). Animal mating systems: A synthesis based on selection theory. American Naturalist, 143, 317–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, N. (2008). Explaining cross-national differences in polygyny intensity: Resource-defense, sex ratio, and infectious diseases. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner and this is my. partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Understanding non-monogamies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, D. D. (1993). Ten days to self-esteem. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 23–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire (rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.

  • Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. G. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 506–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 322–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, J. S., Ellison, P. T., Evans, J., Lee, P. C., Lieberman, L. S., Pavlik, Z., … Worthman, C. M. (1993). Death, hope, and sex: Life-history theory and the development of reproductive strategies. Current Anthropology, 34, 1–24.

  • Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989). Review lecture: Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 236, 339–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2012). The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–1565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1082–1093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Miguel, A., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Mate retention tactics in Spain: Personality, sex differences, and relationship status. Journal of Personality, 79, 563–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Visser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosexual “swinging” couples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 459–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38, 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D., & Liszt, C. A. (1997). The ethical slut. Emeryville, CA: Greenery Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partner’s mate–retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 269, 975–982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). The evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Sexual coercion in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 226–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science, 218, 384–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I. C., Ode, P. J., & Siva-Jothy, M. (2005). Mating systems. In M. A. Jervis (Ed.), Insects as natural enemies (pp. 261–298). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J., Shackelford, T. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Miner, E. J., Kaighobadi, F., Starratt, V. G., … Buss, D. M. (2014). Husband’s esteem predicts his mate retention tactics. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 655–672.

  • Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2000). Understanding human sexuality (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. J. (1985). Swinging: A test of two theories and a proposed new model. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 517–527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 507–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., Popp, D., Moyer, R. M., Bates, V. M., & Liddle, J. R. (2009). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between men’s personality and partner-directed violence. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1033–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardum, I., Hudek-Knežević, J., & Gračanin, A. (2006). Sociosexuality and mate retention in romantic couples. Psihologijsketeme, 15, 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 142–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klesse, C. (2005). Bisexual women, non-monogamy and differentialist anti-promiscuity discourses. Sexualities, 8, 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 565–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J. B., & Lancaster, C. S. (1987). The watershed: Change in parental-investment and family-formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 187–205). Aldine, NY: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loue, S. (2006). Multi-bonding: Polygamy, polygyny, polyamory. In S. Loue (Ed.), Sexual partnering, sexual practices, and health (pp. 27–53). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, B. S. (1990). Marriage systems and pathogen stress in human societies. American Zoologist, 30, 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51, 45–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKibbin, W. F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2011). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between objective risk of female infidelity and sexual coercion in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 370–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s mate value and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 214–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. E., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. J. (2013). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 329–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J. K., Wade, T. J., & Welling, L. L. M. (2014). Prioritization of potential mates’ history of sexual fidelity during a conjoint ranking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 884–897.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Beaglaoich, C. Ó. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 4, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, M. B. (1992). Women’s strategies in polygynous marriage. Human Nature, 3, 45–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nakahashi, W., & Horiuchi, S. (2012). Evolution of ape and human mating systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 296, 56–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2006). Polyparents having children, raising children, schooling children. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). Oral sex as mate retention behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 185–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2007). Hot bi babes and feminist families: Polyamorous women speak out. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 8, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. (2013). Polyamory and monogamy as strategic identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schutzwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 288–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutzwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sela, Y., Shackelford, T. K., Pham, M. N., & Euler, H. A. (2015). Do women perform fellatio as a mate retention behavior? Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity, and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2006). Poly-hegemonic masculinities. Sexualities, 9, 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Starratt, V. G., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). Experimental manipulation of psychological mechanisms responsive to female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 59–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2012). He said, she said: Men’s reports of mate value and mate retention behaviors in intimate relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 459–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & McKibbin, W. F. (2007). Male mate retention behaviors vary with risk of partner infidelity and sperm competition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 523–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Hamilton, L. D., & Watson, N. V. (2007). Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 454–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • VanderLaan, D. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2008). Mate retention behavior of men and women in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 572–585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welling, L. L. M. (2013). Psychobehavioral effects of hormonal contraceptive use. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 718–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welling, L. L. M., Puts, D. A., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2012). Hormonal contraceptive use and mate retention behavior in women and their male partners. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 114–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314, 1271–1274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler-Hill, V., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How can an understanding of evolutionary psychology contribute to social psychology? In V. Zeigler-Hill, L. L. M. Welling, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology (pp. 3–12). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, 48309, USA

    Justin K. Mogilski, Stacy L. Memering, Lisa L. M. Welling & Todd K. Shackelford

Authors
  1. Justin K. Mogilski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stacy L. Memering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa L. M. Welling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Todd K. Shackelford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin K. Mogilski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mogilski, J.K., Memering, S.L., Welling, L.L.M. et al. Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy. Arch Sex Behav 46, 407–417 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation