A recent study published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior suggests that how individuals perceive their own attractiveness and desirability compared to their romantic partners is linked to relationship tension. The findings indicate that feeling more replaceable than a primary partner tends to predict greater conflict and feelings of competition, regardless of whether the relationship is monogamous or open. However, people in consensually non-monogamous relationships who practice open communication and experience joy for their partner’s other romances tend to report less jealousy and conflict overall.
In relationship psychology, mate value refers to a person’s overall desirability as a romantic partner. This concept encompasses traits such as physical appearance, personality, social status, and access to resources. When partners evaluate each other, they often notice differences in these traits, which is known as a mate value discrepancy.
Past research shows that when people feel they have a lower mate value than their partner, they often feel insecure. They might worry about being replaced by someone more attractive or successful. This insecurity tends to trigger jealousy and behaviors aimed at guarding the partner from rivals, which psychologists call mate retention.
Most prior studies on this topic only looked at monogamous relationships. In monogamy, people expect to have only one partner at a time, which theoretically reduces competition. Consensually non-monogamous relationships operate quite differently, as partners explicitly agree that they can have romantic or sexual relationships with other people.
Because people in consensually non-monogamous relationships are openly exposed to their partner’s other partners, they might regularly observe differences in mate value. Faith Swanson, a researcher in the Department of Psychology at Texas State University and a prevention specialist at Cenikor Foundations, wanted to explore how these dynamics play out across different mating styles. The study was conducted under the supervision of Rhonda N. Balzarini, an assistant professor of psychology at Texas State University and an affiliated researcher at the Kinsey Institute.
“One thing that’s always fascinated me is that humans have a long history of flexible mating systems, but a lot of relationship research still focuses almost entirely on monogamy,” Swanson said. “We wanted to know whether the same evolutionary processes that shape jealousy, conflict, and mate guarding in monogamous couples also apply to consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, or whether people adapt to those relationships in different ways.”
The researchers analyzed data from a final sample of 512 participants. This group included 312 individuals in monogamous relationships and 200 individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Participants were recruited through social media advertisements and online forums. The sample was international, spanning 62 countries, though the majority of participants identified as white, female, and living in Europe or North America, with an average age of about 35 years old.
Participants completed online surveys regarding themselves and up to two current romantic partners. They answered questions to assess their own mate value and the mate value of each partner. To do this, they rated how difficult it would be to replace themselves or their partner on various domains, such as physical attractiveness, emotional stability, and financial resources.
The survey also measured the frequency of conflict with each partner. Participants reported their anticipated jealousy by rating how distressed they would feel if their partner became intimate with someone else. To measure mate retention, participants indicated how often they used specific tactics to keep their partner. Psychologists generally divide these into two categories: “benefit-provisioning” tactics, which are positive behaviors like giving gifts or showing love and care, and “cost-inflicting” tactics, which are negative behaviors like monopolizing the partner’s time or putting down competitors.
Another measure assessed intrasexual competitiveness, which is the tendency to view people of the same sex as rivals for romantic attention. Finally, participants in consensually non-monogamous relationships answered questions about specific relationship maintenance strategies. These strategies included disclosing attractions to others, discussing jealousy openly, establishing a partner hierarchy, and experiencing compersion. Compersion is defined as feeling joy or positive emotions when a partner is romantically or sexually involved with someone else. The survey also asked about structural practices, such as how partners distribute resources like time and money, their willingness to help raise a partner’s children, and their dedication to sexual health and safer sex practices.
The analysis revealed several nuanced patterns regarding how partners compare themselves to one another. “Across both monogamous and CNM relationships, people who perceived themselves as lower in mate value tended to report more conflict and greater competitiveness with potential rivals,” Swanson explained.
“From an evolutionary perspective, that makes sense,” Swanson added. “If someone feels more replaceable than their partner, they may become more sensitive to potential threats to the relationship because, ancestrally, losing a valuable partner could have had important reproductive or survival consequences.”
Some of the results challenged previous assumptions about primary partnerships. “One finding that surprised us was that mate value discrepancies did not consistently predict jealousy or mate retention in primary relationships, despite prior research suggesting they should,” Swanson noted. “Instead, the strongest and most consistent associations involved conflict and intrasexual competitiveness.”
The data provides evidence for a different pattern when looking at secondary partners in non-monogamous relationships. A secondary partner is typically someone with whom an individual has a less intertwined or newer relationship, compared to a primary partner.
