How monogamous and polyamorous individuals envision multiple romantic partners

When people imagine having two long-term romantic partners at the same time, a majority envision two people with similar, well-rounded traits, though monogamous men often show a preference for one partner focused on physical attractiveness and sexual skill. These findings highlight how intended time and emotional investment shape human mating preferences in non-monogamous contexts. The research was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Historically, research into human mating preferences has centered on monogamy, an exclusive relationship between two people. In this context, researchers have mapped out how individuals prioritize traits like kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness in a single long-term partner. Consensual non-monogamy and concurrent mating structures have been present throughout human history and across various cultures. This historical prevalence led researchers to question whether human mating psychology is adapted to generate distinct preferences when multiple partners are involved.

Ashley J. Coventry, a researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and her colleagues initiated a project to determine whether people prefer the same traits in multiple concurrent partners or if they seek different characteristics in each person. The research team hypothesized that the costs and benefits of certain traits might shift depending on how many partners a person has. For example, a single wealthy partner could theoretically provide enough financial stability for a whole family unit, potentially decreasing a person’s need to seek out high financial prospects in a second partner.

In their first study, the researchers recruited 267 primarily monogamous individuals. Participants completed a budget allocation task, a method where they received a fixed amount of 70 points to spend on specific traits for two hypothetical long-term partners. This forced-choice format creates artificial scarcity among traits like ambition, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and kindness. The researchers then used a statistical technique called cluster analysis to group the hypothetical partners based on how participants distributed their limited points.

The analysis revealed two primary categories of ideal partners, the first of which was labeled “well-rounded” because participants distributed their points evenly across traits. The second category was labeled “good in bed and attractive,” where points were heavily concentrated on physical appearance and sexual skill. Nearly three-quarters of the participants preferred two partners of the same type, but over a quarter of the respondents preferred distinct traits for each partner. In this group, male participants were much more likely than female participants to design at least one partner who prioritized attractiveness and sexual skill.

Free daily newsletter

To confirm these patterns, the researchers conducted a second study with 227 mostly monogamous participants. This study replicated the point-spending methods of the first but added questions about how participants would divide their resources between the two hypothetical partners. Participants rated how they would allocate their financial investment, their daily time, and their emotional closeness across the two relationships.

The second study produced the exact same two partner categories as the first, with most participants again preferring two well-rounded partners. Among those who desired different partner types, men frequently preferred one well-rounded partner and one partner focused on attractiveness and sexual skill. The investment questions revealed that participants who designed two different types of partners planned to divide their resources unequally. These individuals typically intended to invest more time, money, and emotional energy into the well-rounded partner compared to the partner valued primarily for physical and sexual traits.

In a third study, the research team recruited 169 individuals who currently identified as polyamorous. Polyamory is a relationship structure where people can have multiple consensual, romantic partnerships at the same time with the knowledge of everyone involved. The participants completed the same budget allocation and investment tasks as the previous groups. This allowed the researchers to test whether the patterns found in monogamous people applied to those actually practicing non-monogamy.

The cluster analysis for this group yielded slightly different categories. While the well-rounded partner type remained the most common, the second category centered on kindness and sexual skill rather than physical attractiveness. Similar to the previous studies, nearly three-quarters of the polyamorous participants preferred two partners of the same type. Unlike the monogamous groups, polyamorous men and women displayed no statistical divergence in their partner preferences.

Both men and women in the polyamorous group most commonly designed two identical partner types. While participants who designed two different partner types again reported intentions to divide their time unequally, the polyamorous group generally aimed for more equal investment across both partners. The sex-based variations seen in the monogamous sample simply did not appear among the polyamorous respondents.

The researchers note a few limitations to the project. The statistical clusters represent general patterns of point allocation in a specific task rather than rigid, real-world categories of human beings. The reliance on a point-spending system forces participants into trade-offs that might not capture how human attraction naturally unfolds.

The total number of polyamorous participants was lower than initially planned, which can reduce a study’s statistical power to detect minor behavioral patterns. The survey also did not ask polyamorous participants about their specific relationship structures. Some polyamorous individuals practice a hierarchical structure with primary and secondary partners, while others avoid relationship hierarchies entirely. These structural differences likely influence how people imagine investing their time across multiple partners.

The monogamous participants may have inherently imagined a primary and secondary relationship dynamic when asked to envision two partners, prompting them to assign different traits to each. Additionally, the participant pool was limited to individuals living in the United States. Future studies could explore how specific types of consensual non-monogamy alter these preferences in different cultural settings. The authors also suggest exploring these questions with larger groups of non-binary individuals, as they were excluded from the current analysis to maintain sample parity across binary sex categories.

The study, “Preferences and Polyamory: Investigating Ideal Mate Preferences for Concurrent Partners in Monogamous and Polyamorous Individuals,” was authored by Ashley J. Coventry, Benjamin Gelbart, Kathryn V. Walter, Tamsin German, and Daniel Conroy-Beam.