Your Cheatin' Heart: A Study of Monogamy On Miami's Campus

YOUR CHEATINí HEART: A SURVEY ON MONOGAMY AND RELATIONSHIPS ON MIAMIíS CAMPUS
research by Sarah Arthur and Amanda Green for WCP 222, Spring 2000.

ABSTRACT
Our research sought to discover the prevalence of monogamy at Miami University, and how attitudes about monogamy differed from Western to Main campus. We related our research to the writings of Robert Wright and other literature. A survey was composed and distributed at a variety of locations. The data, though limited and probably not very significant, shows that monogamy is preferred by Miami students, and that a greater percentage of Main students identified as non-monogamous in comparison to Western campus.

INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANCE
Monogamy is a cherished tradition in American culture, and certainly our generation experiences pressures to not only seek out monogamous marriages but also to engage in monogamous relationships even before marriage. Monogamy is the way of our parents, of the Church, and of the middle-class, suburban, nuclear family. And perhaps even of our ancestors. According to Helen Fisher, Ph.D., ìpair-bonding is the trademark of the human animalî (Fisher, 72).
As current college students, we shoulder the expectations of previous generations: pick a career, get the grades, prove yourself to be smart and successful, and find a mate. Specifically on the campus of Miami University, the mad rush to find a partner drives herds of boys and girls up to the bars and to fraternity parties every weekend. Somehow in the blur of beer, music, dancing, and fake IDs, students hope that they will run into a Special Someone.
But will that person be their mate for life, or just for the night? Are Miami students looking for life-long love or just a good time? Is there a gender difference in expectations and hopes for a partner? Are male students less inclined to monogamy? Are female students just looking to get laid? And what is the genetic motivation for these desires? Has evolution instilled in us a predilection for monogamous relationships? Or non-monogamous relationships? Or, as the pendulum of sexual liberalism and conservatism swings back and forth over the years, has natural selection equipped us with a flexibility which allows us to adapt to either monogamous or non-monogamous circumstances dependent on which situation will most help us and our offspring to survive?
According to Wright, it may not be human nature to be confined to one relationship. In fact, Wright proposes that "the anthropological record suggests that polygyny is natural in the sense that men given the opportunity to have more than one wife are strongly inclined to seize it" (Wright 91).
But what about a society that discourages polygyny, i.e. American society? If it is true, as we proposed earlier, that humans have the ability to adapt to monogamous or polygamous systems according to the potential for survival in those circumstances, then Americans must have adapted to monogamy for some reason, for some benefit that will help them survive.
Certainly monogamy in this society is beneficial to our selves and our offspring because of the cultural approval it provides, along with material and financial benefits. A monogamous man or woman and the offspring of a monogamous union are given "upstanding moral citizen" points, and are therefore considered normal and worthy of a job, a spouse, a role in the community or church, and certain legal rights.
Furthermore, we are living in a capitalist society where resources must be earned and then distributed to one's dependents. Frequently, then, it is more profitable for a person to distribute their earnings or resources to just one partner and one set of children, as opposed to trying to distribute a limited amount of resources over multiple partners and sets of offspring.
Yet even though the majority of Americans, or students for that matter, may view committed, monogamous relationships as the ideal, there certainly are exceptions to the rule. What about these folks that do not consider themselves monogamous? Is one gender or the other more likely to admit to having been unfaithful? Is it possible to have a serious relationship where both partners have agreed to allow other partners? Is unfaithfulness motivated by love, desire, jealousy, or even, perhaps, instinct?
Robert Wright has offered a few theories on the incidence of non-monogamous relationships. For women, he cites the ëresource extractioní (Wright, 69) theory as a motivation for women to commit infidelity. According to this theory, a woman with multiple partners can extract a greater amount of resources (food, money, clothing, attention). Wright also discusses the ëseeds of confusioní (Wright, 69) theory, whereby a woman manipulates more than one man into thinking that he is the father of her offspring. In this scenario, her offspring receive Male Parental Investment from more than one man and are thereby more likely to survive. Lastly, Wright presents the ëbest of both worlds theoryí, which claims that if a woman cannot find the two requirements of good genes and high ongoing investment in the same man, she will ìtrick a devoted but not especially brawny or brainy mate into raising the offspring of another maleî (Wright, 70).
Not only do these theories not account for lesbians or women raising children on their own, they insinuate that women are motivated primarily by the craving for resources and that they cannot attain these resources for themselves. Like many of Wrightís other theories, they fail to account for the complexities of human psychology and the influence of social mores. As researchers, we felt it was our responsibility to suggest alternate explanations for why our female respondents might decide to engage in non-monogamous relationships, especially since it is unlikely that the majority of our respondents are involved in the care of offspring.
We speculate that Miami women may be non-monogamous simply because they are independent and confident enough to explore the possibilities of unconventional relationships. Or they do not see a committed relationship as the ideal circumstance for them at this time in their lives. The willingness to have multiple partners could be lingering echoes of the freedoms secured for women during the sexual revolution. Or, as Cindy Lauper so aptly stated it several years ago, it may be that ìgirls just wanna have fun.î
On the other hand, why would men engage in non-monogamous relationships? Are they really unable to control the primitive instinct to sow their seed as widely as possible, a result of the evolutionary competition to produce the greatest number of babies? But in a society with great expectations of high Male Parental Investment, it could hardly be advantageous to obligate yourself and your resources to several different family units. This is a question we must leave unanswered.

HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that the majority of our respondents will identify as monogamous. We further hypothesize that any non-monogamous respondents will be more likely found on Western campus than Main campus.

OTHER SURVEYS: A SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOUND BY OTHER RESEARCHERS

College Sex Survey (U. Magazine, February 2000, published by Colleges.Com)
This annual sex survey was conducted on a website (Memolink.com) and was directed towards college students all around the nation. U. Magazine cited more than 5,000 respondents.
-53% of respondents reported one or no sexual partners
-10% reported to have had sex with 10 or more partners
-28% reported having cheated on a significant other
-41% reported having been cheated on
-over 50% of respondents replied that they thought college students were having sex more often than they did 10 years ago.
The final statistic may be relevant to Wrightís theory of the pendulum that swings back and forth over time between liberal and conservative sexuality.

CityBeat Love and Sex Survey (February 2000)
This survey was distributed by CityBeat magazine (a Cincinnati area publication). All of those surveyed reported that they were currently sexual active or had been in the past.
-47% of respondents reported being currently involved in a committed romantic relationship
-78% of those in relationships reported that they were happy in those circumstances
-71% reported having been faithful to their current partner, and cited reasons such as ìnever having a desire to cheatî and ìmonogamy is the best.î
-27% reported having had six to ten partners since becoming sexually active
-27% reported having had eleven to twenty partners since becoming sexually active
-66% cited fear of sexually transmitted diseases as a reason for altering their approach to sex

The 1994 New Woman Infidelity Report (March, 1994, published by New Woman magazine)
Although New Woman is targeted at an audience of women usually older than college-age, these statistics may still shed some light on the attitudes about sex and relationships that are prevalent in America today, supposedly the same attitudes that would affect students.
-58% of respondents confessed to having an affair
-21% of those surveyed report having frequently thought about having an affair. 31% report having sometimes thought about having an affair.
-31% of those surveyed reported having sex with one man other than their husband. 14% report having had sex with two men other than their husband.
-61% of wives who had resisted an affair and remained faithful admitted that they thought is was possible to be in love with more than one man at a time.

Playboyís College Sex Survey (Playboy magazine, October 1996)
Playboy used gender to differentiate their statistics. The questionnaire, consisting of 152 items, was distributed in classrooms at a dozen colleges, and was not identified at the time of distribution as a Playboy project. The majority of the respondents were heterosexual.
-41% of the men and 54% of the women who responded described themselves as being in a steady relationship with one person
-39% of the men and 24% of the women who responded described themselves as single and dating around.
-25% of the men and 29% of the women reported having had three to five sexual partners in their lifetime.
-25% of the men and 24% of the women reported having had six to ten sexual partners in their lifetime.
-43% of the men and 29% of the women said they had met someone they couldnít resist while otherwise committed in a monogamous relationship

LITERATURE REVIEW
What follows is a review and summary of literature, mostly from a sociological perspective, that we found relevant as background to our research.

Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce by Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. 1992
Fisherís book contains a chapter on whether or not she considers monogamy to be natural. She discusses both sides of the debate. In her arguments favoring non-monogamous behavior, she usually attributes this to men. ìMen seek polygyny to spread their genes, while women join harems to acquire resources and ensure the survival of their young. But it is important to remember that these are not conscious motivations. If you ask a man why he wants a second bride, he might say he is attracted to her wit, her business acumen, her vivacious spirit or her splendid thighs. If you ask a woman why she is willing to share a man, she might tell you that she loves the way he looks or laughs or takes her to fancy vacation spotsî (Fisher, 68).
But in favor of monogamy, Fisher says that ìamong human beings polygyny and polyandry seem to be optional opportunistic exceptions; monogamy is the rule. Human beings almost never have to be cajoled into pairing. Instead, we do this naturally. We flirt. We feel infatuation. We fall in love. We marry. And the vast majority of us marry only one person at a timeî (Fisher, 72).
Fisher also attempts to answer the question of why, if humans are naturally monogamous, we would be inclined to commit infidelities. She discusses ancient traditions of a ëdouble standardí on infidelity, where women in both Eastern and Western societies were punished more severely and associated more clearly with sin or wrong-doing for having multiple partners than a man who did the same. ìPublic whipping, branding, beating ostracism, mutilation of genitals, chopping off of nose and ears, slashing feet, chopping at oneís hips and thighs, divorce, desertion, death by stoning, burning, drowning, choking, shooting, stabbing--such cruelties are meted out by people around the world for philandering. Given these punishments, it is astonishing that human beings engage in extramarital affairs at all. Yet we doî (Fisher, 87).
Fisher explains that, according to Darwinian theory, a man can double or multiply his contribution to the next generation by pairing with, and possibly impregnating, more than one woman. Therefore, a philandering man might be more successful in evolutionary terms. As for womenís inclination to seek multiple partners, her theories resemble those of Wright, in that they are based on manipulating partners for resources, in this case, ësupplementary subsistence.í According to this theory, extra goods and services increase her chances of survival and reproduction. The loss of one partner would not be devastating--other partners could fill the gap. She could have offspring with a man of good genes and extract MPI from a more devoted man. And offspring with a variety of fathers would display different propensities according to their genes, therefore increasing the chances that at least one of them would be able to survive unpredictable environmental fluctuations (in case the others didnít carry those genes) (Fisher, 91).

ìIs Monogamy Outdated?î by Rustum and Della Roy, from Family, Marriage, and the Struggle of the Sexes. Edited by Hans Peter Dreitzel. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1972.
ìThe total institution of marriage in American society is gravely ill.î So begins the Royís indictment of monogamous marriage in American society. They accuse traditional monogamy of being a mere tool of the government and warring churches, and find that traditional monogamy has failed to satisfy most Americans. Writing from the perspective of the 1970s, on the heels of the sexual revolution and the era of free love, the Roys call for ìinstitutional reforms, even when the personal or immediate environment may not appear to need itî (Roy, 332). The reforms would address such failures as this: the failure of conventional marriage to be sensitive to the ìhave-notsî (singles, widows, divorcees), the failure to adjust and find less hurtful ways to terminate a marriage, and the failure to account for modern societyís increased rate of friendships, business relationships, and interactions between men and women outside of marriages.

Beyond Monogamy: Recent Studies of Sexual Alternatives in Marriage. Edited by James R. Smith and Lynn G. Smith. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1974.
The Smiths justify their research, and call for more research considering the ìpotential ramifications of a genuine and humanistically committed science, of the relationships among marriage, sexuality and social structureî (Smith, 3). They discuss a new model for marriage, the ëcompanionateí model, which ìis more synergistic, less symbiotic, more developmental and dynamic, and less regimented around the needs for subsistence, safety, and securityî (Smith, 10). And although extramarital sex is certainly incompatible with the traditional model of marriage, it is ìin many respects continuous with the development of the companionate orientationî (Smith, 11). It is possible that young couples today are more interested in companionate relationships than traditional relationships, and that for some of these couples, an agreement to allow other partners is a realistic possibility.
Furthermore, the Smiths call attention to a recent shift in Western civilization: marriage and sex is now not only confined to the realms of stability, reproduction, and domestication. The modern world now manifests so many different forms of partnerships, with a variety of purposes. And sex, as well, has been transformed into a more dynamic activity extending beyond procreation and into the realms of emotion, intimacy, companionship, and the like. As these institutions change, so may the attitudes and rules that apply to them, and so may the human reactions to them.

Of Men and Women. Pearl S. Buck. New York, Cornwall Press. 1941.
In her chapter on monogamy, Buck introduces the topic with this sentence: ìPolygamy is, of course, ubiquitous, for it is the only solution men have yet found to the problem of too many womenî (Buck, 97). The question and point of debate, according to Buck, is whether or not polygamy is to be recognized: the Western people have decided that it should not, and the Eastern people have decided to endorse it.

Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society. Irwin Altman and Joseph Ginat. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996.
This book, written by a pair of social psychologist and anthropologist, utilizes interviews and observations to describe how husbands and wives in plural Mormon families cope with the complexities of finances, resource distribution, psychological adjustments, and living arrangements. Although we found this source to be very interesting, we found that it had little relevance to our project or Miami students.

Other Sources:

Black, Jeffrey M. editor. Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy. London: Oxford University Press. 1996.

