PGS 1 008

Motivations for infidelity in

heterosexual dating couples:

The roles of gender, personality

differences, and sociosexual

orientation

William D. Barta & Susan M. Kiene

Washington University in St. Louis

ABSTRACT

A motivational/individual differences model of infidelity is proposed in the course of empirically evaluating the traditional dichotomy between emotional and sexual motives. A scale assessing motivations for infidelity was developed and administered to 432 college students, 120 of whom reported past dating infidelity. Four motivations were identified and were associated as predicted with Big Five and other trait constructs; Sex was predicted by male gender, lower age, and unrestricted sociosexual orientation (SO); Dissatisfaction was predicted by female gender and Extraver-sion; Neglect was predicted by Neuroticism; and Anger by Neuroticism and low Agreeableness. As predicted, a two-factor model provides a poorer fit with the data than a multi-factor model. Unrestricted SO partially mediates the gender difference in endorsement of a sex motive for infidelity. KEY WORDS: Big Five • dating infidelity • extra-dyadic relationships • jealousy • sociosexual orientation

Infidelity describes a violation of relationship norms governing what is considered an acceptable extra-dyadic interaction. One of the first social scientists to examine infidelity, Alfred Kinsey, distinguished between ‘emotional’ and ‘sexual’ infidelities (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). The authors observed that marital infidelity is more likely to result in

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications

(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 22(3): 339–360. DOI: 10.1177/0265407505052440

William D. Barta and Susan M. Kiene are now both at the Center for Health/HIV Inter-vention and PreInter-vention, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut. All corre-spondence concerning this article should be addressed to William D. Barta, Center for Health/HIV Intervention and Prevention, University of Connecticut, 2006 Hillside Road U-1248, Storrs, CT 06269–U-1248, USA [e-mail: william.barta@uconn.edu]. Stanley O. Gaines was the Action Editor on this article.

divorce if the wife believes that the rival is the object of stronger emotional investment than she. This implies that infidelities vary on the dimension of manifest emotional intimacy directed toward the extra-dyadic partner. Conversely, as Kinsey and his colleagues observed, a male is more likely than a female to successfully soften the blow by declaring that the affair had been ‘only physical’. This implies a category of sexual infidelity consist-ing of a motivation for greater sexual variety or sexual frequency, and absent emotional intimacy.

Kinsey’s distinction between ‘sexual’ and ‘emotional’ infidelities, and the accompanying observation that males are more likely to pursue the former, whereas females are more likely to pursue the latter, figures in several influ-ential social psychological treatments of infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1977, 1985; Thompson, 1983, 1984; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981). More recently still, the purported male inclination for sexual relationships lacking in emotional involvement and the corresponding female inclination to confer primacy upon emotional intimacy has assumed particular importance among evol-utionary psychologists (e.g., Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), who argue that gender differences in patterns of mating behavior reflect evolved predispositions.

This dichotomy of motivations has been questioned by some authors. The argument has been raised that, typically, where there is sex there is understood to be some level of emotional intimacy as well; therefore, asking participants in research studies to make judgments about a ‘purely sexual’ or a ‘purely emotional’ relationship is likely to produce misleading or invalid results (DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002).

A different question that may be raised in this context is whether the ‘emotional versus sexual’ dichotomy fails on the level of specification. Intuitively, the category of sexual motivation is more homogeneous than the category of emotional motivation – after all, the term ‘emotional’ takes in a broad range of phenomenologically distinct events. A second question is, if males are more likely than females to engage in a sexually motivated infidelity, is there a particular, definable facet of the male gender identity which accounts for this – and if so, is this same facet of gendered behavior evident in females who seek sexual infidelities? These questions have received scant empirical attention.

The present study addressed these empirical questions in the course of developing a motivational perspective on dating infidelity. McCrae and John (1992) described the Big Five personality traits (defined later) as ‘motivational styles’ (p. 175); therefore, personality traits may be under-stood as descriptors of an individual’s specific, chronically salient emotional needs (see also Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991; Panskepp, 1998). If the data show that several factors exist that may be identified as ‘emotional’ motivations for infidelity, and if it can be shown that these factors are independent of one another by linking them to distinct motivational styles (as assessed using personality measures), then the case can be made that the two-factor ‘emotional versus sexual’ distinc-tion fails to adequately describe the diversity of motivadistinc-tions for infidelity.

In the review to follow, we draw from prior research on marital as well as dating infidelity. This is justifiable in that the characteristics of marital and dating infidelity appear to be quite similar (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988; Yarab, Sensibaugh, & Allgeier, 1998).

Emotional and sexual infidelities

Emotional infidelity, following the traditional view, exists when a dyadic partner experiences the feeling of being in love with an extra-pair partner (Buunk, 1980). Emotional infidelities with no manifest sexual component may be identified; for example, some instances of computer-mediated infi-delity fall into this category. In a computer-mediated infiinfi-delity, a person who is in a committed relationship meets someone in an Internet chat-room. In the confessional atmosphere provided by this mode of communi-cation, he or she engages in a degree of self-disclosure that promotes an intense emotional bond with the chat partner. This relationship may develop without visual or physical contact between partners and without the participants being overtly engaged in the goal of seeking a sexual partner. Merkle and Richardson (2000) note that the degree of reciprocal self-disclosure in the computer-mediated relationship has the potential to undermine the individual’s primary relationship. Indeed, the very secrecy of an extra-dyadic relationship contributes to the likelihood that it will become an object of preoccupation (Wegner, Lane, & Dimitri, 1994).

At the other extreme, there are sexual relationships that lack emotional involvement. One example is the relationship between a married man and a sex worker. A second example is ‘hooking up’, i.e. a sexual encounter, ‘usually lasting only one night, between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances’ (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000, p. 76). Typically, indi-viduals who have engaged in this activity will say that it ‘just happened’ spontaneously. Alcohol or other substances are often involved during hook-ups but the activity is characterized as consensual. In one sample of college students, 48% of males and 33% of females reported having engaged in hook-ups in which sexual intercourse occurred. Of these, 26% were romantically involved with someone else at the time, and 49% reported never seeing the hook-up partner again (Paul et al., 2000).

As one might expect, the majority of marital infidelities fall into the middle regions of this continuum. According to self-reports of unfaithful spouses, 56% of men and 63% of women describe their extramarital relationship as satisfying emotional and sexual needs equally (Thompson, 1984). Among the remaining respondents, men were twice as likely as women to report ‘primarily sexual’ extra-pair relationships. Similar patterns of findings have been found by other authors (e.g., Glass & Wright, 1985). Gender, then, is a reliable predictor of motivation for infi-delity.

In an individual instance, an anonymous ‘hook-up’ with an extra-pair partner may be motivated simply by a desire for sexual excitement, or may signal the individual’s first step in escaping an unsatisfying relationship and

finding a more emotionally responsive partner. In the latter instance, sexual and emotional motivations coincide; that is, what might appear to be a sexually motivated behavior is not. However, there is empirical justification for believing that, in some cases at least, a sexual infidelity is exactly how it appears – a behavior motivated by the desire for a novel sexual experi-ence, and not by the desire to find a compatible long-term partner. For example, Humphrey (1987) observed that sexual infidelities are typically of brief duration and involve a minimal amount of trust or self-disclosure, whereas emotional infidelities may last for several years and are charac-terized by a high level of interpersonal trust and self-disclosure. In nearly half of the sexual hook-ups reported by Paul et al. (2000), the actors made no arrangement to see one another again.

Other motivations for infidelity

Glass and Wright (1988), in a review, cite an array of reasons that people offer as hypothetical justifications for being unfaithful. Among these reasons are: (i) the desire for revenge against one’s partner, (ii) to relieve boredom, (iii) gain respect and recognition, (iv) ‘feel young’, (v) feel under-stood, (vi) experience companionship, (vii) enhance confidence or self-esteem, and (viii) intellectual stimulation. Their factor-analysis yielded four factors: sexual (sexual enjoyment, novelty, and curiosity), emotional intimacy (e.g., the desire for companionship and the desire for a boost to one’s self-esteem), extrinsic motivation (e.g., revenge against a partner), and love. The latter corresponds to the traditional conceptualization of an emotional infidelity as based on feelings of love for the extra-dyadic partner.

Speaking to the validity of Glass and Wright’s typology, Paul and Hayes (2002) relate the account of a student who described a hook-up as produc-ing a boost to self-esteem and self-confidence. This findproduc-ing maps onto Glass and Wright’s category of ‘emotional intimacy’ but clearly does not correspond to the ‘love’ category. In this regard, Glass and Wright’s choice of the term ‘intimacy’ in describing this category of infidelity may be misleading.

A motivational theory of infidelity

At the outset, it is important to concede that situational factors play an important role in determining whether or not infidelity occurs. People who have greater opportunity to be unfaithful are more likely to be unfaithful (e.g. Treas & Giesen, 2000). Infidelity is predicted by age, owing to the general increase in the number of opportunities to be unfaithful over time (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). However, infidelity is not merely the outcome of having the opportunity to be unfaithful. Thompson (1983) argued that ‘personal readiness’, or a prior decision that the benefits of an extra-dyadic relationship would outweigh the costs, is an important determinant of infidelity. Clinicians have noted that individuals, if they have ever been unfaithful, have been unfaithful on more than one occasion with different extra-dyadic partners (Levant, 1997).

A motivational theory of infidelity, presented here, posits the existence of individual differences in the proclivity to engage in infidelity, on the one hand, and individual differences in the specific motivation to engage in infi-delity, on the other hand. Consistent with the first part of this theory, researchers have noted that certain stable characteristics of individuals, such as low frustration tolerance and narcissism, are associated with a proclivity toward infidelity (Buunk & van Driel, 1989); studies to be cited in the next section provide further evidence in support of a motivational theory.

The Big Five and infidelity. As mentioned earlier, the Big Five personal-ity traits may be understood as motivational styles, and as such, provide a solid foundation for constructing a motivational account of infidelity. These traits are Neuroticism, the tendency to experience negative affec-tive states such as worry and self-doubt; Extraversion, the tendency to experience positive affective states such as happiness and self-esteem, particularly in interpersonal contexts; Conscientiousness, the tendency to persevere at tasks and follow rules; Openness to Experience, the tendency to expose oneself to novel, unconventional, or even difficult and chal-lenging thoughts and sensations; and Agreeableness, the tendency to avoid interpersonal conflict and seek harmonious relationships (McCrae & Costa, 1987).

The literature provides support for associations between Big Five traits and the likelihood of engaging in infidelity. Newlyweds were asked to estimate the likelihood that they would be unfaithful to their partners in the first year of their marriage. Self-rated likelihood of infidelity was directly associated with low values on a measure of Conscientiousness (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). In another study, self-reported past partici-pation in extra-dyadic relationships was found to be inversely correlated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and a positive relationship was observed with Neuroticism (Schmidt & Buss, 2001). The remaining Big Five traits, Extraversion and Openness, have not been associated with infi-delity in past research.