“We were also intrigued that in CNM relationships, perceiving oneself as higher in mate value than a secondary partner was associated with greater conflict, jealousy, and mate retention,” Swanson told PsyPost. “This suggests that relationship dynamics may differ depending on whether someone is interacting with a primary or secondary partner, raising interesting questions for future research.”
The researchers suspect this happens because secondary relationships are often newer, less stable, and lack the established boundaries of a primary pair-bond. Without a deep history of conflict resolution, perceived differences in desirability might trigger frustration, especially if a highly desirable person feels entitled to a certain relationship quality or fears the unstable arrangement will fall apart.
Engaging in specific communication strategies was associated with reduced relationship tension. “At the same time, one of the encouraging findings was that mate value dynamics aren’t fixed,” Swanson said. “For example, in CNM relationships, practices like openly communicating about jealousy and discussing attractions to others were associated with less conflict and jealousy.”
“This suggests that while emotional processes like jealousy and competitiveness may have deep evolutionary roots influencing the ways in which we perceive relationship security, how we manage and integrate them are flexible and shaped by processes like communication, trust, and negotiation between partners,” she explained.
On the other hand, endorsing a partner hierarchy, which involves explicitly prioritizing one partner over others, was linked to more frequent conflict, increased jealousy, and higher rates of mate guarding. The scientists also found that high mate value individuals with multiple partners sometimes engaged in more positive mate retention, such as giving benefit-provisioning gifts or showing affection, to maintain their relationships.
The scientists also noted some differences between men and women, which may reflect different evolutionary mating strategies. For instance, men who perceived their own mate value as low were more likely to view other men as romantic competitors, likely because they feel a heightened need to compete for access to partners. In contrast, women in monogamous relationships reported more competitiveness when they perceived their partner as highly desirable. The researchers suggest that because women are often oriented toward long-term mating, they may fiercely guard a highly desirable partner to protect their established bond. Both men and women in non-monogamous relationships reported less sexual and possessive jealousy than their monogamous counterparts.
Readers should note that psychological factors do not exist in a vacuum. “Most of the effects were relatively modest, which is common in psychological research because human relationships are incredibly complex,” Swanson pointed out. “Mate value perceptions explained part of the picture, but certainly not all of it.”
“I’d think of mate value as one cue among many that people use to evaluate relationship security,” Swanson added. “Factors like communication, attachment style, trust, personality, and shared experiences are also incredibly important. Our findings suggest that mate value perceptions contribute to relationship dynamics, but they’re only one piece of a much larger puzzle.”
To prevent misinterpretations, the researchers emphasize the limits of their data. “A key point in the study is that participants’ perceptions of their own mate value were more strongly associated with conflict and intrasexual competitiveness than either their perceptions of a partner’s mate value, or the discrepancy between their two partners,” Swanson emphasized. “In other words, how someone perceives their own value explains more about conflict and competitiveness than how they perceive their partner(s).”
Because the research design was cross-sectional, it only captures a single snapshot in time. “It’s also important not to interpret these findings as causal,” she warned. “Because the study was cross-sectional, we can’t conclude that mate value perceptions lead to conflict or competition.”
“It’s equally possible that experiencing conflict or competition influences how people evaluate themselves and their partners, so future longitudinal research will be needed to untangle these relationships,” Swanson noted.
The sample size for analyzing secondary partners was also relatively small. Only 88 participants provided data for a second partner. This small sample limits the statistical power of those specific findings, meaning the results related to secondary partners should be replicated in larger groups.
“I’d love to continue exploring how evolved mating psychology interacts with modern relationship structures,” Swanson said of her future plans. “Humans have such flexible mating systems, and I think there’s so much we don’t understand about how evolved psychological mechanisms influence our relationships.”
“Moving forward, I’d like to conduct longitudinal research and collect data from both members of a couple, rather than relying on one partner’s perspective,” she added. This approach would capture reciprocal dynamics that exist between both people in a couple.
“I think one of the most important contributions of this work is that it expands relationship science beyond a monogamy-only perspective,” Swanson concluded. “Rather than assuming the same psychological processes operate identically across all relationships, our findings suggest that some mechanisms are shared, while others depend on relationship context and the ways partners manage challenges together.”
“Ultimately, the study reinforces that relationships, whether monogamous or consensually non-monogamous, are shaped not only by perceptions of mate value, but also by the communication and maintenance practices partners use to navigate them,” she said.
The study, “How Perceived Mate Value Discrepancies are Related to Jealousy, Mate Guarding, Intrasexual Competition, and Partner Conflict in Monogamous and Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships,” was authored by Faith L. Swanson, Rhonda N. Balzarini, Justin K. Mogilski, and Taylor M. Himes.