Cairncross, John. After Polygamy Was Made a Sin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1974

Foster, Lawrence. Women, Family, and Utopia. New York, Syracuse University Press. 1991.
Morris, Desmond. The Naked Ape. New York: Dell Publishing, Company. 1967.

Morrison, Eleanor and Vera Borosage, editors. Human Sexuality: Contemporary Perspectives. National Press Books: Palo, Alto. 1973.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
As a method of data collection, we made a survey (see attached survey following packet) to distribute to Miami students regarding their personal reactions and participation in monogamous relationships. We passed these surveys out in our classes, at social gatherings, and to random students at Miami University (i.e. at dining halls and bus stops). The survey addressed monogamy as a personal issue for each individual, where every participant reflected upon their own relationships and feelings about and participation in monogamous relationships. We purposely made the survey unbiased towards heterosexual or homosexual relationships because this issue is not a major concern to us, as we are focusing on the monogamy within either or both types of relationships.
Each question asked on the survey has a specific purpose of providing more information to emphasize and compare every answer to one another. By distinguishing between participants' gender, we could pick up on any trends that might be prevalent or differing between sexes, such as the trend of participation in non-monogamous relationships given a person's gender (#1). Our distinction between students of different majors was in an effort to compare the results of students involved in the Western program to students who are not (#2). We believe this to be a significant distinction because the Western program is very different from the rest of Miami's programs. By comparing and contrasting the opinions of Western Students to the opinions of other Miami students, we might be able to speculate as to whether the Western program includes and attracts students with opinions that differ from those of main campus students, or perhaps that Western allows for or results in students developing opinions that differ from those of main campus students.
By addressing the number of relationships each participant had been in (#4), then comparing it to the number of those that had not been completely monogamous (#5), we were able to get a better idea of how monogamous or non-monogamous tendencies might effect the number of relationships a participant had been in and what trends those relationships would follow. It was important to ask whether each participant had been cheated on (#7), as well as if they had cheated on someone (#6), to clarify to what extent their feelings on monogamy reached. For example, if a person considered themselves to be a monogamous person, yet had cheated on a partner before, we would have to consider what aspects of human nature might drive a person to participate in non-monogamous behaviors when they were so dedicated to the tradition of monogamy that they would consider themselves to be such.
By asking whether participants believed that they could be in true love with more than one person at a time (#8), we were able to see if there was any correlation between this opinion and their attitudes concerning monogamy. The answers to this question might reinforce our idea that those who considered themselves to be non-monogamous would be more likely to consider it possible to be in love with more than one person at a time. Our following question (#9) inquired about actions such as flirting and attraction while in the circumstances of a serious relationship. This question was intended to clarify what behavior is implied by monogamy. For example, was flirting or finding others (besides your partner) attractive a trespass upon monogamous commitments?
We also inquired about preferences towards certain stereotypes in choosing a mate (i.e. promiscuous people or those who ìplay hard to getî). However, not many people responded to this question because they found it difficult to categorize their preferences so easily, so in our final analysis we discarded this question.
We had also planned to consider the role that divorce plays in the development of monogamy values, and included a question on our survey that addresses the issue of parental divorce (#10). We questioned the possibility of an increase in polygamous behavior or values in students whose parents have been divorced, but later considered this to be too out of range from our original hypothesis and purpose. We also wondered whether the age of the respondent at which his/her parents divorced had any bearing (#11).
After distributing and collecting all of the surveys, we compiled our data using Statview and ran statistical comparisons between the categories we felt most relevant in relationship to our hypothesis. Using the Claris Works Spreadsheet, we also created pie charts and bar graphs to visually emphasize the results of some of our comparisons. With these visual representations, it was easy to compare and contrast the differences and similarities of the students' opinions, as well as allowing us to organize our data in an easy-to-understand fashion.
We did not use any other materials to collect data for we felt that the survey was the most critical portion of our project. On a smaller scale, however, we have compared and contrasted our survey to other surveys that have been published (for instance, Playboy's college survey). After establishing the results of the project, we were able to refer to our literary research materials to emphasize our results and explain them according to popular theory.
When considering errors in our process of data collection, we suspect that the small number of surveys we collected, in comparison to the number of students at Miami, might not accurately reflect trends of monogamy throughout the Miami campus. It is also possible that our data collection is not random enough given this small population. Perhaps everyone we surveyed had been exposed to similar biased opinions concerning monogamy since many of them were our classmates. Also to be considered are the participants who did not answer the survey questions using the answers we provided, but created their own. By doing so, we were forced to either create completely new categories to accommodate their answers, or place these answers into appropriate categories to the best of our abilities. Either way, statistical analysis may have been skewed due to these inconsistencies.

DATA AND RESULTS
Table A. Only 8 of our 64 respondents considered themselves to be non-monogamous. As a way to organize our data, we first decided to categorize the responses by gender. Ironically enough, out of an equal number of male and female respondents, an equal number of each considered themselves to be monogamous. We have no explanation for this eerie similarity between the sexes. Because of our exact results, and the absolute lack of difference between the data and the expected values, it was impossible to calculate a P-value. There cannot be a 100% certainty that our results were significant and due to chance alone, yet the analysis is so exact there this is little room for doubt.
Obviously most of our respondents favored monogamy, and we suspect that this is because our generation has assigned great value to loyalty and intimacy with one partner at a time. In reference to Wrightís metaphor of the pendulum of conservative and liberal sexuality over time, we speculate that our generation has entered a more conservative phase of sexual attitudes.
Table B. Is major related to monogamous behavior? This was one of the primary questions we planned to explore in our project. Data analysis shows that of the 38 Western students surveyed, only 4 considered themselves to be non-monogamous. A larger percentage (4 of the 24) of main campus students surveyed also considered themselves to be non-monogamous. Analysis of the data produced the P-value of .0001, which suggests that this is significant and is probably not due to random chance. The expected values indicate a negligible difference between the real data and a random model.
It appears that a higher percentage of main campus students consider themselves to be non-monogamous. There could be a variety of reasons for this difference. Is it really that main campus students are more inclined to favor non-monogamous relationships? Or could it be that the small and communal nature of the Western community makes non-monogamous relationships more uncomfortable, perhaps even awkward, assuming that Western students are likely to date within their own major? Comparatively, could it be that main campus students have a wider variety of potential dating partners available to them, and having multiple partners is not as likely to create an awkward situation since there is less opportunity for uncomfortable overlaps among different relationships? Or are we as researchers biased and unable to objectively perceive the lifestyles of main campus students? (see Table C).
Table D. An analysis of the correlation between gender and having cheated on a partner reveals that more males than females have cheated on a partner. However, the P-value of .17 suggests that these results were probably due to random chance, and were therefore not significant. We speculate that these results are not significant because of the limited size of survey populations. A larger population would better reflect any trends.
The expected values indicate that in a random model an equal number of males and females would have cheated on a partner. One possible reason for this discrepancy between real data and expected values is that females may be more reluctant to admit to having cheated on a partner. This relates to Robert Wrightís theory that it is more important for females to preserve a monogamous reputation. If the male partner suspected the female partner of having had sexual relations with other men (therefore, casting doubt on paternity), he may then withhold resources from her and her children, and it may adversely affect the amount of Male Parental Investment he was willing to give to her offspring. Wrightís theory on ëresource extractioní explains why women might want to cheat on a partner, and his ëseeds of confusioní theory explains why women would want to have multiple partners and keep them secret from each other (Wright, 69).
Table E. We also wanted to use our data to decipher whether attitudes about love affected monogamous behavior. In order to do so, we compared the responses to a question about the ability to be in ëtrue loveí with more than one person at a time with the responses to a question about whether or not the respondent considered themselves to be monogamous. Of the 8 non-monogamous participants, 6 believed that you can be in true love with more than one person at a time. Of the 56 who considered themselves to be monogamous, 17 believed that you can be in true love with more than one person at a time. Therefore the majority of our respondents believed that true love applies to only one person at a time, and this attitude is reflected in their behavior, i.e. most of our respondents identified as monogamous.
Table F. Finally, we questioned participants about their behavior towards other people while in a serious relationship. We found that more males participated in behavior such as flirting, finding other people attractive, and regarding others as potential future relationships. More females, on the other hand, still pursued otherís attentions and affections while in a serious relationship. These behaviors do not necessarily imply a trespass upon monogamous or serious commitments. But they might act as evidence that humans are innately sexual beings and that their appreciation for romantic interactions, even if merely casual, with a variety of people is not subdued by the circumstances of a serious relationship.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that due to the limited scope of our survey and the limited survey population, our data cannot conclusively reflect the attitudes and behaviors of Miami students. But analysis of our data, however flawed or limited, makes it apparent that trends of monogamy are prevalent at this uiversity. Furthermore, we find that a higher percentage of our Main campus respondents identified as non-monogamous, as compared to Western campus, although in both cases, these respondents were in the minority.

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu

Here is a list of responses that have been posted to this Study...

Respond to this Submission!

IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!

Visit the rest of the site!