Although associations have been found between these personality traits and whether or not an individual engages in infidelity, to date we have found no published research examining the second component of a moti-vation theory: that is, the relation between personality traits and specific motivations for infidelity. One goal of the present study is to redress this lack of data.

To illustrate how these personality traits may offer insight into the moti-vational styles of individuals, take the example of an individual scoring high in the trait measure for Neuroticism. Neurotic individuals are less likely to experience happiness in their relationships (Karney & Bradbury, 1997), are insecure, and relatively likely to behave impulsively (McCrae & John, 1992). One might expect these characteristics – either singly or especially in combination – to contribute to the likelihood of the individual engaging in infidelity. Following this line of reasoning one step further, an individual

who scores high in Neuroticism and is unfaithful should differ from other unfaithful individuals with respect to his or her specific motivation for being unfaithful.

The trait of Agreeableness is also likely to influence relationship satis-faction. Someone who scores low on the trait of Agreeableness is likely to react to relationship conflict with anger. Anger has been observed to be a motivation for infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1988). Therefore, one might expect (low) Agreeableness to predict both the likelihood of infidelity and the likelihood of anger being the specific motivation for infidelity.

Someone who is conscientious is more likely to persevere in a relation-ship despite conflict and is more likely to resist temptations provided by attractive alternative partners. Therefore, and as research (see earlier) has shown, conscientious individuals are less likely than other individuals to be unfaithful. However, it is unlikely that conscientiousness would predict a particular motivation for infidelity.

Sexual attitudes. Individuals exhibiting sexually permissive attitudes and those who have had a high number of past sexual relationships are more likely to engage in infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). In a study of supposedly exclusive dating couples, it was found that individuals exhibit-ing an ‘unrestricted’ sociosexual orientation (SO) were significantly more likely to pursue extra-pair involvement (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). Individuals are said to be unrestricted if they score high on the Sociosexual Orientation Index (SOI). Items on this scale include a question tapping whether the respondent feels that love is a prerequisite for sexual relations with a partner, the number of ‘one-night stands’ a respondent has had, and how many partners he or she hopes to have in the next year (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991).

SO is not associated with level of sex drive (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Individuals with an unrestricted SO do, however, exhibit a pattern of sexually assertive behaviors; they flirt more frequently and engage in socially dominant behaviors such as maintaining eye contact and close physical proximity during social interactions (Simpson, Gangestad, & Nations, 1996). They also exhibit a chronic, heightened responsiveness to situational sexual cues (Seal & Agostinelli, 1994). An unrestricted SO is inversely correlated with dependability, nurturance, self-disclosure, honesty, protectiveness, attentiveness, refraining from openly sexualizing others, and having a good relationship with the family of one’s partner (Ellis, 1998; Reise & Wright, 1996). These qualities have been identified as being inimical to the development of relational intimacy – specifically in terms of satisfaction with one’s partner and level of investment in the relationship (Prager, 1995).

Men are far more likely than women to exhibit an unrestricted SO (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990). Men are also two to three times more likely than women to report a primarily sexual motive for engaging in infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1985; Thompson, 1984). It is reasonable, then, to consider

SO in exploring the bases of gender differences in participation in sexually motivated infidelities. Although one might question whether individuals with an unrestricted SO would choose to participate in ostensibly exclusive relationships (which is a prerequisite for infidelity), the evidence does suggest that they do (Seal et al., 1994).

The present study

The hypotheses of the present study are as follows:

H1: A two-factor (Sexual versus Emotional) model of infidelity is less descriptive of the range of motivations for infidelity than a multifactor model.

H2: Replicating past research, individuals who report a history of infi-delity, compared with those who do not, will score higher in Neuroticism, lower in Agreeableness, and lower in Conscientiousness.

H3: Also replicating past research, individuals with a history of infidelity, compared with those without, will be higher in SO.

H4: (High) Neuroticism will predict infidelity motivated by dissatisfaction with a partner.

H5: SO will predict a sexual motivation for infidelity.

H6: (Low) Agreeableness will predict an infidelity motivated by anger. H7: SO mediates the gender difference in endorsing a sexual motivation for infidelity.

Method

The present study presented self-identified unfaithful individuals with a list of reasons for engaging in infidelity and asked them to rate the extent to which of these reasons applied to them. This approach was intended to achieve two goals: first, it provided a method for avoiding any artifact associated with a forced-choice format. Second, this approach allowed the researchers to deter-mine whether the range of reasons people give for engaging in infidelity can be reduced to a smaller set of basic motivations, some of which would presumably fall under the category of ‘emotional’ infidelity, whereas others are more char-acteristically ‘sexual’.

Participants

Two samples of data were collected; the first from a mid-sized, private university located in northeast Texas and consisted of 246 individuals. The second was collected from a mid-sized, private university in eastern Missouri and consisted of 205 individuals. Because no significant differences were observed between the two samples on demographic variables or on the measures of interest, the two samples were combined. Participants received course credit in exchange for their participation. If participants reported being married or not heterosexual, their data were excluded. The average age of the combined sample was 19 years, and consisted of 116 men and 316 women.

Fifty-nine percent reported being sexually experienced, and among these, the average lifetime number of partners was 2. A total of 32.3% of respondents identified themselves as having been unfaithful to a committed dating partner; of these, 32 were male and 88 were female. Ethnic background was not assessed; based on enrollment data one may estimate that over 90% of the respondents were of European descent.

Procedure

All participants provided informed consent prior to participating. Participants answered questions in a self-administered questionnaire. To ensure confiden-tiality, participants were spaced far enough apart from one another to ensure privacy. The same questionnaire was distributed to both samples. At the end of the session, participants were given a written debriefing.

