Mating
Sex, Marriage, and Prairie Voles
What social neuroscience can teach us about romantic relationships.
Updated January 3, 2025 Reviewed by Tyler Woods
Key points
- We're taught that lifelong monogamy is best for everyone, yet few can achieve it or find happiness trying.
- Research on pair bonding in humans—and prairie voles—shows that love is not one size fits all.
- Our neurology predisposes us to one of three mating strategies—with a minority suited for lifelong fidelity.
- Instead of forcing ourselves into a single relationship mold, we should embrace the diversity of love.

The holidays conjure up images of romantic kisses under the mistletoe or ringing in the New Year, yet for many of us—partnered or not—these images evoke feelings starkly different from the love and joy they portray.
We’ve been taught that till-death-do-us-part marriage is both achievable and ideal, but in reality, this model applies to fewer and fewer of us, and doesn’t consistently bring happiness to those who pursue it. Why not, and what should we aim for instead?
A Love Researcher’s Insight
Dr. Helen Fisher, a preeminent love researcher, once said to her date as he walked her home, “When you start to make love with someone, you contribute to the brain circuitry for attachment. Are you willing to take that chance?” He did, and when, years later, he proposed, she said, “I will marry you, but I won’t live with you.”
Why would one of the world’s greatest authorities on love say that? What did she know about herself and about romantic attachment that most of us don’t?
Fisher’s own research demonstrates that the human neural circuits that create the pleasurable euphoria of romantic love can be highjacked by substances to produce a response akin to addiction. When we are away from the person we love, we become preoccupied with thoughts about them and longing for them, just as an addict obsesses over and craves their drug of choice.
What Do Prairie Voles Have to Do With It?
Fisher’s work on the human neural mechanism of love built upon the work of social neuroscientists like Tom Insel of the NIH and Larry Young of Emory University, who first elucidated these processes by studying pair bonding in prairie voles. Prairie vole behavior is surprisingly relevant to understanding human mating habits because they, like us, form powerful (often lifelong) bonds during sex.
Fisher was also an anthropologist who studied variability in human mating behavior and was well aware that human and prairie voles’ brain circuitry evolved to encompass multiple mating strategies. The neural mechanisms underlying this variability have recently been explored by further work on prairie voles conducted by Alex Ophir of Cornell University and his colleagues. Their research can help us examine our own predispositions and learn to build relationships that are right for us, even if they take an unconventional form—like that of Fisher and her husband.
Three Key Mating Strategies
Ophir and others identified three prairie vole mating strategies that have human parallels: “Wanderers,” “Residents,” and “Rovers.” The proportions of these groups among American and prairie vole populations turn out to be pretty similar.
About 35 percent of Americans (and prairie voles) are un-partnered. Scientists call these prairie voles “Wanderers.”
Also, like prairie voles, the majority of us (over 60 percent) are married or cohabiting but not necessarily sexually faithful.
Some pair-bonded individuals are “Residents” who are sexually and emotionally monogamous, sharing a home and raising offspring together.
Residents that have sexual relationships outside their pair bond, or who change partners now and then, are called “Rovers”. We humans call these Roving behaviors infidelity or serial monogamy.
Numerous studies indicate that a quarter to half of American married men and women are adulterous. As Ophir explains, “It is now widely accepted that sexual monogamy (i.e., sex exclusively between pair-bonded partners) is actually rare.”
That is because each of us has an inherent predisposition among these strategies, such that too much or too little intimacy feels bad to us. Unfortunately, our culture insists that lifelong monogamous marriage is necessary both for our own well-being, and to successfully raise children. As a result, most of us assume this model must be right for us. Even if we aren’t happy, we conclude that something is wrong with us or our partner—not with the structure of the relationship itself.
Identifying Our Own Predispositions
Figuring out which type of relationship genuinely suits us requires that we put aside preconceived notions of what is “best,” “normal,” and “healthy,” and instead engage in compassionate, curious, honest self-observation.
As a start, think of people you know (or celebrities) who appear to use each of these mating strategies. Most likely, you know people who are devoted, faithful Residents, as well as Rovers who marry or cohabit serially or have non-monogamous relationships, and some inveterate singleton Wanderers who never form long-term intimate bonds.
Thinking of yourself, you are probably a Resident if you enjoy sharing your home and life with another person monogamously for the long term. It makes you feel enriched and enhances your sense of well-being.
If, instead, living with another person (even one otherwise well suited to you) makes you feel uncomfortable and limited, like you are losing autonomy and well-being, or if your desire for other sexual partners is so intense that you need to act on it (not merely have fantasies), you may be a Rover.
Rovers like Helen Fisher and her husband, who maintained separate apartments and spent several days and nights apart each week, may “live apart together” or enjoy long-distance relationships. Other Rovers, like sex columnist Dan Savage, may prefer committed but sexually open relationships.
Wanderers find commitment and cohabitation claustrophobic, but can have pleasurable relationships and enjoy the company of their sexual partners. Wanderers, like comedian Bill Maher, are happiest living separately and enjoying multiple sexual partners. Like Maher, Wanderers may not have or want children, but might enjoy acting as an actual or honorary auntie or uncle.
Having multiple experiences with intimate partners is often necessary to find our comfort zone. Once we have discovered our preferred relationship structure, we and our partner(s) will be happiest if we find a person with matching wishes and predispositions. As when people try to deny their sexual orientation, when we adopt a mating style that doesn’t match our true needs and desires, the outcome is often dishonesty and unhappiness.
Are Mating Tactics Fixed for Life?
An individual’s mating tactic predisposition is primarily determined by the interaction of our inborn social neural networks and early life experiences. Small doses of social isolation in infancy seem to incline those born with lower distribution and density of receptors for neurotransmitters, like oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine, to become Wanderers.
Of course, the availability of potential mates and resources may alter an individual’s tactics, despite their inborn tendency. Life challenges and changes all of us, but one can never change another person. If we are no longer satisfied with the strategy that comes naturally, we might be able to change, but the price will be finding a new partner who matches our new set of needs.
Embracing Diversity
It is not inherently right or wrong to be a Resident, Rover, or Wanderer. Throughout history, parents have successfully raised children (including Presidents of our United States) while practicing each of these mating strategies. But social stigma, our own self-judgement, and even the laws often still penalize those of us who are not Residents, denigrating more than half of us for doing what comes naturally.
We should accept that our predispositions are good enough. Stuffing our feet into ill-fitting shoes damages everyone. Our happiness and well-being (and that of our children and partners) will be vastly improved if we can celebrate this holiday season by honoring and embracing our inherent human diversity.