1. Polyamorous Relationships: Perceptions of Relationships with Primary and Secondary Partners
Rhonda N. Balzarini, MA
University of Western Ontario E:
Co-authors: Lorne Campbell, Taylor Kohut. Justin Lehmiller, Bjarne Holmes, & Jennifer Harman

2. Introduction
4-5% of American involved in Consensual Non- Monogamy (CNM; Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2012)
CNM relationships are those in which partners explicitly agree that they or their partners can enter romantic or sexual relationships with other people (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2013; Conley et al., 2012)
Polyamory is the practice or acceptance of having multiple simultaneous romantic relationships where everyone involved consents

3. Introduction
Primary Relationships
Secondary Relationships

4. Previous Research
Most research on polyamory examines polyamory within Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)
Monogamy vs CNM
No major difference between CNM and monogamy
Equally satisfied
Equally committed
Relationship quality
Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual frequency
Conley, et al., 2013
Rubel & Bogaert, 2014

5. Current Study
Participant
Primary
Secondary

6. Current Study Examines: Relationship Acceptance Secrecy Investment
Satisfaction
Quality of Alternatives
Commitment
Communication
Quality of Communication
Sexual Frequency

7. Relationship Acceptance
25.8% of individuals who practice polyamory have experienced discrimination (Fleckenstein, Bergstrand, & Cox, 2012).
Polyamory is not widely accepted and is a socially stigmatized relationship configuration (Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, Rubin, & Conley, 2013).
Do individuals with more than one romantic partner perceive a lack of acceptance from family and friends?

8. Relationship Acceptance
Polyamory contests the monogamous “ideal”
However, primary relationships may pass for monogamous relationships

9. Relationship Acceptance
We proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Acceptance from family would be greater for primary than for secondary relationships
Hypothesis 2. Acceptance from friends would be greater for primary than for secondary relationships
Hypothesis 3: Family would be perceived as less accepting of secondary relationships than friends

10. Romantic Secrecy
Desire to comply to customs and norms could result in greater secrecy about polyamorous relationships
Especially relationships beyond the initial dyad
Hypothesis 4: Romantic secrecy will be greater for secondary relationships than primary

11. Commitment Processes

12. Investment Size Investments are limited
If the primary partner is the recipient of many of the investments typical in traditional relationship trajectories, there are simply fewer resources left to invest into relationships with secondary partners
Hypothesis 5: We predicted that individuals would be more invested in their primary than in secondary relationships

13. Satisfaction
Denying or hiding a relationship can decrease relationship satisfaction:
Can represent a devaluation of the relationship (Berzon, 1988)
Creates anxiety about the relationship itself (Jordan & Deluty, 2000)
Keeping a relationship secret is also linked to elevated reports of physical and psychological stress (Lehmiller, 2009)
Another factor that might be expected to lower relationship quality
Hypothesis 6: We predicted that individuals would be more satisfied with primary relationships than secondary relationships

14. Quality of Alternatives
Individuals in polyamorous relationships have chosen to stay with a primary partner while pursuing alternatives
As opposed to leaving the relationship entirely
Hypothesis 7: We predicted that the perceived quality of alternatives would be lower for assessments of primary relationships than for secondary relationships

15. Commitment We have predicted that primary relationships will present:
Greater satisfaction
Greater investments
Lower quality of alternatives
Hypothesis 8: Commitment would be higher with primary compared to secondary partners

16. Pre-registration
Hypotheses and analytic plan were pre-registered to the Open Science Framework prior to analysis
In order to control for the experiment-wise error rate in hypothesis testing associated with conducting a large number of statistical tests (Kirk, 1982), the criteria for statistical significance was corrected by using the Bonferroni Method
Bonferroni Method
0.05 ÷ 11 = .0045
P-value set at the p < level
Series of paired sample t-test evaluate a priori comparisons

17. Demographics
Online survey targeting polyamorous individuals
N = 3,530 (2,428 had two partners)
Mean age of (SD = 10.55)
58% female, 35% male, 7% identified with another gender
53% bisexual, 35% heterosexual, 3% gay, 9% identified with another sexual orientation
Participants were asked to provide detailed relationship information on up to two partners
Most considered first partner listed to be “primary”
Most were living with that partner and had been involved with that partner the longest

18. Measures and Reliability

22. Summary

23. Summary

24. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Commitment

25. Conclusion
This is one of the first studies to investigate perceptions of relationships with primary and secondary partners
Our results suggest important differences across many theoretically relationship relevant variables in how people perceive primary compared to secondary romantic partners that can help us better understand these relationships as well as inform future research

26. Conclusions Limitations and Future Directions
How does secrecy, acceptance, and commitment processes operate in other CNM contexts (e.g., swinging, open relationships)?
Modifying measurement of the Investment Model’s constructs might prove even more informative, such as separating tangible from intangible investments (Lehmiller, 2012)
How does secrecy and a lack of acceptance impact investment and commitment processes?

27. Thank You! Lorne Campbell Taylor Kohut Justin Lehmiller Bjarne Holmes
Jennifer Harman