Measures

Sociosexual orientation. Sociosexual orientation (SO) was assessed using the Sociosexual Orientation Index developed by Simpson and Gangestad (1991). This scale taps a stable preference for engaging in sex at a relatively early point in a relationship, engaging in sex with more than one partner at a time, and seeking relationships that are relatively low in investment, commitment, love, and dependency. The first four items relate to sexual behaviors and intentions and the last three items relate to attitudes toward nonrelational sex. Items were scored using the formula used by Simpson and Gangestad (1991). Based on the current sample, the scale had an alpha valueof .80.

Big Five personality traits. The 54-item Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) was used to measure five broad, well-documented personality traits. Cronbach’s alpha for each of these scales was: Openness = .85; Consci-entiousness = .80; Extraversion = .86; Agreeableness = .78; and Neuroti-cism = .83.

Motivations for Infidelity Inventory. A 27-item scale was developed for this study. The scale was prefaced by instructions to the participant including two qualifying, ‘yes/no’ questions: (i) ‘In a dating relationship, have you ever made an agreement not to get involved with anyone else?’, and (ii) ‘Did you get involved with someone else, either sexually or emotionally, anyway?’ Partici-pants who did not answer ‘yes’ to both questions were asked to skip this portion of the questionnaire. Of all the participants, 120 answered ‘yes’ to both ques-tions, indicating that they had been involved in dating infidelity. The items from the final scale are provided in Table 3.

During the construction of the scale, ‘emotional motivation’ items were generated based on motivations for infidelity identified in the literature, such as Glass and Wright (1988). Additional items, such as ‘my affair partner was a better listener’, were derived from a list of positive attributes, such as ‘good listener’, identified by Prager (1995) and others as conducive to satisfaction in an intimate relationship. Items were phrased using three different schemes: (i) in terms of positive qualities possessed by the affair partner, (ii) in terms of negative qualities possessed by the primary partner, and (iii) personal needs, without reference to the partner. These schemes were designed to eliminate social desirability bias by excluding reasons for infidelity that would potentially

imply a negative evaluation of the respondent. Responses were formatted on a 1 (not at all a reason) to 7 (very much a reason) scale.

Results Factor analysis

A preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedure, using Principal Axis Factoring, was applied to the original 27-item Motivation for Infidelity Inventory (MII). A scree plot analysis yielded a four-factor solution, and a promax rotation was selected following Russell’s (2002) recommendation. Of the four rotated factors, items were retained if they had a factor loading of .30 or greater on only one factor (see Table 1), the resultant 19-item scale accounted for 63% of the total variance in the data.

The 19-item scale (Table 1) was then analyzed using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Analyses were conducted using AMOS 4.01 (Arbuckle, 1999), raw SPSS data served as input, and solutions were estimated using Maximum Likelihood Estimation. In the first CFA model based upon the 19 items from the EFA and a sample of 120, the fit was poor, ␹2_{(146) = 312.2,}

p < .001, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .94, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .11. Values for model fit indices indicating good

TABLE 1

Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis

I II III IV 17a _.73 5 .71 6 .63 8 .73 18a _.54 15 .45 14 .70 19a _.70 2 .68 11 .67 16 .47 13 .84 1 .94 3 .62 7 .63 10 .51 4 .70 9 .91 12 .62

Note. Principal Axis Factoring, Method: Promax. Values < .30 are suppressed; eight items

deleted.

Item numbers correspond to the final item numbers used throughout. a_{Items that were later deleted in the CFA.}

fit are .95 to 1.0 for the CFI and < .05 for RMSEA with optimal upper and lower confidence intervals for RMSEA between .00 and .08, and a non-signifi-cant ␹2 _{value (Kline, 1998). To improve the fit of the model, we examined the}

residual covariance matrix, the modification indices, and the error variances. Based upon this examination, three items were dropped because they had large residual covariances with items from other factors, which suggested that they may load on more than one factor. Also, based upon modification indices and residual covariances, we correlated errors in cases in which scale items were conceptually very similar; this procedure was followed for two items in the third factor, because they both refer to a desire for more frequent sex, and for two items in the first factor, because they both refer to qualities of the affair partner. The final model (Figure 1), reflecting these modifications, had a good fit ␹2_{(96) = 112.6, p = .12, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .042, (confidence}

12

5

6

8

14

15

2

11

13

16

1

3

7

10

4

9

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Motivations for Infidelity Inventory. Representation of the four-factor model, derived from the original 19-item EFA results. Items loadings are standardized and are statistically significant (p < .001). *Correlations between latent factors that are statistically significant

Motivations for infidelity

349

TABLE 2

Correlation matrix for the final 16 items (unstandardized)

Item 5 6 8 14 15 2 11 13 16 1 3 7 10 4 9 12 Dissatisfaction 5 – 6 .49 – 8 .62 .51 – 14 .37 .38 .36 – 15 .18 .19 .34 .41 – Neglect 2 .11 .20 .07 .10 .09 – 11 –.17 –.07 –.00 –.06 .00 .53 – 13 .14 .03 .06 .09 .03 .61 .52 – 16 .32 .27 .26 .16 .14 .48 .41 .55 – Sex 1 –.09 –.00 .04 –.01 –.11 .03 .24 –.01 .12 – 3 –.08 –.16 –.08 –.12 –.12 .03 .06 .01 –.01 .54 – 7 .08 .05 . 14 .05 –.03 .20 .25 .24 .25 .49 .33 – 10 .05 . 09 .21 .07 .03 .14 .11 .18 .14 .48 .20 .55 – Anger 4 –.03 .01 –.13 .06 –.04 .26 .08 .33 .14 .17 .25 .05 .07 – 9 –.02 .05 –.12 .03 .06 .21 .13 .25 .130 –.08 .00 –.03 –.00 .66 – 12 –.10 –.06 –.10 .05 –.01 .13 .14 .32 .200 .05 .10 .10 .03 .40 .62 –

Journal of Social and P

ersonal Relationships 22(3)

The Motivations for Infidelity Inventory, with means, standard deviations, and final factor loadings M

Item Men Women All SD Loading

Dissatisfaction

8. I had ‘fallen out of love with’ my steady partner. 3.04 4.25 3.95 2.21 .75 5. I wanted to end my relationship with my steady partner. 2.60 4.16 3.77 2.22 .65 6. I wasn’t sure if my steady partner was the right person for me. 3.80 5.44 5.04 2.18 .82 14. My affair partner was more intellectually stimulating than my steady partner. 2.32 3.31 3.07 2.30 .51 15. The emotional bond I felt with my affair partner was very strong. 2.80 3.91 3.64 2.37 .39

Neglect

13. I felt neglected by my steady partner. 2.84 3.19 3.11 2.21 .86

2. My steady partner was emotionally distant. 3.68 3.84 3.80 2.16 .76 11. My steady partner wasn’t spending enough time with me. 3.52 3.16 3.25 2.18 .64 16. I thought my relationship with my steady partner was in trouble. 3.42 3.90 3.77 2.16 .67

Sex

3. I wanted a greater variety of sexual partners. 3.24 1.55 1.96 1.93 .42

1. I wanted more frequent sex. 2.68 1.53 1.81 1.69 .66

10. My steady partner had lost interest in sex. 1.76 1.35 1.45 1.60 .73 7. My steady partner wasn’t interested in sexual activities that I find exciting. 2.60 1.66 1.89 1.83 .80

Anger

9. I wanted to ‘get back at’ my steady partner for something he or she did. 1.52 1.90 1.80 1.84 .95 12. I wanted to prove to my steady partner that other people found me physically attractive. 1.92 1.86 1.87 1.85 .68 4. My steady partner had been unfaithful to me and I wanted to even the score. 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.83 .75

interval .00 to .07). All item loadings and latent variable variances were significant p < .001. The average between-factor correlation was .17, and the average within-factor correlation was .50, suggesting adequate discriminant and convergent validity respectively. Furthermore, the respecified model fit significantly better than the preliminary model ␹2

diff(50) = 199.7, p < .001. See

Table 2 for the correlation matrix and Table 3 for the means and standard deviations.

The four factors were labeled based item content from the final 16-items as described later. Items referencing an interest in sexual frequency and variety loaded on a single factor (Sex) (␣ = .75). A second factor consisted of items tapping dissatisfaction with one’s partner (Dissatisfaction) (␣ = .77). The third factor consisted of statements pertaining to the primary partner’s lack of attentiveness or lack of involvement in the relationship, and was labeled Neglect (␣ = .81). The final factor consisted of items that explicitly address a desire to punish the primary partner, and was labeled Anger (␣ = .79). The complete scale with items, descriptive statistics and factor loadings is provided in Table 3.

A two-factor versus a multifactor model

To evaluate H1, that a multifactor model of motivations for infidelity is a better fit than the two-factor model consisting of sexual and emotional motivations, we conducted a CFA using AMOS 4.01 (Arbuckle, 1999) dichotomizing our items into sexual and emotional categories. This two-factor model had very poor fit, ␹2_{(102) = 365.5, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .16. The items}

assess-ing emotional motives clearly did not load on one sassess-ingle factor, as four of the items had negative loadings. The four factor model had a significantly better fit, ␹2

diff(5) = 252.9, p < .001. These results support the hypothesis that

dichotomizing motivations for infidelity into a two-factor model (emotional and sexual) does not explain the variance in individuals’ motivations for infi-delity.

Differences between individuals with a history of infidelity and those without

Descriptively, males and females reported relatively equal rates of partici-pation in infidelity (33% of males versus 31% of females). A preliminary ANOVA analysis revealed that individuals reporting a past history of infidelity tended to have a greater number of past sexual partners than those without a history of infidelity (controlling for age; M = 3.78 versus 1.24), F(1,376) = 52.16, p < .001, d = .81. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine personality differences in individuals who reported past infidelity versus those who did not. Reported infidelity and gender were included as between-subjects factors, the Big Five, and SO were the DVs, and past number of sexual partners was included as a covariate. Results are summarized in Table 4.

Replicating past research, and supporting H2, the MANCOVA revealed that individuals who report infidelity tend to score higher in Neuroticism, and lower in both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Supporting H3, the MANCOVA revealed that individuals with a history of infidelity, compared with those without, have a relatively unrestricted SO. The analysis also revealed a main effect of gender for SO; males score higher in general on this dimension than females (F(1,373) = 4.846, p < .03), which is consistent with past

research (e.g. Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). There were no significant inter-actions between gender and reported infidelity for any of the DVs.

Motivations for infidelity

Analyses were conducted on the 120 participants who self-reported a history of infidelity. The means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the four motivation scales were (on a 1 to 7 scale), Dissatisfaction: 3.90 (1.61), Neglect: 3.48 (1.75), Sex: 1.78 (1.16), and Anger: 1.84 (1.33). The low means for the Sex and Anger subscales reflect that a relatively small percentage of the sample gave high endorsements to these items. Dissatisfaction was the most consistently highly rated motivation for infidelity; 51% of respondents’ mean scores for Dissatisfaction met or exceeded the scale midpoint, followed by Neglect (46%), Sex (10%) and Anger (13%). Table 5 shows the correlations by gender for the four motivations for infidelity scales. For men, the dissatis-faction, neglect, and sex motivations were significantly correlated with one another, but uncorrelated with the anger motivation. For women, the only significant correlation is between anger and neglect.

Personality traits as predictors of specific motivations

Dissatisfaction. Inasmuch as individuals high in Neuroticism are less likely to be happy in their intimate relationships than other individuals, one may predict that Neuroticism will predict a Dissatisfaction motive for infidelity (H4). These data were inconsistent with this prediction (see Table 6). Instead, the regres-sion analysis revealed that both Extraverregres-sion and (female) gender predicted endorsement of a Dissatisfaction motive. Together, Extraversion and gender account for 17% of the variance in the Dissatisfaction motive.

Neglect. H4 predicted an association between Neuroticism and a Dissatis-faction motive; this hypothesis was not supported. However, a regression analysis revealed that high scores in Neuroticism do predict endorsement of a

TABLE 4

Self-reported dating infidelity: Personality and background factors Unfaithful? Yes No N = 120 N = 264 Predictor M M Significance d Sociosexual orientation 2.91 –.40 F(1,373) = 42.37 ** .75 Agreeableness 4.95 5.18 F(1,373) = 4.90* .27 Conscientiousness 4.66 4.98 F(1,373) = 6.70** .52 Extraversion 4.35 4.40 ns Neuroticism 4.01 3.63 F(1,373) = 6.75** .36 Openness 4.77 4.83 ns

Note. Mean values are standardized.

Neglect motive for infidelity. Neuroticism explains a relatively small amount (4%) of the variance in endorsement of this motive.

Sex. Supporting H5, high scores on SO predicted a Sex motive. In addition, male gender and young age are predictive of this motivation, and in combi-nation account for 34% of the variance in endorsement of this factor.

Anger. As predicted in H6, the regression analysis revealed that the combi-nation of (high) Neuroticism and (low) Agreeableness predicted endorsement of Anger as a motive for infidelity. These two personality traits accounted for 14% of the variance in the anger motivation.

Gender differences in motivations for infidelity. To further investigate gender differences in motivations for infidelity controlling for the effects of the Big Five and SO, we conducted a MANCOVA with gender as the between-subjects factor, and the Big Five and SO as covariates. Women were more likely than

TABLE 5

Motivation for Infidelity Inventory: Subscale correlations by gender

1 2 3 4

Dissatisfaction (1) .– .50* .41* .04

Neglect (2) .02 .– .43* .14

Sex (3) .07 .12 .– .10

Anger (4) –.10 .33** –.05 –

Note. Correlations appear as the first line and covariances as the second line. Males (n = 31) are

above the diagonal, females (n = 87) are below. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

TABLE 6

Individual difference predictors of motivation for infidelity

Motive Predictor ββ R2 Dissatisfaction Gender (female) .33 t(97) = 3.42** .17 F(2,97) = 9.41** Extraversion .19 t(97) = 2.02* Neglect Neuroticism .21 t(101) = 2.13* .04 F(1,101) = 4.55* Sex Sociosexual orientation .37 t(97) = 3.97** .34 F(3,97) = 16.17** Gender (female) –.29 t(97) = –3.16** Age –.18 t(97) = –2.19* Anger Neuroticism .26 t(101) = 2.64** .14 F(2,101) = 8.18** Agreeableness –.20 t(101) = –2.00* * p < .05; ** p < .01.

men to give high ratings to Dissatisfaction, F(1,95) = 6.19, p < .015 d = .66. Men were more likely than women to give high ratings to Sex, F(1,95) = 7.06, p < .009, d = .61.

Sociosexual orientation as a mediator. H7 proposed that within-gender ability in the endorsement of the Sex motive can be explained, in part, by vari-ability in SO. That is, SO may mediate the relationship between (male) gender and endorsement of a sexual motivation for infidelity. We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps to establish mediation. First, gender was tested as a predictor of a sexual motivation. As expected, a path between gender and endorsement of the Sex motive was statistically reliable ␤ = –.42, t(101) = –4.56, p < .001, such that male gender was associated with the Sex motive (Figure 2). Second, gender was tested as a predictor of SO. This path was statistically significant, ␤ = –.41, t(101) = –4.86, p < .001. Male gender was associated with higher scores on the SO scale. Third, SO was tested as a predictor of the Sex motive (while controlling for gender). This path was also statistically reliable, ␤ = .335, t(101) = 3.55, p < .01. Lastly, gender was tested as a predictor of endorsement of the Sex motive while controlling for SO. Gender remained a significant predictor of the Sex motive, ␤ = –.29, t(101) = –3.00, p < .01, but its effect was reduced. These results revealed that SO is a significant mediator of the relationship between gender and endorsement of the Sex motive (Sobel’s z = 2.87, p < .01); however, the mediation was only partial. Furthermore, looking only at females, SO is a statistically significant predictor of endorse-ment of the Sex motive, ␤ = .314, t(85) = 3.02, p < .01, and accounts for 10% of the variance in this motive.

Sex Motive Gender SOI (.42)* .34* .41* .29* FIGURE 2

Gender, sociosexual orientation, and sex motivation. Standardized path coefficients show partial mediation by sociosexual orientation of the relationship between gender and scores on Sex subscale of the Motivations for

Discussion

The distinction between ‘emotional’ and ‘sexual’ motivations for infidelity (the two-factor model) is a pervasive theme in discussions of jealousy and infidelity. However, this distinction may gloss over the true complexity of motivations for infidelity. The data presented here suggest that a multi-factor model of infidelity provides a better fit than the oft-cited two-multi-factor model.

The MII developed in this study contains three subscales that might be identified as ‘emotional’: Dissatisfaction, Neglect, and Anger. Dissatis-faction describes disillusion with one’s primary intimate partner as well as positive valuations of an alternative partner, and is conceptually similar to the Love subscale of Glass and Wright’s (1988) four-factor model of hypo-thetical justifications for infidelity. Neglect describes the perception of being ignored by one’s primary partner, and is conceptually similar to Glass and Wright’s Emotional Intimacy subscale. Anger describes an explicit desire to engage in infidelity as a means of punishing one’s primary partner, and resembles Glass and Wright’s Extrinsic Motivation subscale. Sexual motivation for infidelity is measured by a fourth subscale, titled Sex. Notably, Dissatisfaction and Neglect are only modestly correlated, which offers empirical support for the commonsense notion that one may feel neglected by a partner without feeling dissatisfied with the relationship and vice versa.

Although the observed gender difference in self-reported sexual or emotional motivations for infidelity exists in our data, it is also observed that, among men (but not for women), the Sex motive covaries with Dissatisfaction and Neglect. This finding conflicts with Glass and Wright’s (1985) finding that men will engage in primarily sexual infidelities regard-less of their satisfaction with the primary relationship, however, one may link this finding to data (e.g. Huston & Vangelisti, 1991; Rofé, 1985) suggesting that emotional satisfaction is more strongly contingent on sexual satisfaction for men than for women.

Consistent with Glass and Wright’s research, women do appear to engage in emotionally motivated infidelities at a higher frequency than men. Women are particularly more likely to report a Dissatisfaction motive. Notably, items such as ‘The emotional bond I felt with my affair partner was very strong’ loaded on the Dissatisfaction subscale, indicating that an emotional connection with an affair partner is most likely to be felt if there is, at the same time, a low level of satisfaction with the primary partner. This is consistent with Glass and Wright’s (1985) finding that women are more likely to be unfaithful as a result of unhappiness with the primary partner.

Shackelford and Buss (1997) identified a set of cues that individuals use when concluding that their dating partners are being unfaithful. Interestingly, these cues closely correspond to the motivations for infidelity identified here, and include (i) the perception that one’s partner is dissatisfied with the relationship, (ii) the perception that one’s partner is neglecting the

relationship, (iii) the perception that one’s partner is angry, or (iv) the perception that one’s partner is bored with the sexual aspect of the relation-ship. Their findings may be viewed as providing converging support for the current data.

Our data also suggest that the particular tenor of an individual’s infidelity is influenced by his or her personality. Neglect, as a motivation for infi-delity, is associated with Neuroticism. The combination of Neuroticism and (low) Agreeableness predicts Anger as a motivation for infidelity. Males, individuals who are younger, and those who exhibit an unrestricted SO are particularly likely to report Sex as a motive for being unfaithful. Although H4, predicting an association between Neuroticism and Dissatisfaction, was not supported by our data, it was observed that Neuroticism predicted the Neglect motive. This finding is consistent with the rationale of the hypoth-esis, that among individuals scoring high in Neuroticism, the perceived defi-ciencies of their relationship may be especially salient.

Extraversion was associated with endorsement of Dissatisfaction as a motive; this is logically explicable inasmuch as individuals scoring high in Extraversion are likely to place an especially high value on having enrich-ing interpersonal interactions and react to deficiencies in this domain. Perhaps for a similar reason, females were more likely than males to endorse Dissatisfaction items.

These findings are consistent with a motivational theory of infidelity. However, a motivational theory need not be viewed as an alternative to other theories. A motivational account may complement Investment Theory (Rusbult, 1980, 1983), which has been used to effectively predict infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Investment theorists hypothesize that perceived dyadic satisfaction and the attractiveness of alternative partners are predictors of dyadic stability. From a motivational standpoint, dispositional factors moderate both of these predictors. Neuroticism and (low) Agreeableness negatively impact the perceived quality of the primary dyadic relationship, whereas an unrestricted SO accentuates the perceived sexual attractiveness of alternative partners. The finding that individuals who are dissatisfied with their primary partner also tend to report a strong emotional connection with the affair partner is also congruent with the tenet of Investment Theory stating that satisfaction with a primary partner is associated with a greater level of commitment to the partner and less favorable impressions of alternative partners.

This study also attempted to identify factors other than gender per se that might account for gender differences in the likelihood of reporting sex as a motivation for infidelity. Researchers have repeatedly shown that men are more likely than women to report a sexual motivation, while paying virtually no attention to identifying in what respects men and women who report a sexual motivation may be similar. In the current data, SO partially mediates the relationship between gender and endorsement of the Sex motive for infidelity. One may infer that both men and women who have an unrestricted SO are more likely to report a sexual motive, and the estab-lished finding (e.g. Seal & Agostinelli, 1994; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)

that men are more likely to have an unrestricted SO appears to account, in part, for the greater frequency of sexual infidelities among men. However, even when we controlled for personality factors including SO, men were still more likely than women to endorse a sexual motivation and this effect was of medium size.

