Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in Neural Response to Romantic Stimuli in Monogamous and Non-Monogamous Men

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In non-human animal research, studies comparing socially monogamous and promiscuous species of voles (Microtus) have identified some key neural differences related to monogamy and non-monogamy. Specifically, densities of the vasopressin V1a receptor and dopamine D2 receptors in subcortical reward-related and limbic areas of the brain have been linked to monogamous behavior in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Similar brain areas have been shown to be correlated with feelings of romantic love in monogamously pair-bonded humans. Humans vary in the degree to which they engage in (non-)monogamous behaviors. The present study examined the differences in neural activation in response to sexual and romantic stimuli in monogamous (n = 10) and non-monogamous (n = 10) men. Results indicated that monogamous men showed more reward-related neural activity when viewing romantic pictures compared to non-monogamous men. Areas with increased activation for monogamous men were all in the right hemisphere and included the thalamus, accumbens, striatum, pallidum, insula, and orbitofrontal cortex. There were no significant differences between groups in activation to sexual stimuli. These results demonstrate that the neural processing of romantic images is different for monogamous and non-monogamous men. There is some overlap in the neural areas showing increased activation in monogamous men in the present study and the neural areas that show differences in the vole models of monogamy and affiliation. Future research will be needed to clarify whether similar factors are contributing to the neural differences seen in monogamous and non-monogamous humans and voles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Brown, L. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 145–149. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2010). “At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy”: Cheating and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 851–872. doi:10.1177/0265407510373908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragona, B. J., Liu, Y., Curtis, J. T., Stephan, F. K., & Wang, Z. (2003). A critical role for nucleus accumbens dopamine in partner-preference formation in male prairie voles. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 3483–3490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aragona, B. J., Liu, Y., Yu, Y. J., Curtis, J. T., Detwiler, J. M., Insel, T. R., & Wang, Z. (2006). Nucleus accumbens dopamine differentially mediates the formation and maintenance of monogamous pair bonds. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 133–139. doi:10.1038/nn1613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 327–337. doi:10.1152/jn.00838.2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772. doi:10.1177/1363460710384645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 3829–3834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155–1166. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193–221. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. S., Devries, A. C., & Getz, L. L. (1995). Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: The prairie vole model. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 19, 303–314. doi:10.1016/0149-7634(94)00070-H.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M., DeVries, A., Williams, J., & Carter, C. (1999). The effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on partner preferences in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 1071–1079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Mastick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policies, 13, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1979). The DSFI: A multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 5, 244–281. doi:10.1080/00926237908403732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gruder-Adams, S., & Getz, L. L. (1985). Comparison of the mating system and paternal behavior in Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus. Journal of Mammalogy, 66, 165–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, S., Herman, R. A., Nolan, C. L., & Wallen, K. (2004). Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 411–416. doi:10.1038/nn1208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. D., Pujols, Y., & Meston, C. M. (2012). Women’s behaviors and attitudes towards monogamy and non-monogamy. Paper presented at the Institute for the Section on Women and Psychology at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, NS.

  • Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2016). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Insel, T. R., & Shapiro, L. E. (1992). Oxytocin receptor distribution reflects social organization in monogamous and polygamous voles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 5981–5985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insel, T. R., Wang, Z. X., & Ferris, C. F. (1994). Patterns of brain vasopressin receptor distribution associated with social organization in microtine rodents. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 5381–5392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, D. G. (1977). Monogamy in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology, 52, 39–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, M. M., Wang, Z., Olazabal, D. E., Ren, X., Terwilliger, E. F., & Young, L. J. (2004). Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene. Nature, 429, 754–757. doi:10.1038/nature02539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, M. M., & Young, L. J. (2004). Vasopressin-dependent neural circuits underlying pair bond formation in the monogamous prairie vole. Neuroscience, 125, 35–45. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2003.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, B., & Novak, M. (1984). A comparison of maternal behaviour in the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), prairie vole (M. ochrogaster) and pine vole (M. pinetorum). Animal Behaviour, 32, 1132–1141. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80229-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveras, D., & Novak, M. A. (1986). A comparison of paternal behavior in the meadow vole, Mictrotus pennsylvanicus, the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum, and the prairie vole, Microtus orgaster. Animal Behaviour, 141, 519–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkow, L. J., Sharer, C. A., Ren, X., Insel, T. R., Terwilliger, E. F., & Young, L. J. (2001). Facilitation of affiliation and pair-bond formation by vasopressin receptor gene transfer into the ventral forebrain of a monogamous vole. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 7392–7396.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pujols, Y., Hamilton, L. D., Seal, B. N., & Meston, C. M. (2007). Monogamy and sexuality in US women: A pilot study. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, Orlando, FL.

  • Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524–533. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.01.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoléru, S., Fonteille, V., Cornélis, C., Joyal, C., & Moulier, V. (2012). Functional neuroimaging studies of sexual arousal and orgasm in healthy men and women: A review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1481–1509. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Hamilton, L. D., & Watson, N. V. (2007). Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 454–459. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winslow, J. T., Hastings, N., Carter, C. S., Harbaugh, C. R., & Insel, T. R. (1993). A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. Nature, 365, 545–548. doi:10.1038/365545a0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, K. (2001). Statistical analysis of activation images. In P. Jezzard, P. Matthews, & S. Smith (Eds.), Functional MRI: An introduction to methods (pp. 251–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Aron, A., Brown, L., Cao, G., Feng, T., & Weng, X. (2011). Reward and motivation systems: A brain mapping study of early-stage intense romantic love in Chinese participants. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 249–257. doi:10.1002/hbm.21017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. A., Gobrogge, K. L., Liu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2011). The neurobiology of pair bonding: Insights from a socially monogamous rodent. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 53–69. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, L. J., Nilsen, R., Waymire, K. G., MacGregor, G. R., & Insel, T. R. (1999). Increased affiliative response to vasopressin in mice expressing the V1a receptor from a monogamous vole. Nature, 400, 766–768. doi:10.1038/23475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1048–1054. doi:10.1038/nn1327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of Texas Imaging Research Center for granting us scanner time for this project. We would also like to thank our research assistants Luke Thorstensen, Brad Schumate, E. Eve Andrews, and Taylor Anne Morgan for assistance with data collection and participant recruitment, David Schnyer and Jennifer Pacheco for technical assistance with data collection and analysis, and Heather Rupp for providing the sexual images. The first author was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Lisa Dawn Hamilton & Cindy M. Meston

  2. Department of Psychology, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, E4L 1C7, Canada

    Lisa Dawn Hamilton

Authors
  1. Lisa Dawn Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cindy M. Meston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Dawn Hamilton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamilton, L.D., Meston, C.M. Differences in Neural Response to Romantic Stimuli in Monogamous and Non-Monogamous Men. Arch Sex Behav 46, 2289–2299 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1071-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1071-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation