Psychology of Cheating in Relationships
A new study reveals how monogamous and polyamorous people imagine having two partners, finding most prefer similar, well-rounded partners, but monogamous men often prefer one partner focused on attractiveness and sexual skill.
A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships finds that when people imagine having two long-term romantic partners, most envision two people with similar, well-rounded traits. However, monogamous men frequently 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.
Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, led by Ashley J. Coventry, investigated whether human mating psychology generates distinct preferences for multiple concurrent partners. 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. The team hypothesized that the costs and benefits of traits like kindness or wealth might shift when a person considers more than one partner.
In the first two studies, researchers recruited primarily monogamous individuals. Participants completed a budget allocation task, a method where they received a fixed amount of points to spend on specific traits for two hypothetical long-term partners. This forced-choice format creates artificial scarcity among key 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 was a well-rounded type, with ambition, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and kindness distributed evenly. The second type focused heavily on physical appearance and sexual skill. Nearly three-quarters of participants preferred two partners of the same type. Over a quarter preferred distinct traits for each partner. In this latter group, male participants were much more likely than female participants to design at least one partner who prioritized attractiveness and sexual skill.
A second study with mostly monogamous participants added questions about how participants would divide their resources between the two hypothetical partners. It confirmed the same two partner categories, 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. Participants who designed two different types of partners planned to divide their resources unequally, investing more into the well-rounded partner.
In a third study, the research team recruited individuals who currently identified as polyamorous. They completed the same tasks. The cluster analysis for the polyamorous group yielded slightly different categories. The well-rounded type remained most common. The second category centered on kindness and sexual skill rather than just physical attractiveness. Similar to the monogamous groups, nearly three-quarters of 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. 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 researchers note several limitations. The statistical clusters represent patterns in a specific task, not rigid real-world categories. The reliance on a point-spending system forces trade-offs that might not capture natural attraction. The total number of polyamorous participants was lower than planned. The survey also did not ask polyamorous participants about their specific relationship structures. The authors suggest the monogamous participants may have inherently imagined a primary and secondary relationship dynamic when asked to envision two partners. The participant pool was limited to individuals living in the United States. Future studies could explore these preferences in different cultural settings and with larger groups of non-binary individuals.
