Attachment theory is a cornerstone of psychology but few studies have attempted to investigate the role of attachment styles in polyamorous relationships.

Advertisement In Western societies, monogamy is the most common romantic relationship agreement between people, but so-called non-monogamous ethical or consensual relationships are increasingly common.
It has been estimated that about 4-5% of individuals in the United States are currently involved in a non-monogamous consensual relationship (Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler & Conley, 2014) and about one in five people have experienced this form of relationship in a period of one's life (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher & Garcia, 2017).
The term non-monogamous consensual relationships encompasses a constellation of relational configurations that provide for the possibility of establishing emotional and / or sexual relationships with several partners at the same time (Rubin et al., 2014); this happens with the agreement and consent of all the people involved.
The most common forms of this type of relationship are: swinging, an agreement in which both partners engage in extra-dyadic sexual activities (usually in a social environment where both parties are present; Jenks, 1998); the open relationship, in which partners engage in exclusively independent sexual relations outside the primary dyad (Hyde & DeLamater, 2000); and polyamory, in which partners can engage, in a consensual and informed manner, in intimate, sentimental and / or sexual relationships with multiple people outside the couple (Barker, 2005).
Polyamory is configured as a relational orientation (Anapol, 2010) as it indicates a specific way of building a relationship.
It includes many dimensions that change as the relationships between different individuals vary, but some characteristics, understood as values, are transversal to every polyamorous relationship: for example, consent, negotiation, transparent communication, non-exclusivity and management of jealousy (Klesse, 2014; Veaux and Rickert, 2016).
Wosick-Correa (2010) has suggested that the modalities of relational engagement between polyamorous individuals should not be sought in sexual and emotional exclusivity, but in what she identifies with the name of agent fidelity.
This term refers to a form of self-awareness that involves the ability to know how to recognize and communicate to the partner one's own needs, desires and limitations, and implies a shared personal choice regarding commitment within the relationship.
In polyamorous relationships, therefore, the emphasis is placed on relational agreements in which the partners participate actively and consciously, always bearing in mind the possibility of re-evaluating and renegotiating boundaries according to perceived needs and desires, which can change during the course of the relationship itself. (Easton & Hardy, 2009).
The relational configurations that are articulated in polyamory can take various forms and types according to the needs of those who participate (Klesse, 2014).
Based on the agreements and structures we can distinguish three relational macro-sets (Deriu, Antonelli, & Dettore, 2016): the most common is open polyamory, in which the partners involved remain open to the possibility of developing further loves and relationships; polyfidelity, in which three or more people engage in a closed relationship with each other, which does not include external people; and single polyamorous people, that is, people who can have multiple love relationships without the need to establish a long-term relationship.
Another fundamental element within polyamorous relational networks is the hierarchy.
Often, in practice, polyamory arises from a monogamous relationship that is opened; the members of the previous couple, therefore, are defined as primary partners, while those who are included in the network will become a secondary partner, tertiary and so on, often with hierarchical implications.
The awareness of these hierarchies and the transparency in communicating roles to new potential partners allows the relationship to be undertaken in a consensually compliant way (Veaux & Rickert, 2016).
It is interesting to analyze the intertwining of these relationships from the point of view of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980).
It conceptualizes that the whole system of behaviors in early childhood underlies the function of optimizing proximity to the caregiver (Del Corno et al., 2007).
The attachment system directs emotions, cognition, and behavior in intimate relationships while regulating seeking and achieving support during times of distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Research states that attachment styles can change over time (Stefini et al., 2013) and it is important to note that not all relationships can be considered attachment bonds.
In Bowlby's terms, the latter can be said to be such only when they assume the meaning of a secure basis for the individual, in this sense, the adult subject can have bonds of attachment with his partner, or with some friends, colleagues and so on (Del Corno et al., 2007).
The connection between early attachment experiences and adult attachment styles is well documented (Fraley & Roisman, 2015).
This theoretical framework, as far as the relationship between partners is concerned, seems to be specific, for, for exclusive relationships.
However, love and sexual exclusivity don't always have a unique link.
The literature regarding adult attachment styles within polyamorous relationships is not very extensive and certainly needs further study.
The study by Moors, Ryan, and Chopik (2019) questioned three fundamental questions to understand this link:
Do people in polyamorous relationships develop similar attachment styles with each of their partners?
Does the attachment style with a particular partner affect the quality of that relationship?
Does the attachment style with a particular partner affect the quality of another concomitant romantic relationship?
There is evidence that an individual's attachment styles are consistent across the various partners she may have throughout life (for example, an ex-partner and a current partner; Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2007).
On the other hand, there is a line of thinking that assumes that attachment styles change according to a person's partners (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci, 2000).
Furthermore, researchers have proposed three different models that attempt to explain the interactions between polyamorous relationships: the additive, contrasting, and compensating model (Mitchell, Bartholomew & Cobb, 2014).
This approach suggests that a high quality relationship with one partner could increase the quality of other contemporary relationships (additive model) even if one of the other relationships falters (in this case one would speak of a compensation model).
Conversely, a low-quality relationship with one partner could detract from the quality of the other concomitant relationship (contrast model).
In testing this hypothesis, Mitchell et al.
(2014) found no evidence in favor of these models in the polyamorous population.
Polyamorous people reported being satisfied with their relationship outcomes and relationship quality in both simultaneous relationships.
Furthermore, the data show that they develop attachment styles with each partner based on the specifics of that relationship.
The study by Moors, Ryan, and Chopik (2019) used a sample of 357 people who had polyamorous relationships with at least two romantic partners at the same time.
Participants' let ranged from 18 to 77 years and, on average, participants had been in the primary relationship for about 9 years and in the secondary relationship for about 3 years.
This study, in response to the first research question, found that people engaged in polyamorous relationships tended to have similar attachment styles (both avoidance and anxiety) towards each of their partners.
The bond of attachment to the partner that they defined as primary resulted more secure than that established with the secondary partner, although both were found to be secure.
This is due to the fact that the relationship with the primary partner usually lasted longer than that with the secondary partner, this is in line with the evidence that the bonds of attachment, in a romantic relationship, tend to become more secure over time (Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999).
In response to the second hypothesis, it was found that specific attachment styles in relationships predicted specific relationship outcomes, in particular high levels of anxiety and avoidance were generally associated with low relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, engagement and relationship agreement satisfaction.
These findings replicate and extend a large body of research on monogamous relationships (Edelstein & Shaver, 2004) to the realm of polyamorous relationships.
Finally, in response to the main question of the study, it was found that the anxiety and levitation present in the attachment bond with a partner were not related to the relationship outcomes and functioning of a concomitant relationship.
These findings suggest that people engaged in polyamorous relationships view their relationships as distinct and independent of each other.
Furthermore, the data from this study are consistent with recent research that found no support for additive, contrast, and compensatory relational functioning patterns in polyamory (Mitchell et al., 2014).
Further studies are hoped for in the field of polyamorous relationships (as well as in other non-monogamous consensual relationships) with the aim of clarifying and deepening the role of attachment styles.
Universities and research centers: Scuola Cognitive Florence
Interesting qualitative research investigated the strategies polyamorous individuals use in managing jealousy
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
This is my partner and this is mypartners partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18 (1): 7588.
Attachment and loss, vol.
1, Attachment, Hogarth Press, London (tr.
Attachment and Loss, vol.
1, Attachment to the mother, Boringhieri, Turin, 1972).
Attachment and loss, vol.
2, Separation, anxiety and anger, Hogarth Press, London (tr.
Attachment and Loss, vol.
2, The separation from the mother, Boringhieri, Turin, 1975).
Attachment and loss, vol.
3, Loss, sadness and depression, Hogarth Press, London (tr.
Attachment and Loss, vol.
3, The loss of the mother, Boringhieri, Turin, 1983).
Transference of attachment patterns: How important relationships influence feelings toward novel people.
Davila, J., Karney, B.
Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783802.
Del Corno, F., Capriotti, B., & Puricelli, S.
Vicissitudes of the concept of attachment.
In Barone, L., Del Corno, F. (edited by), The evaluation of adult attachment: The self-administered questionnaires (pp. 9-25).
Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
Polyamorous relationships: an analysis of the phenomenon.
Journal of Clinical Sexology, 22 (1), 51-70.
The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships, and other adventures.
New York, NY: Random House.
Avoidant attachment: Exploration of an oxymoron.
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 397412).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Do early caregiving experiences leave an enduring or transient mark on developmental adaptation?
Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43 (5), 424-440.
Swinging: A review of the literature.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27 (5), 507-521.
Polyamory: Intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation?
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C.
Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (3), 367384.
Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance.
Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships.
The Journal of Sex Research, 51 (3), 329339.
C., Ryan, W. & Chopik, W. J. (2019).
Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning.
Personality and Individual Differences, 102110.
On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships.
Stefini, A., Horn, H., Weinkelmann, K., Geiser-Elze, A., Hartmann, M., & Kronmuller, K.
Attachment styles and outcome of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for children and adolescents.
More Than Two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory.
Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationship.

From Stateofmind