The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Demographic Comparison of American Individuals

in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships

Rhonda N. Balzarini, Christoffer Dharma, Taylor Kohut, Bjarne M. Holmes,

Lorne Campbell, Justin J. Lehmiller & Jennifer J. Harman

To cite this article: Rhonda N. Balzarini, Christoffer Dharma, Taylor Kohut, Bjarne M. Holmes,
Lorne Campbell, Justin J. Lehmiller & Jennifer J. Harman (2018): Demographic Comparison
of American Individuals in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships, The Journal of Sex
Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1474333

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1474333

Published online: 18 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 00(00), 1–14, 2018
Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1474333

Demographic Comparison of American Individuals in

Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships
Rhonda N. Balzarini, Christoffer Dharma, and Taylor Kohut
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario

Bjarne M. Holmes
Department of Psychology, Champlain College
Lorne Campbell
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario
Justin J. Lehmiller
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

Jennifer J. Harman
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University

Research on polyamorous relationships has increased substantially over the past decade. This
work has documented how polyamory is practiced and why individuals might pursue such
arrangements. However, there is a lack of a systematic investigation of who is in polyamorous
relationships and how they might differ from individuals in monogamous relationships. The
present study is one of the first to address this by comparing the demographic backgrounds of
individuals in polyamorous (N = 2,428) and monogamous (N = 539) relationships in the United
States. Compared to participants in monogamous relationships, those in polyamorous relation-
ships were more likely to report minority sexual identities. Despite similar age distributions,
individuals in polyamorous relationships were more likely to report being in a civil union, being
divorced, and earning less than $40,000 per year compared to individuals in monogamous
relationships. People in polyamorous relationships were also more likely to select “other”
options for most demographic characteristics, suggesting that they tend to choose less tradi-
tional response options in general. The current research highlights several demographic differ-
ences that need to be considered and potentially controlled for in future comparisons of
polyamorous and monogamous relationships.

In a monogamous relationship, it is generally not acceptable to
seek out sexual interactions or emotional intimacy with any
person other than one’s partner (see Jonason & Balzarini,
2016). In contrast, polyamory refers to the practice or accep-
tance of having multiple emotionally close relationships that
may or may not be sexual in nature, with the consent of
everyone involved (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). While
monogamous relationships remain the norm in North
America, polyamory is on the rise. Formally recognized as a
form of relationship in the 1990s (World Heritage
Encyclopedia, 2016), polyamory is receiving an increasing
amount of attention in popular culture and society at large.
Correspondence should be addressed to Rhonda N. Balzarini,
University of Western Ontario, Social Science Centre, Department of
Psychology Main Office, Room 7418, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2
Canada. E-mail: rbalzari@uwo.ca
Growing public interest regarding polyamory (Plummer,
1995) is reflected not just in increased coverage in the popular
press (e.g., magazines and television programs) (see Barker &
Langdridge, 2010) but also in significantly increased numbers
of online searches for polyamory-related material between
2006 and 2015 (Moors, 2016).
Research on polyamory has addressed how this relation-
ship style has the potential to prevent psychological suffoca-
tion of a single partner by distributing the needs that people
expect from their relationships across many partners (Conley
& Moors, 2014; Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014).
Research has also examined the robust and pervasive stigma
surrounding this practice (e.g., Conley, Moors, Matsick, &
Ziegler, 2013; Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, Rubin, & Conley,
2013) and assessed how relationships and experiences of
stigma differ among primary and secondary partners in poly-
amorous relationships (Balzarini et al., 2017). Although these
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS
areas of inquiry are important, a significant antecedent ques-
tion has been overlooked: Are there demographic differences
between those who are in polyamorous relationships and
those who are in monogamous relationships?
Considerable research attention has been given to con-
sensual nonmonogamy (CNM) more broadly, a term which
encompasses polyamory and several distinctly different
practices, such as swinging and open relationships. Recent
research efforts have examined the potential benefits and
costs associated with CNM relationships and considered
how they may be similar to or different from monogamous
relationships (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine,
2012; Moors, Matsick, & Schechinger, 2017; Ziegler,
Matsick, Moors, Rubin, & Conley, 2014). Research also
has assessed the demographic differences among those
who are currently in CNM and monogamous relationships
(Cox, 2016; Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Conley,
2014) and among those who have practiced CNM and
monogamous relationships (Haurpert et al., 2017). To date,
however, most of what we know about differences between
individuals in these relationships is based on studies exam-
ining CNM relationships more broadly, rather than polya-
morous relationships specifically.
Our research is important for several reasons. First, it pro-
vides much-needed descriptive information about polyamorous
relationships in particular (e.g., information about political
affiliation, education, religious affiliation), which allows us to
test several popular assumptions about persons in these relation-
ships, such as the idea that polyamorists are more likely to be
White, bisexual, and politically liberal than the rest of the
population. Second, this research can help us to better under-
stand why some people are more likely than others to practice
polyamory. Third, this study offers potential insights into why
some people may be more successful or satisfied with poly-
amorous relationships than monogamous relationships. Fourth,
this work can help us identify potential covariates to consider in
future research, which may be important when comparing indi-
viduals in polyamorous relationships to those in monogamous
relationships (e.g., if polyamorous and monogamous indivi-
duals differ in their sexual orientation, controlling for the stigma
experienced as a result of one’s sexual orientation would be
important when assessing stigma toward the relationship orien-
tation specifically). Finally, if we identify differences or inequal-
ities experienced by those in polyamorous or monogamous
relationships, these findings could have implications for therapy
or treatment of persons in these relationships. Specifically,
knowledge of the stigmas or inequalities faced by people in
polyamorous relationships and an understanding of the inter-
sectionality between polyamory and other identities could
potentially aid clinicians when working with these clients.
Demographic Comparisons Among CNM and
Monogamous Samples
Using data from two large online samples, Rubin and
colleagues (2014) examined the extent to which individuals
2
in varying demographic groups (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and age) were over- or underrepresented in CNM
and monogamous relationships. No significant differences
were found between gender, race, sexual orientation, and age
among individuals in monogamous and CNM relationships
(Rubin et al., 2014). This research suggested that the demo-
graphic backgrounds of individuals in CNM relationships
(including polyamory, as well as swinging and open relation-
ships) were similar to those in monogamous relationships.
Loving More (LM)—a polyamory support and advocacy
organization—administered a survey to more than 4,000
CNM participants and compared the results with the
2010–2014 General Social Survey (GSS; a national repre-
sentative sample of U.S. residents). The study was designed
to explore potential demographic differences among indivi-
duals who self-identified as practicing or as open to practi-
cing some form of CNM relationship relative to the general
U.S. population (Cox, 2016). CNM individuals indicated
that they had slightly more adults living in their household
(CNM 78.9% of persons in household were adults; GSS
77.5% of the total household were adults) but were less
likely to have children (CNM 19.3%; GSS 23.4%) (D.
Cox, personal communication, October 2017). CNM indi-
viduals were more likely to have had sexual partners of both
sexes (46.3% females, 18.8% males) and were better edu-
cated (62.4% completed a bachelor’s degree or higher) than
the general population (28.3%) (Cox, 2017; Cox,
Fleckenstein, & Bergstrand, 2013). The LM survey offers
helpful insights into the potential demographic differences
of individuals who identify as CNM and monogamous, but
it was limited in scope and did not include critical demo-
graphic questions (e.g., sexual orientation identity, ethnicity,
employment information, income, marital status, religious
affiliation, political affiliation) or distinguish among types of
CNM (e.g., swinging, open, or polyamory).
Haupert et al., (2017) assessed the prevalence of CNM
(including but not limited to polyamory) using two separate
Census-based samples of single adults in the United States
(Study 1: N = 3,905; Study 2: N = 4,813). This research
found that approximately 21% to 22% of individuals from
the United States have engaged in a CNM relationship at
some point in their lives. The proportion of people who
reported having engaged in a CNM relationship did not
differ by age, education level, income, religion, geographic
region, political affiliation, or race, but it did vary by gender
and sexual orientation. Men (compared to women) and
people who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (compared
to those who identified as heterosexual) were more likely to
report previous participation in a CNM relationship
(Haupert et al., 2017).
Although these studies provide some insight into partici-
pation or identification with CNM, they offer little insight
into those who have been involved in polyamorous relation-
ships specifically. It is possible that results would diverge
among various CNM relationship subtypes, given other
differences documented among these groups. Research sug-
gests that CNM individuals favor their own specific
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN
relationship orientation and stigmatize other relationship
orientations (see Balzarini, Shumlich, Kohut, & Campbell,
2018). Swingers and polyamorous individuals, for example,
are often critical of each other (Frank & DeLamater, 2010).
Polyamorists critique swingers’ supposed focus on recrea-
tional sex and the stereotypically gendered nature of swing-
ing (Barker & Langdridge, 2010; Frank & DeLamater,
2010). Swingers criticize the purported “conservative” atti-
tudes that polyamorists have about sex and polyamorists’
view that love can occur outside of a couple (Barker &
Langdridge, 2010; Frank & DeLamater, 2010). In a similar
vein, Ritchie (2010) reviewed news reports on polyamory
and found that interviewees who were quoted in these
stories presented polyamory as more meaningful than
swinging because polyamory was based on love rather
than casual sex.
Demographic Comparisons Among Polyamorous
Samples
Noël (2006) conducted a detailed content analysis of 12
polyamory relationship guides (i.e., self-help books written
for the polyamory community) and critiqued these guides in
terms of their consideration of diversity. She found that the
authors of these books presumed that their polyamorous
audience consisted of homogenously White, educated, mid-
dle-class, able-bodied citizens of the United States (Noël,
2006; Wheeler, 2011). Other qualitative research by Sheff
and colleagues corroborates some of these assumptions by
indicating that individuals who participate in polyamorous
relationships are demographically homogenous with respect
to race, profession, and education (Sheff, 2005; Sheff &
Hammers, 2011).
The conclusions drawn by critics of these relationship
guides are based on interpreted material or assumptions rather
than empirical research. One cannot rule out whether the lack
of diversity found had to do with general base rates in these
factors (e.g., 77% percent of Americans are White; Census
Bureau, 2016), sampling strategies, or actual differences in
distributions of demographic variables among those who iden-
tify as polyamorous (e.g., if monogamists had been studied,
would they also appear homogenous on these traits, or would
they differ from polyamorists?). Further, the number of parti-
cipants in these studies was small, with Sheff and Hammers
(2011) reporting results for 81 polyamorous participants and
Sheff (2005) reporting results for 40 polyamorous participants.
Qualitative research is a proper approach to some, but not all,
research questions. When trying to acquire estimates of demo-
graphics for a population, a larger sample should be obtained
and quantitative data are ideal.
THE CURRENT STUDY
The current research aimed to fill a gap in the literature
by critically examining demographic differences between
individuals who are currently in polyamorous and monoga-
mous relationships from two samples collected in the United
States. Demographic differences in terms of age, sexual
orientation, gender identity, education, religious affiliation,
political affiliation, parental demographics, ethnicity, and
household-related variables (e.g., number of children and
divorces) were assessed. We did not specify hypotheses for
each of these variables; instead, we sought to explore
whether differences or similarities emerge across these
groups with the goal of informing future research in this
area.
METHOD
Participants
Our study used data from two large online convenience
samples examining individuals in polyamorous (N = 3,530)
and monogamous relationships (N = 1,358). One sample
came from a study in which we told participants we were
interested in investigating the perceptions of partners among
individuals in polyamorous relationships; the other came
from a study in which we told participants we were inter-
ested in the perceptions of partners among individuals in
monogamous relationships. Participants for both studies
were recruited online from various Internet forums; dating
sites; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ) groups; and Facebook group pages. Many of
