Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Relationship Quality Across Different Types of Romantic Partners in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships

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

Abstract

Polyamory is the practice of having multiple emotionally close relationships that may or may not be sexual. Research concerning polyamory has just begun to determine how relationships among partners in polyamorous arrangements may vary. Most of the research assessing perceptions of polyamorous partners has focused on primary–secondary configurations; however, non-hierarchical configurations exist and can involve having multiple primary partners or having only non-primary partners. The current research is the first to examine perceptions of partners and relationship quality in various polyamorous configurations and compares results for each configuration to monogamous partners. Results from online convenience samples suggest that co-primary and non-primary configurations are common among polyamorous participants, with approximately 38% identifying with one of these configurations in 2013 and 55% in 2017. Furthermore, our results suggest that while relationships with partners in co-primary and non-primary structures still differ in some ways (e.g., investment, acceptance, secrecy, time spent having sex), they are closer to their ideals on several psychologically meaningful indicators of relationship quality (e.g., commitment and satisfaction). In other words, despite rejecting hierarchical primary–secondary labels, many of the same relationship qualities differ systematically among partners in non-hierarchical relationships. Furthermore, pseudo-primary partners and primary partners in these relationships are more comparable to monogamous partners than they are to secondary partners. We discuss how these results inform our understanding of polyamorous and monogamous relationships and suggest future directions based on these findings.

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. It is our sincere hope that our attempt to re-classify co-primary and non-primary relationships and our imposition of the terms “pseudo-primary” and “pseudo-secondary” partners does not upset participants who contributed to this work or the wider polyamorous and CNM communities from which they were drawn. We use this language as a means to systematically differentiate among groups in our sample and for sake of simplicity in interpreting the results.

  2. Items like this were presented to participants with their partner’s initials in place of the (X).

References

  • Acevedo, B., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Review of General Psychology, 13, 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appel, I., & Shmuel, S. (2015). The role of romantic attraction and conflict resolution in predicting shorter and longer relationship maintenance among adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 777–782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., & Harman, J. J. (2018a). Demographic comparison of American individuals in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Journal of Sex Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1474333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzarini, R. N., Shumlich, E. J., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2018b). Sexual attitudes, erotophobia, and sociosexual orientation differ based on relationship orientation. Journal of Sex Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1523360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. (2011). Monogamies and non-monogamies—A response to: ‘The challenge of monogamy: Bringing it out of the closet and into the treatment room’ by Marianne Brandon. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26, 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blood, R., & Wolfe, D. W. (1960). Husbands and wives. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. T., & Fervier, S. S. (2017). Historical, biological, social, cultural, and psychological aspects of non-traditional arrangements: Understanding consensual non-monogamy. In N. R. Silton (Ed.), Family dynamics and romantic relationships in changing society (pp. 28–45). Hershey, PA: IGI Gobal.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Matsick, J., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 205–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 124–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, R. M., & Brody, S. (2007). Women’s relationship quality is associated with specifically penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm and frequency. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 33, 319–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and sexual desire. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 116–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and romantic attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B. C., & Altemus, M. (2006). Romantic love and sexual desire in close bonds. Emotion, 6, 163–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E. (1985). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191–217). Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2013). Companionate love scale. Measurement Instrument Database for Social Science. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from www.midss.ie.

  • Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., & Sprecher, S. (1984). Older women’s perceptions of their intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 108–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. (1978). A new look at love. Langham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2017). Prevalence of experiences with consensual non-monogamous relationships: Findings from two nationally representative samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43, 424–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Series B: Biological Sciences, 367, 657–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. (2013). Counseling the polyamorous client: Implications for competent practice. VISTAS 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316439079_Counseling_the_Polyamorous_Client_Implications_for_Competent_Practice.

  • Khazan, O. (2016). OkCupid adds a feature for the polyamorous. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/ok-cupid-is-opening-up-to-polyamorous-relationships/423162/.

  • Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well-being: A cross cultural study. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolmes, K., & Witherspoon, R. G. (2012, Summer). Sexual orientation microaggressions in everyday life: Expanding our conversations about sexual diversity: Part 2. Independent Practitioner, 99–101.

  • Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Relationship quality of gay and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 93–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, K. (2003). Models of open relationships. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/poly/Labriola/open.html.

  • LaSala, M. C. (2004). Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships. Families in Society, 85, 405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmiller, J. J. (2009). Secret romantic relationships: Consequences for personal and relational well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1452–1466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmiller, J. J. (2012). Perceived marginalization and its association with physical and psychological health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2014). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 74–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. A. (2002). Can love last? New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. E., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. C. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 329–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 407–417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C. (2016). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “the couple” increased over time? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 677–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muise, A., Laughton, A., Moors, A. C., & Impett, E. A. (2018). Sexual need fulfillment and satisfaction in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518774638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, M., & Stelboum, J. P. (1999). Introduction: The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy and casual sex. In M. Munson & J. P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader (pp. 1–10). London, UK: Harrington Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustanski, B., Van Wagenen, A., Birkett, M., Eyster, S., & Corliss, H. (2014). Identifying sexual orientation health disparities in adolescents: Analysis of pooled data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2005 and 2007. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 211–217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Perel, E. (2007). Mating in captivity: Unlocking erotic intelligence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1981). Polyfidelity. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). “There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up”: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 584–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. M. (1982). Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the Investment Model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 357–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schechinger, H. A., Sakaluk, J. K., & Moors, A. C. (2018). Harmful and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous clients: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 879–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2014). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple partner relationships and families. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E., & Tesene, M. M. (2015). Consensual non-monogamies in industrialized nations. In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 223–242). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerance: The experience of being in love in New York. New York, NY: Stein and Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traupmann, J., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Love: Its effects on mental and physical health. In J. March, S. Kiesler, R. Fogel, E. Hatfield, & E. Shana (Eds.), Aging: Stability and change in the family (pp. 253–274). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, P., & Aron, A. (1993). Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition points in the family life cycle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veaux, F. (2011). Care and feeding of polyamorous secondary relationships. More Than Two. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.morethantwo.com/primarysecondary.html.

  • Veaux, F., Hardy, J., & Gill, T. (2014). More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory. Portland, OR: Thorntree Press LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2010). Correlates of same-sex sexuality in heterosexually-identified young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 92–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6, 137–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, G., Davidson, J., & Phillips, R. A. Jr. (2009). What psychology professionals should know about polyamory. National Coalition on Sexual Freedom. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://ncsfreedom.org/images/stories/pdfs/KAP/2010_poly_web.pdf.

  • Wojciszke, B. (2002). From the first sight to the last drop: A six-stage model of the dynamics of love. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology Main Office, Behavioural Science Building, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Rhonda N. Balzarini

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

    Christoffer Dharma, Taylor Kohut & Lorne Campbell

  3. The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Justin J. Lehmiller

  4. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Jennifer J. Harman

  5. Department of Psychology, Champlain College, Burlington, VT, USA

    Bjarne M. Holmes

Authors
  1. Rhonda N. Balzarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoffer Dharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor Kohut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lorne Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justin J. Lehmiller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jennifer J. Harman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bjarne M. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhonda N. Balzarini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balzarini, R.N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T. et al. Comparing Relationship Quality Across Different Types of Romantic Partners in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. Arch Sex Behav 48, 1749–1767 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation