User:Lisahgou/sandbox

In many intimate relationships, across many cultures, there is usually an express or implied expectation of exclusivity, especially in sexual matters. Infidelity (colloquially known as cheating) most commonly refers to a breach of the expectation of sexual exclusivity.

Infidelity can occur in relation to physical intimacy and/or emotional intimacy. The impact of infidelity is said to be not only about sex outside the relationship, but also about trust, betrayal, lying and disloyalty. Sexual infidelity by a marriage partner is commonly called philandery, adultery, or an affair.

What constitutes an act of infidelity varies between and within cultures and depends on the type of relationship that exists between people. Even within an open relationship, infidelity may arise if a partner in the relationship acts outside of the understood boundaries of that relationship.

Emotional infidelity is emotional involvement with another person, a process that leads one’s partner to channel emotional resources, such as romantic love, time, and attention, to someone else. The level of intimate involvement can extend from in-person involvement to online affairs. Emotional infidelity, as compared to physical infidelity, can inflict as much, if not more, hurt, pain and suffering. Most infidelity involves both physical and emotional unfaithfulness.

Incidence of infidelity

Estimates of the incidence of infidelity vary widely depending on the source. The disparity among different sources is due to the sampling of different populations and the variety of techniques used to collect data related to infidelity. The difficulty in converging on a single estimate arises because the participants who choose to engage in infidelity studies may not be representative of the whole population, and because many people believe that infidelity is linked to immorality and therefore their self-reports of infidelity may be subject to social desirability bias.

David Atkins, a research associate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, commented on the barriers facing researchers in the field of infidelity when it comes to collecting accurate data. Participants responding to the question, "Have you ever had sex with someone other than your spouse while you were married?" may not respond truthfully, or be able to provide the details surrounding their answers. Atkins stated, "The first thing we have to grapple with is honesty. We know that is a significant issue," adding that some participants are more willing to admit to an act of infidelity if the response medium is anonymous. There is also some confusion as to how to define infidelity, as some people conceptualize it as solely referring to intercourse, whereas others include an array of other behaviors in their definition of infidelity.

Data from a nationally representative sample has placed estimates of extramarital sex between 20 and 25 percent for married men and between 10 and 15 percent for married women in the United States. Additional studies show that extramarital sex occurs in up to 25 percent of heterosexual marriages in the USA, according to Adrian Blow, a Michigan State University professor who is a marriage and family therapist. In a survey of 16,000 university students in 53 countries, participants reported that 20 percent of long term relationships began when one or both partners were involved with someone else.

Little research has been conducted with non-heterosexual populations regarding the incidence of infidelity. Factors that complicate the study of infidelity in non-heterosexual populations include differing attitudes about monogamy, differing definitions of what constitutes infidelity as a function of sexual orientation, and the fact that same-sex marriage is not recognized in many jurisdictions.

Infidelity and gender

Attitudes towards “casual sex” are influenced by gender. Infidelity comes in a variety of forms ranging in complexity that are viewed differently among genders. Men show greater interest in uncommitted sex and a desire for more sexual partners compared to women. In addition, men are more likely than women to report having a sexual affair, and to report wanting to have a sexual affair, regardless of whether or not they are in a married or unmarried relationship. However, when the definition of infidelity is broadened to include acts beyond sexual intercourse, such as kissing or going out on dates, the gender difference is much less pronounced and can disappear altogether. This gender difference in reported infidelity also appears to be shrinking and even reversing in some cases, with a trend towards more women than men reporting infidelity in younger populations, suggesting changes in gender differences in infidelity occurring over time.

Men and women can also differ in motivation to engage in infidelity, predictors of infidelity, and reactions to a partner’s infidelity (see #Infidelity and evolution, #Personality and infidelity, and Sexual jealousy in humans).

Cultural variation in infidelity

Oftentimes differences in attitudes regarding infidelity are attributable to cultural factors. This variation stems from the fact that societies differ in how they view extramarital affairs and jealousy (Hupka et al. 1985). An examination of jealousy across 7 nations revealed that the partner in a relationship serves as the primary and exclusive source of satisfaction and attention in all cultures. Therefore, when an individual feels jealousy towards another, it is usually because they are now sharing the same significant other as the primary source of attention and satisfaction. However, variation can be seen when identifying the behaviors and actions that betray the role of primary attention (satisfaction) giver. For instance, in certain cultures if an individual goes out with another of the opposite gender, emotions of intense jealousy can result; however, in other cultures, this behavior is perfectly acceptable and is not given much thought (Hupka 1985).

It is important to understand where these cultural variations come from and how they root themselves into differing perceptions of infidelity. While many cultures report infidelity as wrong and admonish it, some are more tolerant of such behavior. These views are generally linked to the overall liberal nature of the society. For instance, Danish society is viewed as more liberal than many other cultures, and as such, have correlating liberal views on infidelity and extramarital affairs (Blow and Hartnett 2005). According to Christine Harris and Nicholas Christenfeld (1996), societies that are legally more liberal against extramarital affairs judge less harshly upon sexual infidelity because it is distinct from emotional infidelity. In Danish society, having sex does not necessarily imply a deep emotional attachment. As a result, infidelity does not carry such a severe negative connotation (Harris and Christenfeld).

With regards to cultural differences in how the genders view infidelity, it was observed that females found emotional infidelity much more distressful and males found sexual infidelity to be much more distressful than females. A comparison between modern day Chinese and American societies showed that there was greater distress with sexual infidelity in the US than in China. The cultural difference is most likely due to the more restrictive nature of Chinese society, thus, making infidelity a more salient concern. Sexual promiscuity is more prominent in the United States, thus it follows that American society is more preoccupied with infidelity than Chinese society (Geary et al. 1995).

Oftentimes a single predominate religion can influence the culture of an entire nation. Even within Christianity in the United States, there are discrepancies as to how extramarital affairs are viewed. For instance, Mormons and Catholics do not view infidelity with equal severity. Catholics and conservative Protestants who follow scripture more directly view aspects of infidelity much more harshly than Mormons. However, simply identifying as Catholic is not enough to warrant a harsh view on infidelity. A measure of attachment to the religion, such as regular church attendance, reflects differences in views within Catholic groups. Catholics with regular church participation consistently viewed infidelity and other social norms more conservatively. Ultimately, it was seen that adults that associated with a religion (any denomination) were found to view infidelity as much more distressing than those who were not affiliated with a religion. Those that participated more heavily in their religions were even more conservative in their views on infidelity (Burdette et al. 2007).

While infidelity is by no means exclusive to certain groups of people, its perception can be influenced by other factors. In fact, individuals that are well educated, live in large metropolitan areas, or have more relaxed views on premarital sex are also more likely to be accepting towards extramarital affairs. Furthermore, within a “homogeneous culture,” like that in the United States, factors like community size can be strong predictors of how infidelity is perceived. Larger communities tend to care less about infidelity whereas small towns are much more concerned with such issues (Blow and Hartnett 2005). These patterns are observed in other cultures as well. For example, a cantina in a small, rural Mexican community is often viewed as a place where “decent” or “married” women do not go because of its semi-private nature. Conversely, public spaces like the market or plaza are acceptable areas for heterosexual interaction. A smaller population size presents the threat of being publicly recognized for infidelity. However, within a larger community of the same Mexican society, entering a bar or watering hole would garner a different view. It would be deemed perfectly acceptable for both married and unmarried individuals to drink at a bar in a large city. These observations can be paralleled to rural and urban societies in the United States as well (Hirsch et al. 2007). Ultimately, these variables and societal differences dictate attitudes towards sexual infidelity which can vary across cultures as well as within cultures.

Theories of infidelity

Anthropological viewpoint on humans and infidelity

Anthropologists tend to believe humans are neither completely monogamous nor completely polygamous. Anthropologist Bobbi Low, says we are “slightly polygamous”; Deborah Blum, though, believes we are “ambiguously monogamous,” and that we are slowly moving away from the polygamous habits of our evolutionary ancestors.

According to anthropologist Helen Fisher, there are numerous psychological reasons for adultery. Some people may want to supplement a marriage, solve a sex problem, gather more attention, seek revenge, or have more excitement in the marriage. But based on Fisher’s research, there also is a biological side to adultery. “We have two brain systems: One of them is linked to attachment and romantic love, and then there is the other brain system, which is purely sex drive.” Sometimes these two brain systems are not well connected, which enables people to become adulterers and satisfy their sex drive without any regards to their attachment side.

Infidelity and evolution

Sexual strategies theory states that men and women have differential parental investment in offspring and therefore utilize different sexual strategies. Whereas women must, at minimum, carry offspring through pregnancy, and breast feed children for several years after birth, the minimum investment for men is the production of sperm for the fertilization of the woman’s ovum. Men are capable of fathering far more offspring than women can bear, and can maximize the transmission of their genetic material to the next generation by investing their energies into having sex with multiple female partners. Thus, from an evolutionary standpoint, men can increase their reproductive success by having sex with partners outside of their primary relationships, or engaging in infidelity.

Other studies have purported that it may be evolutionarily advantageous for women to seek sex outside of their primary relationships as well, but that they may derive different benefits than men. Women who engage in infidelity may be able to “mate-switch” or find a superior partner while still maintaining the security benefits of staying with their current partner. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be adaptive for a woman to find a more virile man to reproduce with (see good genes hypothesis),or a more caring man to help raise the child if her current partner does not possess these traits. The mate-switching hypothesis has gained support from research that shows that among the most commonly reported reasons for engaging in infidelity for women were finding a better, more compatible, or more attractive partner. The same study has found evidence that acquiring resources from a partner outside of the primary relationship is an often cited reason for infidelity in women.

Personality and infidelity

The field of personality and social psychology has identified some of the traits and characteristics that make certain individuals more likely to engage in infidelity than others. Much of the research in personality employs the Big Five personality traits, using a questionnaire that produces scores on five separate dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Barta and Kiene (2005) found that individuals who reported infidelity tended to score higher in the dimension of neuroticism, and lower in both agreeableness and conscientiousness. These findings were replicated by Schmitt (2004), using data from the International Sexuality Description Project. Data from 10 world regions showed that low agreeableness and conscientiousness were nearly universally associated with higher levels of relationship infidelity.

Another personality trait that is not part of the Big Five, but that is associated with increased infidelity is narcissism. Individuals that score high in narcissism are more likely to commit an act of infidelity. Furthermore, more men than women possess narcissistic personality traits, with 50-75% of those diagnosed with Narcissistic personality disorder being male (American Psychological Association, 2000), though this gender difference is diminishing over time, which is consistent with the trends in the incidence of infidelity as presented above (See #Incidence of infidelity, #Infidelity and gender).

Attachment theory and infidelity

Adult attachment styles in romantic relationships are an extension of John Bowlby’s Attachment theory. The four adult attachment styles are: secure, anxious–preoccupied, dismissive–avoidant, and fearful–avoidant. Of the four styles, securely attached individuals are the least accepting of casual sex and the least likely to engage in an act of infidelity.

Anxiously attached women, but not men, are more likely to report infidelity, and both men and women with avoidant attachment styles are more likely to report relationship infidelity, and may endorse more accepting attitudes toward infidelity in general.

Adult attachment styles are also associated with people's reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity (see Sexual jealousy in humans).

Freudian model of infidelity

Freudian theory expresses the belief that it is natural and human to have sexual desires. In the book, “The State of Affairs” by Jean Duncombe, Karen Harrison, Graham Allan, and Dennis Marsden Freud’s ideas are examined in the context of adultery. In their words:

“Freud would say adultery is a classic manifestation of antinomic desires splitting the psyche of the adulterer. The split is externalized in three actors:

1. the betrayed spouse is the superego,
2. the lover is the id, and
3. the adulterer is the ego.

Social norms and institutions act as extensions of the superego that serve to regulate behaviors prompted by the id thus implicitly blaming the third party for intruding between the rational sense and the conscience."

Defense mechanisms to prevent infidelity

Game theory suggests that cheating is actually the Evolutionary Stable Strategy for an individual to improve his or her own fitness (Roughgarden and Akcay, 2010). This holds true in most mating systems and shows that infidelity is actually advantageous to a cheating male’s fitness. It allows men to copulate with multiple women, maximizing the number of offspring in the next generation (Roughgarden and Akcay, 2010). However, not all humans cheat and defense mechanisms have been developed to prevent partner infidelity. Current research in the field provides three suggestions to explainwhy humans are not ubiquitous cheaters. The original theory proposes that jealousy acts as an innate and adaptive response to prevent infidelity (Buss et al., 1992). A more recent theory suggests that punishing cheaters and damaging their individual reputations are what police infidelity (Hirsch et al., 2007). Yet another theory proposes mate guarding as a strategy for fending off sexual rivals and maintaining access to one’s partner to avoid the fitness costs incurred from a partner’s infidelity (Buss, 2002).

Jealousy

The evolutionary psychology viewpoint states that infidelity is prevented through the adaptively developed emotional response of jealousy. Jealousy is an emotion that can elicit strong responses. Cases have been documented where sexual jealousy was directly implicated in cases of murder and assault Buss and Haselton (2005) state that jealousy has three main functions that can help prevent infidelity. It can (i) alert an individual to threats with a valued relationship, (ii) be activated by the presence of interested and more desirable intrasexual rivals, (iii) function as a motivational mechanism that creates behavioral outputs to deter infidelity and abandonment.

Physiological mechanisms of jealousy support this idea. Jealousy is a form of stress response which has been shown to activate the sympathetic nervous system by increasing heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration. This is the “fight or flight” response that prepares the body to take action, in this case to prevent a partner’s sexual infidelity. Buss and his colleagues were the first to pioneer a theory that jealousy is an evolved human emotion that has become an innate module, hard-wired to prevent infidelity from occurring.

This idea is commonly referred to as Jealousy as a Specific Innate Module (JSIM. The basis of JSIM is that jealousy was beneficial in our ancestors' time when cuckoldry was more common. It is suggested that those who were equipped with this emotional response could more effectively stop infidelity than those without the emotional response. Because a partner’s infidelity imposed such a fitness cost, those who had the jealous emotional response had increased biological fitness, and passed down the jealousy module to the next generation. This provided an ultimate selection mechanism to make this module adaptive and allow it to persist in modern humans.

David Buss and his colleagues tested this pioneering hypothesis through self-report, questionnaire studies in college students. Their findings support the JSIM theory since our ancestor’s concerns of paternal uncertainty and parental investment are reflected in modern humans through the subjects’ sex-related responses and anxieties. It suggests that jealousy has evolved to prevent the respective fitness costs of infidelity in males and females. (For more on sex differences in jealousy, see Sexual jealousy in humans)

Social Monitoring

A recently suggested defense mechanisms of infidelity that is attracting more attention and research is the idea that a particular social group will punish cheaters by damaging their individual reputation (Fisher et al., 2009). The basis for this suggestion stems from the fact that humans have an unmatched ability to monitor social relationships and inflict punishment on cheaters, regardless of the context (Scheuring, 2010). This punishment comes in many forms, one being social gossip that may be detrimental to the individual in question. Social gossip may ostracize an individual from the group by damaging his or her reputation. This impedes the individual’s ability to garner future benefits associated with membership with the group and relationships with other individuals (Scheuring, 2010).

Punishment in this way actually encourages group cohesion and cooperation. A damaged reputation is especially debilitating when related to sexual and emotional infidelity because it can limit future reproductive mate choices within the group and will cause a net fitness cost that outweighs the fitness benefit gained from infidelity (Fisher et al., 2010). This is thought to deter individuals from cheating in the first place. An example of this phenomenon comes from fieldwork done by Hirsch and his colleagues (2007). They conducted observational research on the influence of reputation and sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk on sexual practices of the villagers in Degollado, Mexico. They found that gossip about extramarital affairs was particularly prevalent and detrimental to the reputation of individuals in this region because of the small size of the community. Adultery can cause an individual to be disowned by the family, hurt the marriage prospects of other members of the family, cause negative financial or employment consequences, and diminish future reproductive potential.

Mate Guarding

Another defense mechanism that both men and women may employ against a partner’s infidelity is mate guarding. Mate guarding refers to behaviours that are meant to prevent rival competitors from accessing one’s partner, while also preventing the partner from leaving the relationship and thereby securing access to that partner. Mate guarding is a strategy that is meant to combat the fitness costs associated with cuckoldry or loss of a partner. It can take many forms, from vigilance to violence. Examples of vigilant mate guarding behaviours include calling at unexpected times to check in with a partner, or not letting a partner out of sight. An example of violent behaviour would be physically assaulting a rival who showed interest in one’s partner. Additional strategies include concealing a partner from rivals, monopolizing all of a partner’s free time, threatening one’s partner, and increasing one’s own physical attractiveness.

Men and women may employ different mate guarding tactics. When asked which strategies they used to retain their spouses, married men reported displaying resources and threatening rivals, whereas married women reported increasing their physical attractiveness and vocalizing their possession of their partners.

The use of mate guarding tactics also depends on the degree of threat one feels of losing a partner, that is, how valuable one’s partner is and the availability of interested rivals. In Buss and Shackelford’s 1997 study, men were more likely to employ mate guarding tactics if their wives were young and physically attractive. Women on the other hand, guarded their husbands most intensely if the husbands had higher incomes and more drive to increase their social status.

The degree to which heterosexual men guard their partners also depends on their partners’ ovulatory cycles, but only for men who are low in sexual attractiveness or who are partnered with less attractive women. Women reported more mate guarding by their male partners around the time of ovulation when the risk of being cuckolded is highest for their partners, but only if they perceived their partners to be low in attractiveness or if these women were less attractive themselves. More attractive women reported relatively high levels of mate guarding regardless of what point they were at in their cycle.

It has also been noted that men tend to increase the frequency with which they engage in sexual intercourse with their female partners concurrently with their increased use of mate guarding tactics. More frequent mating may be a way to combat sperm competition in concert with the use of mate guarding tactics, since males cannot continuously monitor their partners.

The transformation of infidelity

Recently, in North America and Europe specifically, there have been drastic changes in the nature and character of relationships. Fewer people are choosing to get married and instead are assuming relationships similar to marriage, without the title. The divorce rates are rising and types of family development are changing. For example, more couples are choosing to remain childless or have children without being married. These transformations may be attributed to the changing labor markets, along with new and different value sets and lifestyles. In societies where marriage is no longer uncritically perceived as a monogamous life-long relationship, getting married seems a more dubious enterprise. Marriage, sex, and childbearing, which have been a tightly bound package for much of the 20th century, are no longer so inextricably linked.

Infidelity and the internet

The rise of the internet and technology in general provide new challenges for modern couples. According to the Global Internet Statistics in 2003, internet population around the world has grown exceptionally fast in less than a decade, rising from 16 million users in 1995 to approximately 680 million in late 2003. Millions of such users are married individuals who use the Internet to meet strangers, flirt, and many times engage in highly sexualized conversations.

Research on internet infidelity is a relatively new field of interest. It is difficult to classify any type of sexual interaction via the internet as infidelity because it lacks the physical aspect. In their book, “The Philosophy of Sex”, Alan Soble and Nicholas Power speculate about the internet, infidelity and culture, “According to the dominant account in our culture, the paradigm case of what counts as sex is heterosexual intercourse, where a man and women engage in a particularly intimate form of physical contact, in which a penis penetrates a vagina. This case is paradigmatic in that it organizes social judgments about which other activities count as sexual, and also connects to dominant views about what sex is normal, natural and good."

In an attempt to differentiate offline and online infidelity, Cooper, Morahan-Martin, Mathy, and Maheu constructed a "Triple A Engine", which identifies the three aspects of internet infidelity that distinguish it, to some degree, from traditional infidelity:

1. Accessibility: the more access one has to the Internet, the more likely they will engage in infidelity
2. Affordability: the monetary cost of being able to access the internet continues to drop, and for a small price, a user can visit many sites, and meet multiple potential sexual needs
3. Anonymity: the internet allows users to masquerade as someone else, or hide their identity altogether.

A study done by Hinke A. K. Groothof, Pieternel Dijkstra and Dick P. H. Barelds called “Sex Differences in Jealousy: The Case of Internet Infidelity” explores the differences between consequences of online infidelity versus offline, and the processes that underlie it, for both partners and/or the relationship. It also examines consistency among sex differences and jealousy in relation to the type of infidelity. The study utilized a sample of 335 Dutch undergraduate students involved in serious intimate relationships. The participants were presented with four dilemmas concerning a partner’s emotional and sexual infidelity over the internet.
They found a significant sex difference as to whether participants chose sexual and emotional infidelity as more upsetting.
More men than women indicated that a partner’s sexual involvement would upset them more than a partner’s emotional bonding with someone else.
Similarly, in the dilemma involving infidelity over the internet, more men indicated their partner’s sexual involvement would upset them more than a partner’s emotional bonding with someone else.

Chat rooms and infidelity

The new-found popularity of internet chat rooms has contributed largely to infidelity. Never before has it been so easy to engage in the dating scene and meet people while maintaining the stability of marriage. Chat rooms provide a dilemma because some view them as a forum for fantasies and illusions that are simply just communication rather than physical acts. In a sense, they are a place where married individuals can engage in guilt-free excitement. However, everyone feels differently, leading to extreme gray areas.

A study by Beatriz Lia Avila Mileham in 2004 examined the phenomenon of online infidelity in chat rooms, a process whereby individuals involved in a long-term committed relationship seek computer synchronous, interactive contact with opposite-sex members. The following factors were investigated: (a) what elements and dynamics online infidelity involves and how it happens; (b) what leads individuals specifically to the computer to search for a relationship ‘‘on the side’’; (c) whether individuals consider online contacts as infidelity and why or why not; and (e) what dynamics chat room users experience in their marriages. The results lead to three constructs that symbolize chat room dynamics and serve as a foundation for internet infidelity. They include:

1. Anonymous sexual interactionism
2. Behavioral rationalization
3. Effortless avoidance.

Anonymous sexual interactionism refers to these individuals’ predilection for anonymous interactions of a sexual nature in chat rooms. The allure of anonymity gains extra importance for married individuals, who can enjoy relative safety to express fantasies and desires without being known or exposed.

Behavioral rationalization denotes the reasoning that chat room users present for conceiving their online behaviors’ as innocent and harmless (despite the secrecy and highly sexual nature).

Effortless avoidance involves chat room users’ avoidance of psychological discomfort by exchanging sexual messages with strangers. Happily married individuals also join such rooms.

Infidelity at work

An office romance, work romance, or corporate affair is a romance that occurs between two people who work together in the same office, work location, or business.

Adulterous office romances are widely considered to be unhelpful to business and work relationships, but while superior-subordinate relationships are banned in 90% of companies with written policies regarding office romance, companies cannot ban adultery, as, in all but a handful of states, such regulations would run afoul of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status. Firings nonetheless often occur on the basis of charges of inappropriate office conduct.

Academics and therapists say cheating is probably more prevalent on the road than close to home. The protection of the road offers a secret life of romance, far from spouses or partners. Affairs range from one-night stands to relationships that last for years. They are usually with a co-worker, a business associate or someone they repeatedly encounter.

Another reason for the development of office romances is the excessive time co-workers spend together. Spouses today often spend more time with co-workers in the office than with each other. Lisa Miller and Lorraine Ali note in their article from Newsweek, “The New Infidelity” that “nearly 60 percent of American women work outside the home, up from about 40 percent in 1964. Quite simply, women intersect with more people during the day than they used to. They go to more meetings, take more business trips and, presumably, participate more in flirtatious water-cooler chatter."

According to Dr. Debra Laino in an article for Shave Magazine, some of the reasons women cheat at the workplace are because "women are disproportionately exposed to men in the workplace, and, as a direct consequence, many have more options and chances to cheat."

Types of infidelity

Each case of infidelity serves a different purpose. Being able to justify the behavior of a spouse and define it will lessen some of the confusion. There are five categories of infidelity:

1. opportunistic infidelity:-example debauchery.
2. obligatory infidelity
3. romantic infidelity
4. conflicted romantic infidelity, and
5. commemorative infidelity

Opportunistic infidelity occurs when a partner is in love and attached to a partner, but surrenders to their sexual desire for someone else. The opportunistic infidelity is driven by irrepressible lust, situational circumstances and/or opportunity, and sometimes, pure risk-taking behavior.

Obligatory infidelity is based on fear that refraining from someone's sexual advances will result in rejection, and being unwilling to handle such rejection, resulting in surrender to them. Some people end up cheating solely on the need for approval from somebody, even though they still hold a strong attraction to their committed partner.

Romantic infidelity occurs when the cheater is in the process of "falling out of love" with his/her partner. The person's self-perceived obligatory commitment to the relationship's tenets and overall life-meaning is likely the only thing still keeping them with their partner in this example.

Conflicted romantic infidelity takes place when a person both falls in love with and has a strong sexual desire for multiple people at one time, even though s/he may already be committed to a partner. In this circumstance the person feels s/he cannot tell his/her committed partner about what has happened, but is in any unable to resist the compulsion; this lack of open discussion is usually what separates conflicted romantic infidelity from things like a well-defined open relationship or polyamory.

Commemorative infidelity occurs when a person has completely fallen out of love with their spouse, but is still in a committed relationship with them.

Consequences of Infidelity

Divorce or the dissolution of a relationship is one consequence of infidelity. A longitudinal study that followed couples for a 12-year period found that sexual infidelity was a significant predictor of divorce, and that couples reporting an act of sexual infidelity were two- to four-times more likely to divorce during the course of the study.

Fifty United Kingdom divorce lawyers were asked to name the most common causes of their cases in 2003. Of those who cited extramarital affairs, 55% said it was a cheating husband that precipitated divorce while 45% said it was the wife's cheating.

Another way to deal with an act of infidelity would be to seek couple's therapy or counseling. With time to heal and the mutual goal of rebuilding the relationship, some couples emerge from infidelity with a stronger and more honest relationship than before. Relationship counseling can help put an affair into perspective, explore underlying relationship problems, learn how to rebuild and strengthen a relationship, and avoid divorce — if that is the mutual goal.

Marriage counseling is generally provided by licensed therapists or clinical psychologists known as couple, marriage or family therapists (see family therapy and emotionally focused therapy). These therapists provide the same mental health services as other therapists, but with a specific focus — a couple's relationship.

Relationship counseling typically brings partners together for joint sessions. The counselor or therapist helps couples pinpoint and understand the sources of their conflicts and try to resolve them. Partners evaluate both the good and bad parts of their relationship. Integrative behavioral couples therapy has shown success in increasing intimacy after an affair.

Intimate betrayal inflicts an attachment wound and this is sometimes irreparable, particularly when both partners are not committed to repair.

In her research, Candyce Russell, a licensed family therapist developed three Emotional Stages that typically follow an incident of infidelity:

Stage one: roller-coaster a time filled with strong emotions, ranging from anger and self-blame to periods of introspection and appreciation for the relationship.

Stage two: moratorium a less emotional period in which the cheated-on spouse tries to make sense of the infidelity, obsesses about details of the affair, retreats physically and emotionally from the relationship, and reaches out to others for help.

Stage three: trust-building for couples who decided they wanted to stay together and make their marriage work. In this stage, “showing commitment to the relationship was most important for injured parties to begin forgiving and building trust," Russell said.

Although therapy for same-sex couples seeking counselling for relationship infidelity does not differ drastically from therapy for heterosexual couples, therapists may need to make certain considerations when working with same-sex couples. For example, therapists must gain an understanding of the couple's agreement regarding sexual monogamy or nonmonogamy within the relationship, and it is particularly important not to underestimate the commitment that the partners have for one another if they have chosen a nonmonogamous relationship.

In addition to the couple involved, infidelity can impact other individuals, most notably children of those involved. Children can be products of and witnesses to infidelity. A 2006 review of articles published worldwide found that among men with high confidence of their paternity, non-paternity rates range from 1.7% to 3.3%, suggesting that the widely quoted figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate.

Children who discover a parent’s infidelity may suffer negative consequences or become unintentionally involved following the discovery. They may experience developmental difficulties due to confusion regarding their parents as a model of moral behaviour, be coerced by one parent to lie to the other, or be forced to bear the emotional burden of their parent’s affair. Thus it is important to include children in therapy as well if they become involved in a parent’s affair.

See also

• Extramarital sex
• Adultery
• Emotional affair
• Sexual jealousy in humans
• Open marriage relationship
• Crime of passion
• Polygyny threshold model
• Mistress (lover)
• Relational transgressions
• Promiscuity

References

Bibliography

• Moultrup, David J. (1990). Husbands, Wives & Lovers. New York: Guilford Press.
• Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. Journal of Sex Research 29, 361–387.
• Pittman, F. (1989). Private Lies . New York: W. W. Norton Co.
• Rubin, A. M., & Adams, J. R. (1986). Outcomes of sexually open marriages. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 311–319.
• Vaughan, P. (1989). The Monogamy Myth. New York: New Market Press.
• Blow, Adrian J. (April 2005). "Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review". Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 31 (2). Washington, D.C.: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. ISSN 0194-472X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Blow, Adrian J. (April 2005). "Infidelity in Committed Relationships I: A Methodological Review". Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 31 (2). Washington, D.C.: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. ISSN 0194-472X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement Family Process, Dec 2004 by Elizabeth S. Allen, Donald H. Baucom
• AN INTEGRATIVE INTERVENTION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY FROM EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, April 2004 by Gordon, Kristina Coop, Baucom, Donald H, Snyder, Douglas K
• Treating infidelity: Therapeutic dilemmas and effective strategies Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, October 2004 by Ward, David B.
• Managing Infidelity: A Cross-Cultural Perspective by Anne Buckmaster, William Jankowiak, M. Diane Nell; Ethnology, Vol. 41, PART 1, pages 85–100 2002
• Infidelity: The Lessons Children Learn by Jennifer Harley Chalmers, Ph.D.
• Professor Kristina Gordon's research into infidelity and betrayal
• Cybersex and Infidelity Online: Implications for Evaluation and Treatment by Kimberly S. Young, Alvin Cooper, Eric Griffiths-Shelley, James O'Mara, and Jennifer Buchanan Paper Published in Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7(10, 59–74, 2000
• Buss, D. M. (1996, February). Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies . American Psychologist, 51(2), 161–162.
• Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005, November). The Evolution of Jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507.
• Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Semmelroth, J., & Westen, D. (1992, July). Sex Differences in Jealousy—Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology. Psychological Sciences, 3(4), 251–255.
• Cramer, R. E., Lipinski, R. E., Meeter, J. D., & Houska, J. A. (2008, August). Sex Differences in Subjective Distress to Unfaithfulness: Testing Competing Evolutionary and Violation of Infidelity Expectations Hypotheses. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(4), 389–405.
• DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996, November). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the fitness of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367–372.
• Fisher, M., Geher, G., Cox, A., Tran, U. S., Hoben, A., Arrabaca, A., Chaize, C., Deitrich, R., & Voracek, M. (2009). Impact of Relational Proximity on Distress from Infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(4), 560–580.
• Harris, C. R. (2000, June). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1082–1091.
• Harris, C. R. (2004, January/February). The Evolution of Jealousy. American Scientist, 92(1), 62–71
• Harris, C. R. (2005). Male and female jealousy, still more similar than different: Reply to Sagarin (2005). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 76–86.
• Hirsch, J. S., Meneses, S., Thompson, B., Negroni, M., Pelcastre, B., & del RIo, C. (2007, June). The inevitability of infidelity: Sexual reputation, social geographies, and marital HIV risk in rural Mexico. The American Journal of Public Health, 97(6), 986–996.
• Roughgarden, J., & Akcay, E. (2010, March). Do We Need a Sexual Selection 2.0? Animal Behavior, 79(3), E1–E4.
• Scheuring, I. (2010, August). Coevolution of honest signaling and cooperative norms by cultural group selection. Buiosystems, 101(2), 79–87.
• Blow, Adrian J., and Kelley Hartnett. "Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review". Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 31.2 (2005): 217–33. ISI Web of Science. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
• Burdette, Amy M., Christopher G. Ellison, Darren E. Sherkat, and Kurt A. Gore. "Are Their Religious Variations in Material Infidelity". Journal of Family Issues 28.12 (2007): 1553–581. ISI Web of Science. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
• Geary, David C., Michael Rumsey, Christine Bow-Thomas, and Mary K. Hoard. "Sexual Jealousy as a Facultative Trait: Evidence from the Pattern of Sex Differences in Adults from China and the United States". Ethology and Sociobiology 16 (1995): 355–83. Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
• Harris, Christine R., and Nicholas Christenfeld. "Jealousy and Rational Responses to Infidelity Across Gender and Culture". Psychological Science 7.6 (1996): 378–79. ISI Web of Science. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.
• Hirsch, Jennifer S., Sergio Meneses, Brenda Thompson, Mirka Negroni, Blanca Pelcastre, and Carlos Del Rio. "The Inevitability of Infidelity: Sexual Reputation, Social Geographies, and Martial HIV Risk in Rural Mexico". American Journal of Public Health 97.6: 986–96. ISI Web of Science. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
• Hupka, Ralph B., Bram Buunk, Gábor Falus, Ante Fulgosi, Elsa Ortega, Ronny Swain, and Nadia Tarabrina. "Romantic Jealousy and Romantic Envy: A Seven-Nation Study". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16 (1985): 423–46. ISI Web of Science. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
• Sagarin, Brad J. "Reconsidering Evolved Sex Differences in Jealousy: Comment on Harris". Personality and Social Psychology Review 9.1 (2005): 62–75. ISI Web of Science. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.
• Vandello, Joseph A., and Dov Cohen. "Male Honor and Female Fidelity: Implicit Cultural Scripts That Perpetuate Domestic Violence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84.5 (2003): 997–1010. ISI Web of Science. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.

Category:Family Category:Marriage Category:Intimate relationships Category:Sexual fidelity Category:Casual sex Category:Sins