these Web sites and groups were specifically geared toward
either a polyamorous or monogamous audience, as were the
advertisements for recruitment. Recruitment materials spe-
cified that eligibility required that participants be in a poly-
amorous or monogamous relationship. Participants in
polyamorous relationships were asked to indicate whether
each partner they listed was aware of and had consented to
the participant having other partner(s) (asked separately for
each partner). Only participants whose partners were aware
of and consented to their other partners were included in the
current study in order to provide a clear delineation between
polyamory and infidelity. Because some response options
applied only to participants in the United States (e.g., poli-
tical affiliation, income in U.S. dollars), we restricted our
analyses to those living in the United States, which resulted
in a sample of n = 2,428 individuals in a polyamorous
relationship, and n = 539 individuals in a monogamous
relationship. The number of excluded participants from out-
side the Unted States is presented in the appendix.
Measures
Most of the demographic items were modified versions
of those used successfully in the GSS (Smith, Marsden,
Hout, & Kim, 2015) and LM survey (Cox et al., 2013); a
few were developed by the researchers where indicated.
Age. Participants were asked to indicate their age in
years.
3
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS
Gender identity. Participants reported their current
gender identity. The four response options were (a) Male,
(b) Female, (c) Transgender, and (d) Other.
Sexual orientation. Participants identified their
current sexual orientation in terms of (a) Heterosexual, (b)
Lesbian/gay, (c) Bisexual, (d) Pansexual, and (e) Other.
Education. Participants reported their highest level of
education with six response choices: (a) Some high school, (b)
High school diploma/GED, (c) Vocational training certificate,
(d) Associate’s degree, (e) Bachelor’s degree, and (f) Master’s
or doctoral degree. They also were asked to report the highest
education level from both parents using identical response
choices. When parents' education differed, respondents
selected the highest level of education that applied for each
parent. Because there were very few participants who did not
finish high school (n = 12 polyamorous and 3 monogamous
participants), we categorized education into three groups:
High school or less, Associate’s degree/vocational training,
and Bachelor’s degree or higher.
Religious affiliation. Religious affiliation was
assessed using eight response choices: (a) Agnostic, (b)
Atheist, (c) Buddhist, (d) Christian, (e) Hindu, (f) Jewish,
(g) Muslim, or (h) Other. Participants were also asked to
report the religious affiliation of both parents using identical
response choices, and to select all affiliations that applied.
Political affiliation. Political affiliation was assessed
using six response choices: (a) Democrat, (b) Republican,
(c) Independent, (d) Libertarian and Green Party,
(e) Unaffiliated, or (f) “Other.” They were also asked to
report the political affiliation of their parents using identical
response choices.
Ethnicity. Participants were asked to identify their
ethnicity from eight response choices and to select all that
applied: (a) Asian/Asian American, (b) African/African
American, (c) Hispanic, (d) Native American/Native
Alaskan, (e) Pacific Islander, (f) White (non-Hispanic), (g)
biracial/multiracial, and/or (h) “Other.” Because some
ethnicity categories had a very small number of
participants, we created three mutually exclusive
categories: White only, Multiethnic, and Non-White.
Multiethnic included all participants who identified with
more than one of the available ethnic categories (including
multiethnic).
Income. Participants were asked to report their annual
income in U.S. dollars and were provided eight choices,
ranging incrementally from Less than $20,000 to $150,000
and higher.
Profession/work. Current profession was assessed
using 11 options: (a) Student, (b) Education (nonstudent),
(c) Military, government/civil service, (d) Banking/finance,
4
(e) Computers/information technology, (f) Marketing, (g)
Retail/sales, (h) Service, health care, (i) Homemaker or
stay-at-home parent, (j) Unemployed, or (k) “Other.”
Marital status. Participants indicated their marital
status using one or more of the five response options: (a)
Currently married, (b) Widowed, (c) Divorced, (d)
Separated, or (e) Never been married. Participants who
had been divorced were asked to indicate how many
divorces they had had (completed or in progress).
Household members and children. Participants
reported the number of people living in their household
for three days a week or more (including the participant).
Because polyamorous relationships can consist of numerous
people who may not spend their entire week in one
dwelling, we defined household members as those who
live together for three days a week or more. Participants
also were asked to indicate how many children they had
from 0 to 5+, and how many children lived with them full
time.
Procedure
Prospective participants were provided a link that redirected
them to a secure survey hosted on Qualtrics. The first page of
the survey requested informed consent, which was received
from each participant digitally. Participants were also asked to
confirm their eligibility by indicating that they were either
polyamorous or monogamous and currently in a committed
relationship or dating. Those who met the eligibility require-
ments were asked to indicate the number of romantic or dating
partners with whom they were currently involved. Only mono-
gamous participants who reported one current partner and
polyamorous participants who reported at least two concurrent
partners were retained for analyses. Participants in polyamorous
and monogamous relationships answered identical question-
naires that included demographic questions about themselves
and their partners, and additional questions about their relation-
ship experiences with their partners (e.g., jealousy, communica-
tion, satisfaction). Participation in the study was voluntary; no
compensation was provided. Completion of the survey could be
done at participants’ convenience (median time = 59 minutes).
Only the demographic assessments were used in the present
study. This research was conducted in accordance with the
ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association.
The materials and procedure for data collection were approved
by our institutions’ ethics research boards.
Analytic Strategy
Because the polyamorous sample was much larger than
the monogamous sample, we conducted a power analysis
before we registered and ran our analyses with unequal
allocation (N2/N1 = 4) to resemble the ratio of eligible
participants in the data set. A minimum of 1,335 and 339
individuals in each group, respectively, was required to
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN
obtain a power of .95, assuming a small effect size (d = 0.2)
(power estimated using G-Power 3.1; Faul, Erdfelder,
Buchner, & Lang, 2009). This power analysis ensured that
the current study had sufficient participants to make demo-
graphic comparisons across various categories.
To answer our primary research question concerning the
demographic differences between participants in polyamor-
ous and monogamous relationships, Pearson χ2 tests for
cross-tabulations (or Fisher’s exact test where appropriate)
were used for all categorical comparisons. When Fisher’s
exact test was required for a table with a large number of
categories, p values were simulated using Monte Carlo
methods (Patefield, 1981). When chi-square tests detected
an overall significant difference, post hoc analyses com-
paring participants in polyamorous and monogamous rela-
tionships were conducted for each category option.
Cramer’s Vs are presented to illustrate the strength of the
difference when chi-square tests were applied; values ran-
ging from 0.1 to 0.2 are considered weak associations, 0.2
to 0.3 are considered moderate, 0.3 to 0.4 are considered
strong; and above 0.5 are considered redundant (Cohen,
1988). A chi-square test was used to compare the distribu-
tion of sexual orientation identities within different gender
identities, separated between polyamorous and monoga-
mous participants. An independent t test also was used to
compare the mean ages between the two groups. Cohen’s
d is presented to illustrate the magnitude of the
differences, with 0.2 considered a small effect size, 0.5 a
medium effect size, and 0.8 a large effect size. The sig-
nificance level for all tests was kept at the standard .05
level rather than adjusting for multiple comparisons.
Because of the exploratory nature of these analyses, we
were willing to accept the inflated experimentwise Type 1
error (Rothman, 1990). All analyses were conducted using
R 3.3.1 (R Core Team, 2016). The rationale and the
analytic plan for the demographic comparisons were pre-
registered to the Open Science Framework (OSF) after the
data were collected, but prior to conducting the analyses,
and can be viewed at https://osf.io/76p7p/.
RESULTS
A total of 539 monogamous and 2,428 polyamorous
participants completed the survey and were eligible for the
current analyses (see Table 1 for their demographic distribu-
tion and for total sample characteristics). Most participants
self-identified as White females between 25 and 44 years
old (Mage = 34.97) with a bachelor’s degree or higher, a
Democratic- or Independent-leaning political affiliation, and
reported an annual income of less than $60,000.
Age
Overall, there was no significant difference in the mean
age of participants in monogamous (M = 34.76) and
polyamorous relationships (M = 35.01) (t = 0.45;
p = .665; Cohen’s d = .02).
Gender Identity
There was a significant difference in the distribution of
gender identity between participants in monogamous and
polyamorous relationships (χ2 = 28.4, p < .001; Cramer’s
V = .10). Although most participants in both samples identi-
fied as female, more participants in monogamous relationships
indicated that their gender was female (polyamorous, 57.8%;
monogamous, 63.3%; p = .020). Furthermore, compared
to participants in monogamous relationships, a higher
proportion of participants in polyamorous relationships
selected the “other” (polyamorous, 5.3%; monogamous,
0.74%; p < .001) or transgender identity options (polyamor-
ous, 2.1%; monogamous, 0.56%; p < .001). Similar propor-
tions of participants in polyamorous and monogamous
relationships identified their gender as male (polyamorous,
34.8%; monogamous, 35.4%; p = .802). For both groups,
the most common open-ended responses for the gender ques-
tion included “genderqueer” (n = 51), “genderfluid/non-bin-
ary” (n = 13), “FTM/MTF/transwoman/transman” (n = 7), and
“agender” (n = 4).
Sexual Orientation
There was a significant difference in the distribution of
sexual orientation responses selected by participants in mono-
gamous and polyamorous relationships (χ2 = 281.96,
p < .001; Cramer’s V = .31). The most commonly reported
sexual orientation among participants in monogamous rela-
tionships was heterosexual, which was much lower among
participants in polyamorous relationships (monogamous,
74.0%; polyamorous, 36.4%; p < .001). By contrast, partici-
pants in polyamorous relationships were more likely to iden-
tify as bisexual (polyamorous, 32.5%; monogamous, 13.5%;
p < .001), pansexual (polyamorous, 18.0%; monogamous,
3.5%; p < .001), or as another orientation not listed (poly-
amorous, 9.2%; monogamous, 3.2%; p < .001). However,
participants in polyamorous and monogamous relationships
did not differ in their rate of selecting “gay/lesbian” (poly-
amorous, 3.9%; monogamous, 5.8%; p = .059). For both
groups, common “other” responses included “hetero-flexible”
(n = 51), “queer” (n = 114), “bicurious”/“curious” (n = 16),
and “asexual” (n = 7).
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
The distribution of participants’ gender identity and sex-
ual orientation stratified by their relationship orientation
(polyamorous versus monogamous) is presented in
Table 2. There is an overall significant difference in the
distribution of sexual orientation responses by gender iden-
tities within individuals in polyamorous relationships
(χ2 = 671.81, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .30) and within
individuals in monogamous relationships (χ2 = 86.61,
5
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS

Table 1. Demographic Distribution of Participants

Polyamorous Monogamous Total

Demographics (n = 2,428) (n = 539) (n = 2,967) p Valuea χ2/t Statistics Cramer’s V/ Cohen’s db

Age (mean) 35.01 34.76 34.97 .665 0.45 .02

Gender identity (n = 2,426) (n = 539) < .001 28.42 .10
Male 844 (34.8) 191 (35.4) 1,035 (34.9) .803
Female 1,403 (57.8) 341 (63.3) 1,744 (58.8) .020
Transgender 51 (2.1) 3 (0.56) 54 (1.8) .012
Other 128 (5.3) 4 (0.7) 132 (4.5) < .001
Sexual orientation (n = 2,422) (n = 539) < .001 281.96 .31
Heterosexual 882 (36.4) 399 (74.0) 1,281 (43.3) < .001
Lesbian/gay 95 (3.9) 31 (5.8) 126 (4.3) .059
Bisexual 788 (32.5) 73 (13.5) 861 (2.9) < .001
Pansexual 435 (18.0) 19 (3.5) 454 (15.3) < .001
Other 222 (9.2) 17 (3.2) 239 (8.1) < .001
Highest education completed (n = 2,426) (n = 539) .043 6.28 .05
High school or less 427 (17.6) 88 (16.4) 515 (17.4) .530
Associate’s degree/vocational training 459 (18.9) 80 (14.9) 539 (18.2) .030
Bachelor’s degree or higher 1,540 (63.5) 370 (68.8) 1,910 (64.4) .022
Parental education (n = 2,422) (n = 538) .177 3.47 .03
High school or less 500 (20.6) 127 (23.6) 627 (21.2) ―
Associate’s degree/vocational training 380 (15.7) 91 (16.9) 471 (15.9) ―
Bachelor’s degree or higher 1,542 (63.7) 320 (59.5) 1,862 (62.9) ―
Religious affiliation (n = 2,405) (n = 539) < .001 182.36 .25
Agnostic 553 (23.0) 157 (29.4) 710 (24.2) .002
Atheist 684 (28.4) 118 (22.1) 802 (27.9) .003
Buddhist 81 (3.4) 14 (2.6) 95 (3.2) .420
Christian 260 (10.8) 157 (29.4) 417 (14.2) < .001
Hindu 6 (0.25) 1 (0.19) 7 (0.24) 1.000
Jewish 78 (3.2) 17 (3.2) 95 (3.2) 1.000
Muslim 0 (0.00) 2 (0.37) 2 (0.06) .033
Other 743 (30.9) 68 (12.7) 811 (27.6) < .001
Parental religious affiliationc (n = 2,423) (n = 538) ― ― ―
Agnostic 499 (20.6) 93 (17.3) 592 (20.0) .094
Atheist 292 (12.0) 61 (11.3) 353 (11.9) .699
Buddhist 59 (2.43) 9 (1.67) 68 (2.30) .341
Christian 1,714 (70.6) 390 (72.4) 2,104 (71.1) .432
Hindu 11 (0.45) 2 (0.37) 13 (0.44) 1.000
Jewish 214 (8.8) 35 (9.7) 249 (8.4) .097
Muslim 16 (0.7) 2 (0.4) 18 (0.61) .637
Other 278 (11.5) 48 (8.9) 326 (11.0) .103
Political affiliation (n = 2,421) (n = 539) < .001 36.07 .11
Democrat 1,045 (43.2) 262 (48.6) 1,307 (44.2) .024
Republican 73 (3.0) 30 (5.6) 103 (3.5) .006
Libertarian 172 (7.1) 23 (4.3) 195 (6.6) .016
Green Party 134 (5.5) 8 (1.5) 142 (4.8) < .001
Independent 879 (36.3) 201 (37.3) 1,080 (36.5) .692
Other 118 (4.9) 15 (2.8) 133 (4.5) .038
Parental political affiliationc (n = 2,389) (n = 534) ― ― ―
Democrat 1,384 (57.0) 288 (53.4) 1,672 (57.2) .143
Republican 992 (40.9) 218 (40.5) 1,210 (41.4) .899
Green Party 42 (1.7) 2 (0.37) 44 (1.5) < .001
Libertarian 93 (3.8) 8 (1.3) 101 (3.5) .002
Independent 387 (15.9) 111 (20.6) 498 (17.0) < .001
Other 119 (4.9) 12 (2.2) 131 (4.5) < .001
Ethnicity (categorized) (n = 2,416) (n = 539) .005 10.43 .06
Non-White, single race 143 (5.9) 40 (7.4) 183 (6.2) .222
White only 2,010 (83.2) 463 (86.1) 2,473 (83.7) .118
Multiethnic 263 (10.9) 35 (6.5) 298 (10.1) .003
Ethnicityc (n = 2,416) (n = 539) ― ― ―
Asian 57 (2.4) 19 (3.5) 76 (2.6) .131
African 64 (2.7) 13 (2.4) 77 (2.6) .881
Hispanic 106 (4.4) 24 (4.5) 130 (4.4) .908
Native 109 (4.5) 8 (1.5) 117 (4.0) .001

(Continued )

6
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN

Table1. (Continued)

Polyamorous Monogamous Total

Demographics (n = 2,428) (n = 539) (n = 2,967) p Valuea χ2/t Statistics Cramer’s V/ Cohen’s db

Pacific Islander 13 (0.5) 0 (0.00) 13 (0.44) .143

White 2,205 (91.3) 483 (89.6) 2,688 (91.0) .371
Multiethnic 125 (5.2) 17 (3.2) 142 (4.8) .057
Other 50 (2.1) 3 (0.55) 53 (1.8) .018
Income (US$) (n = 2,408) (n = 539) .003 21.21 .09
< $20,000 697 (29.0) 124 (23.1) 821 (27.9) .007
$20,000–$40,000 626 (26.0) 120 (22.4) 746 (25.3) .089
$40,000–$60,000 389 (16.2) 106 (19.8) 495 (16.8) .048
$60,000–$80,000 247 (10.3) 71 (13.3) 318 (10.8) .046
$80,000–$100,000 155 (6.4) 29 (5.4) 184 (6.3) .430
$100,00–$120,000 107 (4.4) 27 (5.0) 134 (4.6) .567
$120,000–$150,000 56 (2.3) 18 (3.36) 74 (2.5) .170
> $150,000 131 (5.4) 41 (7.65) 172 (5.8) .053
Profession (n = 2,426) (n = 539) < .001 73.13 .16
Student 370 (15.3) 96 (17.8) 466 (15.7) .150
Education (nonstudent) 178 (7.3) 82 (15.2) 260 (8.8) < .001
Military 18 (0.74) 0 (0.00) 18 (0.61) .058
Government 74 (3.0) 20 (3.7) 94 (3.2) .416
Banking 58 (2.4) 18 (3.3) 76 (2.6) .227
Information technology 432 (17.8) 56 (10.4) 488 (16.5) < .001
Marketing 46 (1.9) 11 (2.1) 57 (1.9) .862
Retail 131 (5.4) 22 (4.1) 153 (5.2) .237
Service 126 (5.2) 39 (7.2) 165 (5.6) .077
Health care 188 (7.8) 55 (10.2) 243 (8.2) .068
Homemaker 112 (4.6) 25 (4.6) 137 (4.6) 1.00
Unemployed 104 (4.3) 10 (1.9) 114 (3.8) .006
Other 589 (24.3) 105 (19.5) 694 (23.4) .018
Marital statusc (n = 2,419) (n = 537) ― ― ― ―
Married 992 (40.9) 236 (43.8) 1,228 (41.5) .230
Civil union 244 (10.0) 29 (5.5) 273 (9.2) .009
Separated 111 (4.6) 3 (0.56) 114 (3.9) < .001
Divorced 420 (17.3) 40 (7.5) 460 (1. 6) < .001
Widowed 33 (1.4) 6 (1.1) 39 (1.3) .810
Never married 839 (34.6) 233 (43.2) 1,072 (36.7) < .001
Children in the household (n = 2,413) (n = 537) .805 2.31 .03
0 1,481 (61.6) 321 (60.3) 1,802 (61.4) ―
1 337 (14.0) 75 (14.1) 412 (14.0) ―
2 333 (13.9) 76 (14.3) 409 (14.0) ―
3 149 (6.2) 33 (6.2) 182 (6.2) ―
4 60 (2.5) 19 (3.6) 79 (2.7) ―
5+ 44 (1.8) 8 (1.5) 52 (1.8) ―
Members of the household (n = 2,404) (n = 532) < .001 32.82 .11
1 317 (13.1) 50 (9.3) 367 (12.4) .014
2 802 (33.2) 231 (43.0) 1,033 (35.0) < .001
3 552 (22.9) 119 (22.2) 671 (22.8) .776
4 390 (16.2) 91 (17.0) 481 (16.3) .652
5 183 (7.6) 24 (4.5) 207 (7.0) .009
6 72 (3.0) 15 (2.8) 87 (3.0) .889
7 49 (2.0) 3 (0.6) 52 (1.8) .017
8+ 48 (2.0) 4 (0.7) 52 (1.8) .005
Number of divorces (n = 2,428) (n = 539) < .001 38.11 .11
0 1,712 (70.5) 448 (83.1) 2,160 (72.8) < .001
1 541 (22.3) 76 (14.1) 617 (20.8) < .001
2 132 (5.4) 13 (2.41) 145 (4.9) .110
3 27 (1.1) 2 (0.4) 29 (0.98) .135
4 11 (0.5) 0 11 (0.37) ―
5 2 (0.08) 0 2 (0.07) ―
8+ 3 (0.01) 0 3 (0.10) ―
a
Significant p values are bolded (< .05).
b
For the pairwise within-group comparisons, due to small expected number of cells, we utilized Fisher’s exact test; χ2 and Cramer’s V cannot be presented.
c
Will not add up to 100% because participants may select multiple options.

7
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS

Table 2. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity of Participants difference between participants in polyamorous and mono-
gamous relationships whose highest education was high
Gender Identity
N (%)a school or less (polyamorous, 17.6%; monogamous, 16.4%;
p = .529).
Participants Male Female Transgender Other Total

Polyamorous Parental Education

Heterosexual 545 (64.6) 329 (23.5) 1 (2.0) 6 (4.7) 882
Gay/lesbian 28 (3.3) 57 (4.1) 3 (5.9) 7 (5.5) 95 There were no statistically significant differences
Bisexual 152 (18.0) 611 (43.6) 8 (15.7) 17 (13.3) 788 between participants in polyamorous and monogamous rela-
Pansexual 76 (9.0) 282 (20.1) 18 (35.3) 59 (46.1) 435
tionships in their reported parental education (χ2 = 3.47,
Other 43 (5.1) 119 (8.5) 21 (41.2) 39 (30.5) 222
Total 844 1403 51 128 p = .177; Cramer’s V = .03). Just like the participants
χ2 = 671.81; p < .0001; Cramer’s V = 0.30 themselves, the highest level of education attained by either
Monogamous parent was typically a bachelor’s degree or higher (polya-
Heterosexual 152 (79.6) 245 (71.9) 1 (33.3) 1 (25.0) 399 morous, 63.7%; monogamous, 59.5%).
Gay/lesbian 17 (8.9) 14 (4.1) 0 0 31
Bisexual 17 (8.9) 55 (16.1) 1 (33.3) 0 73
Pansexual 3 (1.6) 12 (3.5) 1 (33.3) 3 (75.0) 19 Religious Affiliation
Other 2 (1.1) 15 (4.4) 0 0 17
Total 191 341 3 4 There was a difference in the distribution of religious
χ2 = 86.61; p < .0001; Cramer’s V = 0.23 affiliations between the participants in monogamous and
Note. Table shows the distribution of sexual orientation identities (column) polyamorous relationships (χ2 = 182.36, p < .001;
and gender identities (row) in the study. Cramer’s V = .25). The largest difference was for
a
Percentages are calculated as subtotals of the columns. Christianity, such that participants in monogamous relation-
ships were more likely to identify as Christian (monoga-
mous, 29.4%; polyamorous, 10.8%; p < .001). By contrast,
p < .001; Cramer’s V = .23). Among female-identified participants in polyamorous relationships were more likely
participants, bisexual was the most commonly reported sex- to choose the option for “other” religion than were partici-
ual orientation identity for those who were in polyamorous pants in monogamous relationships (polyamorous, 30.9%;
relationships (43.6%), whereas heterosexual was the most monogamous, 12.7%; p < .001). For both groups, common
commonly reported sexual orientation for women who were open-ended responses included “secular humanist” (n = 3),
in monogamous relationships (71.9%). Among male parti- “Wiccan” (n = 34), “spiritual” (n = 70), “pagan” (n = 230),
cipants, heterosexual was the most commonly endorsed and “none” (n = 47). The proportions of agnostic (poly-
sexual orientation category for both relationship types (poly- amorous, 23.0%; monogamous, 29.4%; p = .002) and athe-
amorous, 64.6%; monogamous, 79.6%). Pansexual was an ist affiliations (polyamorous, 28.4%; monogamous, 22.1%;
orientation that was frequently mentioned by polyamorous p = .003) differed significantly between the two groups,
females (20.1%), but this orientation was mentioned less such that participants in polyamorous relationships were
often by polyamorous males (9.0%, p < .001). Gay/lesbian less likely to identify as agnostic and more likely to identify
was the least mentioned sexual orientation category among as atheist compared to participants in monogamous relation-
polyamorous males and females (males, 3.3%; females, ships. Finally, there were no participants in polyamorous
4.1%; p = .337). Across both groups, those who were relationships in this sample who identified as Muslim, and
transgender or identified with other genders often reported very few, yet significantly more participants in monogamous
pansexual or “other” sexual orientations. Due to the sparse relationships, who identified as Muslim (polyamorous,
number of participants in some of these categories (e.g., 0.00%; monogamous, 0.37%; p = .033).
monogamous gay/lesbian transgender participants), further
statistical inferences were not performed. (Data for an enu-
meration of all possible pairwise comparisons are available Parental Religious Affiliation
upon request or on the OSF: https://osf.io/z8cme/.) Participants most commonly reported that their parents
were Christian (polyamorous, 70.6%; monogamous, 72.4%;
p = .432), followed by agnostic (polyamorous, 20.6%;
Highest Level of Education
monogamous, 17.3%; p = .094) and atheist (polyamorous,
Participants in polyamorous and monogamous relation- 12.0%; monogamous, 11.3%; p = .699). There were no
ships differed in their highest level of education achieved statistically significant differences between the two groups
(χ2 = 6.27, p = .043; Cramer’s V = .05). Most participants regarding parental religion.
reported having at least a bachelor’s degree or higher,
although participants in monogamous relationships were
Political Affiliation
more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher than
participants in polyamorous relationships (polyamorous, Participants in polyamorous and monogamous relation-
63.5%; monogamous, 68.8%; p = .022). There was no ships differed in their political affiliation (χ2 = 36.07,

8
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN
p < .001; Cramer’s V = .11). While Democrat was the most
commonly endorsed party by both groups, participants in
monogamous relationships selected this option more fre-
quently than did participants in polyamorous relationships
(monogamous, 48.6%; polyamorous, 43.2%; p = .024).
There were a few Republicans in the current samples for
both groups, although participants in polyamorous relation-
ships were less likely to select Republican than were partici-
pants in monogamous relationships (polyamorous, 3.0%;
monogamous, 5.6%; p = .006). There were not many partici-
pants who selected other parties, but polyamorous participants
were more likely to identify with smaller parties, such as the
Green Party (polyamorous, 5.5%; monogamous, 1.5%;
p < .001) and Libertarian (polyamorous, 7.1%; monogamous,
4.3%; p = .016). Independent was an affiliation that was
equally endorsed by both groups (polyamorous, 36.3%;
monogamous, 37.3%; p = .692), yet slightly more participants
in polyamorous relationships selected “other” political affilia-
tions than did participants in monogamous relationships
(polyamorous, 4.9%; monogamous, 2.8%; p = .038). For
both groups, “other” affiliations included “anarchist”
(n = 21), “progressive” (n = 10), “none” (n = 11), and
“Democratic socialist”/“socialist liberal” (n = 20).
Parental Political Affiliation
Participants could select more than one option for their
parents’ political affiliation. Just like the participants them-
selves, the most common parental political affiliation
selected was Democrat (polyamorous, 57.0%; monoga-
mous, 53.4%; p = .143). Unlike the participants, though,
many parents of participants in both monogamous and poly-
amorous relationships were Republican. However, the pro-
portion of Republican parents did not differ significantly
between groups (polyamorous, 40.9%; monogamous,
40.5%; p = .899). With regard to third parties, there were
significant differences in the proportions of Libertarian par-
ents (polyamorous, 3.8%; monogamous, 1.3%; p = .005),
Independent parents (polyamorous, 15.9%; monogamous,
20.6%; p < .001), and those who selected “other” (polya-
morous, 4.9%; monogamous, 2.2%; p = .008), indicating
that the parents of participants in polyamorous relationships
were more likely to be Libertarian (although this percent is
low), more likely to identify with another party, and less
likely to identify as Independent.
Ethnicity
There was a significant difference in the distribution of
ethnicity between the two groups (χ2 = 10.43, p = .005;
Cramer’s V = .06). Overall, most participants were White
(polyamorous, 83.2%; monogamous, 86.1%; p = .118),
although participants in polyamorous relationships were
more likely to identify as multiethnic than were participants
in monogamous relationships (polyamorous, 10.9%; mono-
gamous, 6.5%; p = .003). There was a low number of single
ethnicity, non-White participants in both groups
(polyamorous, 5.9%; monogamous, 7.4%; p = .222), and
the most common non-White ethnicity was Hispanic (poly-
amorous, 4.4%; monogamous, 4.5%; p = .907), followed by
Asian (polyamorous, 2.4%; monogamous, 3.5%; p = .131),
and African American (polyamorous, 2.7%; monogamous,
2.4%; p = .881). “Other” responses include “mixed” (n = 8),
“Jewish” (n = 9), and “Middle Eastern”/“Arab”/“Persian”
(n = 5). The “other” option was more often selected by
participants in polyamorous relationships than by partici-
pants in monogamous relationships (polyamorous, 2.1%;
monogamous, 0.55%; p = .018).
Income
There was a difference in the distribution of income
between the two groups (χ2 = 21.21, p = .003; Cramer’s
V = .09) such that participants in polyamorous relationships
tended to report a lower income bracket than did those who
were in monogamous relationships. Participants in polyamor-
ous relationships were more likely to make less than $20,000
per year compared to participants in monogamous relation-
ships (polyamorous, 29.0%; monogamous, 23.1%; p = .007).
Conversely, participants in monogamous relationships were
more likely to report making more than $100,000 per year
compared to participants in polyamorous relationships (mono-
gamous, 16.1%; polyamorous, 12.1%; p = .020).
Profession/Work
There was a difference in the distribution of professions
between participants in polyamorous and monogamous rela-
tionships (χ2 = 73.13, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .16). Participants
in polyamorous relationships were more likely to work in
information technology (polyamorous, 17.8%; monogamous,
10.4%; p < .001), whereas participants in monogamous rela-
tionships were more likely to work in education (monoga-
mous, 15.2%; polyamorous, 7.3%; p < .001). Participants in
polyamorous relationships were more likely to be unemployed
(polyamorous, 4.3%; monogamous, 1.9%; p = .006).
Participants in polyamorous relationships also were more
likely to select “other” for their profession (polyamorous,
24.3%; monogamous, 19.5%; p = .018); these responses com-
monly included “writer,” “transportation,” “wholesale,” “self-
employed,” “retired,” and “legal.”
Marital Status
Participants could select all marital statuses that applied.
Many of the participants in this study reported that they
were married (polyamorous, 40.9%; monogamous, 43.8%;
p = .230). Although the proportion of married individuals
did not significantly differ across groups, participants in
polyamorous relationships were more likely to be in a
civil union than were participants in monogamous relation-
ships (polyamorous, 10.0%; monogamous, 5.5%; p < .001).
Participants in a polyamorous relationship also were more
likely to report separation (polyamorous, 4.6%;
9
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS
monogamous, 0.56%; p < .001) and divorce (polyamorous,
17.3%; monogamous, 7.5%; p < .001), and less likely to
report never being married (polyamorous, 34.6%; monoga-
mous, 43.2%; p < .001). Differences were found between
the two groups when comparing the number of divorces
between participants in a polyamorous and monogamous
relationship (χ2 = 38.11, p < .001). Participants in polya-
morous relationships were less likely to report never being
divorced than were participants in a monogamous relation-
ship (polyamorous, 70.5%; monogamous, 83.1%; p < .001),
and participants in polyamorous relationships were more
likely to report at least one divorce (polyamorous, 22.3%;
monogamous, 14.1%; p < .001). Very few participants
reported two divorces (polyamorous, 5.4%; monogamous,
2.4%; p < .001); of those participants who did report two
divorces, participants in polyamorous relationships were
more likely to have been divorced twice.
Household Members and Children
The distribution of number of children did not signifi-
cantly differ between participants in polyamorous and
monogamous relationships (χ2 = 2.31, p = .804; Cramer’s
V = .03). Most participants did not have children living in
the household (polyamorous, 61.6%; monogamous, 60.3%),
although there was a significant difference in the distribu-
tion of number of household members between participants
in polyamorous and monogamous relationships (χ2 = 32.82,
p < .001; Cramer’s V = .11). Participants in polyamorous
relationships were less likely to have two household mem-
bers than were participants in monogamous relationships
(polyamorous, 33.2%; monogamous, 43.0%; p < .001),
and they were more likely to have five or more household
members than those who were in monogamous relationships
(polyamorous, 7.6%; monogamous, 4.4%; p = .017).
DISCUSSION
Our study explored demographic differences between
individuals in polyamorous and monogamous relationships
recruited from two online samples of people living in the
United States. Overall, differences emerged for gender, sex-
ual orientation, level of education, religious affiliation, poli-
tical affiliation, parental political affiliation, ethnicity,
income, employment, and marital status. No differences
were observed for age, parental education level, and paren-
tal religious affiliation. This study extends previous descrip-
tive findings by focusing on polyamory exclusively (rather
than CNM overall) and by assessing differences in areas that
have not been considered in previous research (e.g.,
employment type, income, marital status, religious affilia-
tion, political affiliation, and parental background). The
within-group differences among our participants call into
question the view that polyamorous participants represent
a homogenous group (see Noël, 2006; Sheff, 2005; Sheff &
Hammers, 2011; Wheeler, 2011).
10
Diversity within the polyamorous sample is evident in
participants’ reports of their gender identity. For example,
over 7% of participants in polyamorous relationships iden-
tified as transgender or “other” genders, whereas only 1% of
participants in monogamous relationships identified as such.
Findings concerning sexual orientation were consistent with
past results among CNM participants (Haupert, Gesselman,
Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2017; Manley, Diamond, & van
Anders, 2015) in that individuals in polyamorous relation-
ships were more likely to identify as bisexual or pansexual,
or to indicate an “other” sexual orientation, whereas indivi-
duals in monogamous relationships were more likely to
identify as heterosexual. In fact, the difference in the pro-
portion of individuals in polyamorous and monogamous
relationships who identified as bisexual in our study was
close to 20%, whereas the difference for heterosexual iden-
tification was approximately 40%. One possibility is that
bisexual individuals are more predisposed to enter and
remain in polyamorous relationships. Alternatively, it is
possible that being in a polyamorous/CNM relationship
leads individuals to be more likely to acknowledge bisexual
attractions or to experience sexual fluidity.
These group differences in gender identity and sexual
orientation complement one another in that people who
identify as trans or gender nonbinary tend to be more likely
to endorse nontraditional sexual orientation categories (e.g.,
pansexual), which do not have assumptions of a binary
gender (Kuper, Nussbaum, & Mustanski, 2012). It is also
noteworthy that the least endorsed sexual orientation among
individuals in polyamorous relationships was gay/lesbian
rather than heterosexual. In fact, similar proportions of
participants in polyamorous and monogamous relationships
endorsed a gay/lesbian identity. This finding contrasts with
the results of the LM study, where heterosexual was the
least commonly endorsed orientation category among CNM
participants (Cox et al., 2013). While it is unknown why this
is the case, one may argue that our study’s recruitment
strategies, which focused on polyamorous groups, may
have underrecruited gay/lesbian polyamorists, whose poly-
amorous identities may be less salient and/or who are pos-
sibly more active in LGBTQ-oriented groups. Some
literature has shown that a high proportion of gay men
practice CNM, most commonly in the form of open relation-
ships and swinging (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). An alter-
native possibility is that gay men’s increased propensity to
practice CNM does not extend to the practice of polyamory.
We also examined differences in the political and reli-
gious affiliations of our respondents, as well as those of
their parents. Of the political and religious affiliation com-
parisons, the association between religious affiliation and
relationship orientation was the strongest (Cramer’s
V = .25). Individuals in polyamorous relationships (10.8%)
were much less likely to identify as Christian compared to
individuals in monogamous relationships (29.4%). This
finding is not surprising in light of strong Christian prohibi-
tions against nonheterosexuality and the high rate of non-
heterosexuality we observed among persons in polyamorous
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN
relationships. Given this difference, one might suspect that
individuals in polyamorous relationships would be more
inclined to identify as atheist or agnostic. Although this
was true for atheism, participants in polyamorous relation-
ships were less likely to identify as agnostic compared to
individuals in monogamous relationships. Individuals in
polyamorous relationships were much more likely to have
selected “other” religions.
Although the association was not as strong as it was with
religion, we also found that polyamorous participants were
less likely to be Republican and more likely to be affiliated
with the Green Party than those who were monogamous.
This finding contrasts with previous findings for swingers,
who are typically moderates or conservatives and tend to
vote Republican (Jenks, 1998). This difference may stem
from the fact that polyamorists (relative to swingers) seem
disproportionately likely to identify as sexual and gender
minorities. Given that sexual and gender minorities have
historically been excluded by the Republican party
(McGee, 2016), this could explain why they are less likely
than swingers to affiliate with that party.
Another novel contribution of our study involved the
assessment of differences among the parents of respondents.
While no differences in parental religious affiliation and
education level between monogamous and polyamorous
individuals’ parents emerged, polyamorous respondents’
parents were more likely to report their affiliation as Green
Party and Libertarian, and less likely to report their affilia-
tion as Independent. Results need to be interpreted with
caution due to the small number of participants who
reported parents affiliated with these parties.
Across analyses involving gender identity, sexual orien-
tation, religious affiliation, political affiliation, and ethnicity,
we noted a tendency for participants in polyamorous rela-
tionships to choose the “other” option more frequently than
did participants in monogamous relationships. To our
knowledge, there have been no other studies that have
reported similar findings across demographic variables
among people in CNM relationships. We speculate that
this finding may reflect polyamorists’ preferences to reject
or deviate from traditional group labels, similar to how trans
people tend to reject traditional sexual orientation labels
(Kuper et al., 2012) and how both sexual and gender mino-
rities continue to challenge the traditional definition of
families as exclusively involving monogamous heterosexual
couples who have children together (Giddens, 1992).
Rejection of labels in our data is corroborated by the
open-ended responses for the ethnicity question, where
some participants explicitly expressed their rejection of
these traditional labels with such comments as “Race is a
social construction.”
It is also important to note that we have replicated
recent findings from Rubin and colleagues (2014), which
challenged the prevailing belief that CNM (Jenks, 2014;
Jenks, 1998) and polyamorous groups (Noël, 2006;
Sheff, 2005; Sheff & Hammers, 2011; Wheeler, 2011)
are homogenously White. We also found that
participants in polyamorous relationships were more
likely to be multiethnic compared to participants in
monogamous relationships. It is possible that compar-
able results have not been reported because of how
questions about race/ethnicity were asked in past studies.
In the current study, the option of “multiracial” was a
stand-alone choice. This approach has been taken in one
previous study involving polyamory (Rubin et al., 2014),
although many studies on gender and sexual minorities
in the United States have not provided the option of
multiracial (e.g., Conron, Scott, Stowell, & Landers,
2012; Kuper et al., 2012).
Our findings also suggest that individuals in polya-
morous relationships had more turnover in their rela-
tionships compared to individuals in monogamous
relationships. Individuals in polyamorous relationships
not only were more likely to have been divorced or
separated but also reported a higher number of divorces
than did individuals in monogamous relationships.
Because individuals in polyamorous relationships
reported having more relationships than individuals in
monogamous relationships, we might expect that there
would be more separations and divorces among poly-
amorous participants. This is not to say that polyamor-
ous relationships are less strong or stable in general;
rather, it may be a reflection of the fact that with more
relationship experiences subsequently come more break-
ups. Caution in interpreting this finding is required due
to the intricacies in the structure of certain polyamorous
relationships. For instance, one may legally “divorce”
one’s current partner in order to legally marry a new
partner, while maintaining commitment to both partners
(Musumeci, 2017). The prevalence of such practice is
unknown and its contribution to the high rates of
divorce within the polyamorous community cannot be
estimated in this study.
Our data also suggest that individuals in polyamor-
ous relationships have been in more civil unions than
have participants in monogamous relationships. This
tendency toward civil unions may be driven by the
lower desirability of marriage, especially in current
Western societies which prohibit formal polyamorous
marriages (Berkowitz, 2007; Duvall-Antonacopoulos,
MacRae, & Paetsch, 2005) and enforce “socially
imposed monogamy” (Eastwick, 2013), or it may be
another sign of their attraction to nontradition labels.
However, this explanation on its own seems insufficient,
given that 41% of individuals in polyamorous relation-
ships either were married currently or had been in the
past. Thus, civil unions may be a way to signify com-
mitment to partners other than marriage, after a mar-
riage has occurred, or once a participant became
polyamorous. Historically, sexual minorities have been
on the forefront of family changes (Giddens, 1992), and
the differences found in numbers of divorces, estimates
of civil unions, and number of adults in a household
may suggest a restructuring of the family.
11
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (2014) support this hypothesis: Individuals who participated
in CNM and who were recruited from online communities
Because of the exploratory nature of these analyses, we did
tended to be more homogenous than participants recruited by
not adjust for multiple comparisons. As a result, the analyses
other methods. It is also important to note that these two
were more sensitive to potential differences (i.e., to maintain
studies recruited CNM participants broadly instead of poly-
low experiment-wise Type 2 error). As such, the interpretation
amorous participants specifically. Taken together, it appears
of the differences we found should be constrained by the
possible that individuals in polyamorous and monogamous
knowledge of a higher than typical experiment-wise Type 1
relationships are more alike in terms of age, education, and
error rate in this study. Because there are no more than 10
ethnicity than previously suggested.
pairwise comparisons per family of comparisons, we argue
To our knowledge, our findings on income and employ-
that only low p values (.05/10 = .005, thus p < .005) should be
ment inequalities within the polyamorous community have
considered reliable (see Table 1). Those with higher p values
not been identified in prior research. More research should
should be considered tentative until replicated in an indepen-
be conducted to investigate whether such inequality exists
dent confirmatory study with well-controlled Type 1 error.
due to the marginalized status of one’s relationship or some-
Future studies will benefit from using validated and more
thing else, such as lifestyle choices, or the fact that indivi-
inclusive questionnaires to measure certain constructs, such
duals in polyamorous relationships are more likely to be
as gender identity (Bauer, Braimoh, Scheim, & Dharma,
sexual and gender minorities. With the rise in the practice of
2017; Broussard, Warner, & Pope, 2017), as well as asking
CNM (Haupert et al., 2017; Moore, 2016), it is important to
other relevant questions about religiosity and religious prac-
establish whether such inequalities are reliable, and, if so,
tices (Freiheit, Sonstegard, Schmitt, & Vye, 2006; Koenig &
the impact on those experiencing them.
Büssing, 2010). For example, it might be useful to assess
Polyamory seems to be gaining some societal popularity
the importance of religion in one’s life and one’s frequency
and interest as a potential relationship alternative (Barker &
of attending religious services. Also, because we restricted
Langdridge, 2010; Moors, 2016). With this in mind, social
our sample to individuals living in the United States, there
scientists are also increasingly turning their attention to the
are important cultural constructs to take into account if
study of CNM and polyamory. While research has begun to
comparisons are to be made among individuals across cul-
document how polyamory is practiced and why individuals
tures in future studies. For example, the institutional and
pursue such relationships, little research has examined who is
social sanctioning of consensually nonmonogamous rela-
in polyamorous relationships and how they might compare to
tionships would be important to consider when determining
or differ from individuals in more traditional monogamous
the kinds of legal (e.g., marriage) or public commitments
relationships. Despite limitations, this is one of the first studies
(e.g., commitment ceremonies) that polyamorous indivi-
to examine demographic differences between individuals in
duals are able to make with their partners.
polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Our findings
Another limitation of the current study is generalizability.
suggest there are notable similarities between individuals in
Our comparisons may not apply to populations that were not
polyamorous and monogamous relationships but also some
included in our final sample, such as those who are not living in
key demographic differences that need to be considered and
the United States and those who are not connected online.
potentially controlled. We trust this insight and our findings
Among those who are in the United States, our findings may
will be useful when designing future work.
not apply to individuals who are in monogamous relationships
in rural areas with more religious and Republican leanings,
given that political conservatives seem to be underrepresented
in the current survey. The proportion of heterosexuals among REFERENCES
participants in monogamous relationships was also much lower
Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J.,
than the general population, which suggests that individuals in Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and
monogamous relationships in the current sample are more likely secondary relationships in polyamory. PLoS ONE, 12. doi:10.1371/
to be sexual minorities compared to the general population. journal.pone.0177841
Although generalizability might be limited, we can be more Balzarini, R. N., Shumlich, E., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2018). Dimming
assured that differences found in the current study were not the halo around monogamy: Re-assessing stigma surrounding consen-
sually non-monogamous romantic relationships as a function of per-
due to sampling strategy as both samples were recruited sonal relationship. Frontiers in Psychology. Advance online
similarly. This strategy may partially explain why some of publication. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00894
our results differ from past studies. For example, the LM study Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-mono-
used GSS data for its monogamous comparison group, which gamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities,
involved a weighted, probability-based sample of U.S. house- 13, 748–772. doi:10.1177/1363460710384645
Bauer, G. R., Braimoh, J., Scheim, A. I., & Dharma, C. (2017).
holds and assumed all participants in relationships were mono- Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys:
gamous. Although their sample was more representative of the Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLoS ONE, 12,
general population, the differences observed in the LM study e0178043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178043
may reflect the different strategies in recruiting monogamous Berkowitz, J. D. (2007). Beneath the veil of mormonism: Uncovering the
and CNM participants. Results from Rubin and colleagues truth about polygamy in the United States and Canada. The University
of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 38, 615–640.