Limitations of the present study

An important limitation of the present study is the fact that the MII is a self-report measure, and hence susceptible to self-presentation bias. The overall validity of the scale will only be fully established once it is tested with several populations. Furthermore, it is not alleged here that the four types of motivation presented earlier reflect an exhaustive classification scheme. Finally, a qualifying question used to identify unfaithful persons, ‘In a dating relationship, have you ever made an agreement not to get involved with anyone else’, imprudently excludes individuals who have made tacit agreements not to become involved in an extra-dyadic relation-ship. An individual who is dating may infer a relationship norm supporting exclusivity after reaching a certain milestone, such as a declaration of love or the commencement of sexual activity, without necessarily making verbal agreements.

Strengths of the present study

The present study contributes to the literature because it is based on self-reports of individuals who have engaged in infidelity. The few studies that have attempted to find associations between personality traits and infidelity have relied on hypothetical scenarios; for example, Buss and Shackelford (1997) asked newlyweds to predict the likelihood of future infidelity and based their analysis on these prospective ratings. An exception is Schmidt and Buss (2001), who found that past participation in extra-dyadic relation-ships was associated with Neuroticism, (low) Agreeableness and (low) Conscientiousness. The current study is, to our knowledge, the first published study to evaluate hypothesized associations between Big Five personality traits and specific motivations for infidelity.

Directions for future research

Future research should ascertain whether the particular motivations for infidelity described here are related to conceptually linked attributes of the primary relationship. For example, a significant conflict within the relation-ship may be expected to precede infidelities motivated by Anger. The use of this scale for assessing motivations for infidelity among married couples would substantiate the belief that the dynamics of infidelity are similar for dating and married couples.

Further research is encouraged to find mediators of the relationship between gender and different motivations for infidelity. Such a focus acknowledges within-gender variability as equally worthy of study as between-gender variability, and holds the promise of helping researchers deconstruct the factors perpetuating gender-based behavior differences.

Conclusion

Our data offer support for a multifactor model of infidelity, and demon-strate that multiple, distinct motivations for infidelity exist that are influ-enced by personality traits of individuals who engage in infidelity. Women are more likely than men to report engaging in infidelity because they are dissatisfied with their current partner. The often-observed finding that men are more likely to engage in a sexually motivated infidelity, is balanced here by the observation that a sexual motivation often does not occur in isolation from dissatisfaction with the primary relationship and the percep-tion of one’s primary partner as emopercep-tionally negligent or inattentive. Furthermore, SO partially mediates the relationship between male gender and endorsement of a sexual motivation for infidelity. The picture presented here is more nuanced than the picture afforded by a two-factor, ‘emotional versus sexual’ understanding of the motives for infidelity.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS (Version 4.01) [computer software]. Chicago: Small Waters. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psycho-logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Buss, D., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.

Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage.

Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193–221.

Buunk, B. (1980). Extramarital sex in the Netherlands: Motivation in social and marital context. Alternative Lifestyles, 3, 11–39.

Buunk, B., & van Driel, B. (1989). Variant lifestyles and relationships. London: Sage. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative

space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–422.

DeSteno, D. A., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary theory of artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 1103–1116.

Drigotas, S., Safstrom, C., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524.

Ellis, B. (1998). The partner-specific investment inventory: An evolutionary approach to indi-vidual differences in investment. Journal of Personality, 66, 383–442.

Feldman, S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin’ heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 227–252. Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual

variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96.

Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1977). The relationship of extramarital sex, length of marriage, and sex differences on marital satisfaction and romanticism: Athanasiou’s data reanalyzed.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 691–704.

Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.

Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1988). Clinical implications of research on extramarital involvement. In R. Brown & J. Field (Eds.), Treatment of sexual problems in individual and couples

Humphrey, F. (1987). Treating extramarital sexual relationships in sex and couples therapy. In G. Weeks & L. Hof (Eds.), Integrating sex and marital therapy: A clinical guide (pp. 149–170). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733.

John, O., Donahue, E., & Kentle, R. (1991). The ‘Big Five’ Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research. Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of

marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.

Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Phila-delphia: W.B. Saunders.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization

of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levant, R. (1997). Nonrelational sexuality in men. In R. Levant & G. Brooks (Eds.), Men and

sex: New psychological perspectives (pp. 9–27). New York: Wiley.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its

appli-cations. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.

Merkle, E., & Richardson, R. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187–192.

Panskepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Academic Press.

Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal

Relation-ships, 19, 639–661.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘Hook-ups’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research,

37, 76–88.

Prager, K. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford Press.

Reise, S., & Wright, T. (1996). Personality traits, cluster B personality disorders, and socio-sexuality. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 128–136.

Rofé, Y. (1985). The assessment of marital happiness. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 55–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L., & Kennedy, D. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and

consequences. Adolescence, 23 (89), 35–43.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvement. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.

Schmidt, D., & Buss, D. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrat-ing existinfiltrat-ing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894–917. Seal, D., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk sexual

behaviour: Implications for intervention programmes. AIDS Care, 6, 393–397.

Seal, D., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. (1994). Extra-dyadic romantic involvement: Moder-ating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31(1/2), 1–22.

Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social

Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045.

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

Simpson, J., Gangestad, S., & Nations, C. (1996). Sociosexuality and relationship initiation: An ethological perspective of nonverbal behavior. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.),

Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 121–146).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thompson, A. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex

Research, 19, 1–22.

Thompson, A. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 46, 35–42.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48–60.

Wegner, D., Lane, J., & Dimitri, S. (1994). The allure of secret relationships. Journal of

Person-ality and Social Psychology, 66, 287–300.

Weis, D., & Slosnerick, M. (1981). Attitudes toward sexual and nonsexual extramarital involvements among a sample of college students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 349–358.

Yarab, P., Sensibaugh, C., & Allgeier, E. (1998). More than just sex: Gender differences in the incidence of self-defined unfaithful behavior in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal