Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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 to check access.

Notes

  1. 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. 2.

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

References

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

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

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

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

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

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

  16. 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.

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

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

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

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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

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

  27. 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.

  28. 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/.

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

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

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

  32. 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.

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

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

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

  36. 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.

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

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

  39. 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.

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

  41. 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.

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

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

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

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

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

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

  52. 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.

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

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

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

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

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

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

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

  63. 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.

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

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

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

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

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

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

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

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

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

Download references

Author information

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

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

Keywords

  • Polyamory
  • Consensual non-monogamy
  • Monogamy
  • Primary status
  • Relationship quality