12
 BALZARINI, DHARMA, KOHUT, HOLMES, CAMPBELL, LEHMILLER, AND HARMAN
Broussard, K. A., Warner, R. H., & Pope, A. R. (2017). Too many boxes, or
not enough? Preferences for how we ask about gender in cisgender,
LGB, and gender-diverse samples. Sex Roles, 78, 1–19.
Census Bureau (2016). Quick facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.
gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please!: How polyamorous
relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage. Psychological Inquiry,
25, 56–63. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer
the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-mono-
gamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 13, 1–30. doi:10.1111/asap.2013.13.issue-1
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B.
(2012). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the ben-
efits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 124–141.
Conron, K. J., Scott, G., Stowell, G. S., & Landers, S. J. (2012).
Transgender health in Massachusetts: Results from a household prob-
ability sample of adults. American Journal of Public Health, 102,
118–122. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300315
Core Team, R. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria.
Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
Cox, D. W. (2016) Exploring the health of consensually non-monogamous
individuals: A mixed methods approach. (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Retrieved from
https://shareok.org/handle/11244/47030
Cox, D. W. (Personal communication, October 6, 2017).
Cox, D. W., Fleckenstein, J., & Bergstrand, C. R. (2013). “What do polys
want?: An overview of the 2012 loving more survey.” Loving More
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.lovemore.com/polyamorousam
ory-articles/2012-lovingmore-polyamory-survey/. 1–19.
Duvall-Antonacopoulos, K., MacRae, L., & Paetsch, J. J. (2005). An
international review of polygamy: Legal and policy implications for
Canada. Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for
Women and Children.
Eastwick, P. W. (2013). Cultural influences on attraction. In J. A. Simpson
& L. Campbell (Eds.), Handbook of close relationships (pp. 161–182).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power
analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/
BRM.41.4.1149
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014).
The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without
enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. doi:10.1080/
1047840X.2014.863723
Frank, K., & DeLamater, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries,
identities, and fluidities across relationships. In M. Barker & D.
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding Non-Monogamies (pp. 9–22). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Freiheit, S. R., Sonstegard, K., Schmitt, A., & Vye, C. (2006). Religiosity
and spirituality: A psychometric evaluation of the Santa Clara strength
of religious faith questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 55, 27–33.
doi:10.1007/s11089-006-0029-y
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge, England:
Polity Press.
Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2017).
Prevalence of experiences with consensual non-monogamous relation-
ships: Findings from two nationally representative samples of single
Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43, 424–440.
Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of literature. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 27, 507–521. doi:10.1023/A:1018708730945
Jenks, R. J. (2014). An on-line survey comparing swingers and polyamor-
ists. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 17, Retrieved from http://
www.ejhs.org/volume17/swing.html
Jonason, P. K., & Balzarini, R. N. (2016). Unweaving the rainbow of
human sexuality: A review of one-night stands, serious romantic
relationships, and the relationship space in between. In K. Aumer
(Ed.), The psychology of love and hate in intimate relationships (pp.
13–28). New York City, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index
(DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemological studies.
Religions, 1, 78–85. doi:10.3390/rel1010078
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the
diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online
sample of transgender individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 49,
244–254. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.596954
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory,
monogamy, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and
sexual trajectories. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 2, 168–180. doi:10.1037/sgd0000098
McGee, R. W. (2016). Do Republicans have different views on homosexu-
ality than Democrats? An empirical study of opinion in the United
States. SSSN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2799871
Moore, P. (2016). Young Americans are less wedded to monogamy than
their elders. Retrieved from https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/10/
03/young-americans-less-wedded-monogamy/.
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. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and
shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and
monogamous relationships. European Psychologist, 22, 55–71.
doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000278
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D.
(2013). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual nonmono-
gamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 13, 52–69. doi:10.1111/asap.2013.13.issue-1
Musumeci, A. (2017, April 25). Couple wants to divorce each other to marry
live-in girlfriend. New York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2017/
04/25/couple-wants-to-divorce-each-other-to-marry-live-in-girlfriend/
Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity.
Sexualities, 9, 602–620. doi:10.1177/1363460706070003
Patefield, W. M. (1981). Algorithm AS 159: An efficient method of gen-
erating random r × c tables with given row and column totals. Applied
Statistics, 30, 91–97. doi:10.2307/2346669
Plummer, K. (1995). Telling sexual stories: Power, change and social
worlds. London: Routledge.
Ritchie, A. (2010). Discursive constructions of polyamory in mono-norma-
tive media culture. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.),
Understanding Non-Monogamies (pp. 46–54). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple compar-
isons. Epidemiology, 1, 43–46. doi:10.1097/00001648-199001000-
00010
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.
Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity, and power.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251–283. doi:10.1177/
0891241604274263
Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class
and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology &
Sexuality, 2, 198–223. doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.537674
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., Hout, M., & Kim, J. (1972–2012). General
Social Surveys, 1972–2012 [Machine-readable data file]. Storrs, CT:
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut
[distributor].
Wheeler, S. C. (2011). Poly-tically incorrect: Women negotiating identity,
status, and power in polyamorous relationships. (Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis). San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Retrieved
from http://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/1413/
Wheeler_Sarah.pdf?sequence=1
13
 MONOGAMOUS AND POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS

World Heritage Encyclopedia. (2016). Terminology within polyamory. Polyamorous (N = 3,517 Participants Who Indicated
Retrieved from http://community.worldheritage.org/articles/ Their Place of Residence)
Terminology_within_polyamory
Ziegler, A., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D.
(2014). Does monogamy harm women? Deconstructing monogamy ● United States (n = 2,428; 69%)
with a feminist lens. Journal Für Psychologie, 22, 1–18. ● Canada (n = 335; 9.5%)
● United Kingdom (n = 177; 5%)
● Europe, excluding United Kingdom (n = 356; 10.1%)
APPENDIX ● Australia and New Zealand (n = 119; 3.4%)
● South America (n = 52, 1.5%)
GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF INCLUDED AND ● Mexico and Central America (n = 26; 0.7%)
EXCLUDED PARTICIPANTS ● Asia (n = 12; 0.3%)
● Africa (n = 7; 0.2%)
In the current study, polyamorous and monogamous
● US Territories (n = 3; 0.1%)
participants were recruited from all over the world.
● Middle East (n = 2; 0.1%)
However, for analytic purposes, we included only
those who were presently living in the United States
to ease interpretation for certain questions (e.g., we only Monogamous (N = 1,110 Participants Who Indicated
inquired about American political affiliations and Their Place of Residence)
income in U.S. dollars). Those who currently lived in
other countries but were U.S. citizens were included ● United States (n = 539; 48.6%)
(e.g., those who wrote “currently in Bolivia but primar- ● Canada (n = 486; 43.8%)
ily live in the U.S.”). In other publications based on this ● United Kingdom (n = 16; 1.4%)
data set that were not concerned with demographic ● Europe, excluding United Kingdom (n = 41; 3.7%)
differences, all participants were retained for analyses ● Australia and New Zealand (n = 15; 1.4%)
regardless of geographic location (Balzarini, et. al., ● South America (n = 4, 0.4%)
2017). The breakdown of participants based on country ● Asia (n = 6; 0.5%)
or world region is as follows: ● Africa (n = 3; 0.3%)

14