Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polygamous Interest in a Mononormative Nation: The Roles of Sex and Sociosexuality in Polygamous Interest in a Heterosexual Sample from the UK

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

Abstract

Polygamy is a form of “one-sided” consensually non-monogamous relationship where one person has multiple committed partners, each of whom is only involved with that one person. It was likely a reoccurring feature of ancestral mating that posed adaptive problems for our ancestors. Yet polygamy, and multi-partnering more generally, is understudied in Western cultures, raising questions about the existence of polygamous interest and whether this is calibrated adaptively to personal conditions. In two studies, we examined polygamous interest in two heterosexual online samples from the UK. In Study 1 (N = 393), modest interest was found for polygamous relationships overall. Men were six times more open to polygyny than women, but there was little sex difference in openness to polyandry. Further analysis revealed that all forms of multi-partnering were undesirable relative to singlehood and monogamy; however, consensual multi-partner relationships were less undesirable than non-consensual ones. Sex differences were largest for polygyny and arrangements where men had agreed access to a casual partner alongside a committed one, yet these were two of the most acceptable forms of multi-partnering when men and women’s responses were combined. Sociosexuality positively predicted interest in most forms of multi-partnering. Study 2 (N = 735) focused on polygyny and added status-linked traits as predictors. The results of Study 1 were broadly replicated, though the status-linked traits did not predict polygynous interest specifically. Instead, sociosexuality and male intrasexual competitiveness uniquely predicted general interest in multi-partner relationships. Overall, interest in polygamy appears to emerge despite social discouragement and sex differences in interest track the relative costs and benefits associated with it. However, there is no strong evidence that polygamous interest is uniquely calibrated to personal conditions when compared to other forms of multi-partnering.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Some or all datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. While all of the participants were currently living in the UK, not all of them were born and raised there, raising questions about heterogeneous exposure to cultural norms about multi-partnering. In Study 1, 13.5% were born in other Western countries, 3.2% in South-Asian or Middle Eastern countries, and 3% from a mixture of other countries. Re-analyzing the data with these participants excluded made no qualitative change to the findings.

  2. Cronbach alphas in the paper refer to values obtained from the present studies.

  3. Following the example of Rodrigues et al. (2021), we used the term non-consensual to indicate non-monogamous relationships which do not have mutual consent from all parties, as opposed to non-consensual, forced sexual activity such as rape.

  4. Collapsing “Yes” and “Unsure” together yields a χ2(1) value that corresponds to d = 0.70.

  5. p-values are inflated accordingly, and capped at p = 1.000.

  6. To account for the fact that there were fewer men than women in our sample, we also performed this analysis while “weighing” the contribution of men to the means. This did not change the pattern of the results.

References

  • Al-Krenawi, A., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Shimol-Jacobsen, S. (2006). Attitudes toward and reasons for polygamy differentiated by gender and age among Bedouin-Arabs of the Negev. International Journal of Mental Health, 35(1), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnocky, S. (2018). Self-perceived mate value, facial attractiveness, and mate preferences: Do desirable men want it all? Evolutionary Psychology, 16(1), 1474704918763271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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(5), e0177841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Balzarini, R. N., & Muise, A. (2020). Beyond the dyad: A review of the novel insights gained from studying consensual non-monogamy. Current Sexual Health Reports, 12(4), 398–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, E. (2020, July 1). A Massachusetts city decides to recognize polyamorous relationships. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/us/somerville-polyamorous-domestic-partnership.html?smid=url-share

  • Brown, E. N. (2021, March 3). Cambridge will recognize partnerships and other domestic arrangements with more than 2 adults. Reason. Retrieved from https://reason.com/2021/03/10/cambridge-will-recognize-polyamorous-partnerships-and-other-domestic-arrangements-with-more-than-2-adults/

  • Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N., & Mulder, M. B. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(6), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441–12446.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, N. C., Mitchell, R. C., & Mogilski, J. K. (2022). Which styles of moral reasoning predict apprehension toward consensual non-monogamy? Personality and Individual Differences, 196, 111732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleckenstein, J., & Cox, D. (2015). The association of an open relationship orientation with health and happiness in a sample of older US adults. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 30, 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.976997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, C. D., Pillsworth, E. G., Buss, D. M., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2019). Evolutionary mismatch in mating. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02709

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, J. B. (2012). Rapid cultural change: A case study of polyandry marriage system among the Gurung community from upper Mustang, Nepal. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 6, 75–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwanfogbe, P. N., Schumm, W. R., Smith, M., & Furrow, J. L. (1997). Polygyny and marital life satisfaction: An exploratory study from rural Cameroon. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 28(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2017). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424–440.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2009). Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1674), 3863–3870.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ka, W. L., Bottcher, S., & Walker, B. R. (2022). Attitudes toward consensual non-monogamy predicted by sociosexual behavior and avoidant attachment. Current Psychology, 41, 4312–4320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00941-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T.-C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among U.S. adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51(1–3), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2003). The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(3), 282–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mek, A. K., Kelly-Hanku, A., Bell, S., Wilson, L., & Vallely, A. J. (2018). ‘I was attracted to him because of his money’: Changing forms of polygyny in contemporary Papua New Guinea. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 19(2), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J. K. (2022). Types of multi-partnering. Encyclopedia of sexuality & gender. Springer.

    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(2), 407–417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J. K., Mitchell, V. E., Reeve, S. D., Donaldson, S. H., Nicolas, S. C., & Welling, L. L. (2020). Life history and multi-partner mating: A novel explanation for moral stigma against consensual non-monogamy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03033

  • Mogilski, J. K., Rodrigues, D. L., Lehmiller, J. J., & Balzarini, R. N. (2023). Maintaining multi-partner relationships: Evolution, sexual ethics, and consensual non-monogamy. In J. K. Mogilski & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and romantic relationships. Oxford Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moorad, J. A., Promislow, D. E., Smith, K. R., & Wade, M. J. (2011). Mating system change reduces the strength of sexual selection in an American frontier population of the 19th century. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.004

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C., Conley, T. D., Edelstein, R. S., & Chopik, W. J. (2015). Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514529065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A. C., & Ramos, A. (2022). Stigma and prejudice endured by people engaged in consensual non-Monogamy. In M. D. Vaughan & T. R. Burnes (Eds.), The handbook of consensual non-monogamy: Affirming mental health practice (pp. 50–73). Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, M. B. (1990). Kipsigis women’s preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27(4), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00164897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orians, G. H. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. The American Naturalist, 103(934), 589–603.

    Article  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(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D. L., Aybar Camposano, G. A., & Lopes, D. (2022). Stigmatization of consensual non-monogamous partners: Perceived endorsement of conservation or openness to change values vary according to personal attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 3931–3946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02368-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., Dawson, K., de Visser, R., & Štulhofer, A. (2021). With or without you: Associations between frequency of internet pornography use and sexual relationship outcomes for (non) consensual (non) monogamous individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1491–1504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). “We agree and now everything goes my way”: Consensual sexual nonmonogamy, extradyadic sex, and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(6), 373–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., Pereira, M., De Visser, R., & Cabaceira, I. (2019). Sociosexual attitudes and quality of life in (non) monogamous relationships: The role of attraction and constraining forces among users of the Second Love web site. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1795–1809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scelza, B. (2022). Marriage and monogamy in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human mating (pp. 531–554). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L. (2019). Are we monogamous? A review of the evolution of pair-bonding in humans and its contemporary variation cross-culturally. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230

  • Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P. A. (2003). Attitudes to polygamy in English law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(2), 369–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St Vil, N. M., & Giles, K. N. (2022). Attitudes toward and willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy (CNM) Among African Americans who have never engaged in CNM. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(3), 1823–1831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Starkweather, K. E., & Hames, R. (2012). A survey of non-classical polyandry. Human Nature, 23(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9144-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The ape that understood the universe: How the mind and culture evolve. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2013.804899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J. D., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., Stewart-Williams, S., Sulikowski, D., & Li, N. P. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 606–620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. G., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). Mating strategy flexibility in the laboratory: Preferences for long- and short-term mating change in response to evolutionarily relevant variables. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. G., Stone, B., Bennett, P., Stewart-Williams, S., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2021). Sex differences in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic interests: Exploring the mediating roles of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity from an evolutionary perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(5), 2151–2162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01991-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of Man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D. R., Betzig, L., Mulder, M. B., Chick, G., Hartung, J., Irons, W., Low, B. S., Otterbein, K. F., Rosenblatt, P. C., & Spencer, P. (1988). Rethinking polygyny: co-wives, codes, and cultural systems [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 29(4), 529–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jordan Behnam, Maria Elaine Goddard, Elise Hooper, Sabrina Mullins, and Joseph Oseman for support with data collection.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK

    Andrew G. Thomas & Sophie Harrison

  2. Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina Salkehatchie, Allendale, SC, USA

    Justin K. Mogilski

  3. School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia

    Steve Stewart-Williams

  4. School of Psychology, University of South Wales, Newport, UK

    Lance Workman

Authors
  1. Andrew G. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin K. Mogilski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steve Stewart-Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lance Workman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew G. Thomas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the School of Psychology’s ethics committee at Swansea University. Ethical approval for both studies was granted from the IRB of the corresponding author.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix A: The Explanation of Polygamy Given to Participants in Study 1

In this section of the questionnaire, we are interested in your thoughts and feelings toward long-term relationships. Individuals in long-term relationships are committed to each other. They are likely to love each other, live together, become married, and raise children together.

Most long-term relationships are between two people—both partners agree to be faithful to one another exclusively. This is called a “one-to-one” relationship.

However, in some cultures, long-term relationships (including marriage) can include more than two individuals. For the purpose of this questionnaire, we will call this type of relationship “one-to-many.”

For example, a man (one) may have a relationship with (or be married to) several women at the same time. These women (many) share him as a partner and they are emotionally and sexually faithful to him. In return, he remains faithful to the women as a group and does not have sex with anyone outside of the relationship.

In another example, a woman (one) may have a relationship with (or be married to) several men. Again, these men (many) would share her as a partner and be emotionally and sexually faithful to her. She would remain faithful to the men as a group and not have sex with anyone outside of the relationship.

It is important to note that everyone in a one-to-many relationship is aware of each other’s existence. There is no deception and everyone consents to the arrangement. This type of relationship is not just about sex. The one may love and care for all of the many. The relationship between each of the many, however, is purely platonic.

In this study, we want to know how your thoughts and feelings toward one-to-many relationships.

Appendix B: Transcript of the Video Explaining Polygyny to Participants in Study 2

While polygyny is not practiced in many Western cultures, it is still common in some Eastern ones.

As someone who comes from a culture that doesn’t allow polygyny, we would like your views about this type of relationship. So, if you’re male, we’re interested how you would feel about the prospect of having multiple wives. If you’re female, we’re interested how you feel about the prospect of sharing a single husband with multiple co-wives.

If you’re not a big fan of marriage, then we’d still like you to consider how you would feel being part of a committed long-term polygynous relationship instead. This would mean having multiple long-term girlfriends (if your male), or sharing a long-term boyfriend with other girlfriends (if you’re female).

A polygynous relationship has rules, and isn’t simply “sleeping around” or having an “open relationship.” Within a polygynous relationship, the man would be sexually and emotionally faithful to his small group of partners and would not have sex outside of the group. Equally, the women who share him would remain emotionally and sexually faithful to him and him alone. Co-wives or co-girlfriends do not have sexual relationships with each other; however, they may be close friends.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomas, A.G., Harrison, S., Mogilski, J.K. et al. Polygamous Interest in a Mononormative Nation: The Roles of Sex and Sociosexuality in Polygamous Interest in a Heterosexual Sample from the UK. Arch Sex Behav 53, 611–627 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02749-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02749-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation