Content uploaded by Juan Aníbal González-Rivera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juan Aníbal González-Rivera on Dec 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Relationship Satisfaction and Infidelity-Related
Behaviors on Social Networks: A Preliminary Online
Study of Hispanic Women
Juan Aníbal González-Rivera 1, * , Francisco Aquino-Serrano 2and Emily M. Pérez-Torres 1
1
School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Ponce Health Sciences University, 388 Zona Industrial Reparada 2,
Ponce, PR 00716, USA; emilyperez@psm.edu
2San Juan Campus, Carlos Albizu University, 151 Calle Tanca San Juan, PR 00901, USA;
faquino675@sunmail.albizu.edu
*Correspondence: jagonzalez@psm.edu
Received: 13 October 2019; Accepted: 14 December 2019; Published: 15 December 2019
Abstract:
The purpose of this online study was to develop an explicative model regarding the origin
of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks for Hispanic women. We propose that sexual
satisfaction and emotional intimacy have a direct impact on the satisfaction of couple relationships, and
an indirect impact in the development of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. To investigate
this proposal, we used a non-probabilistic sample of 341 Hispanic women living in Puerto Rico.
Statistical analyses confirmed that satisfaction and ambivalence in couple relationship completely
mediate the association between sexual satisfaction and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks,
as well as the relationship between emotional intimacy and infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks. Overall, women who practice infidelity-related behaviors on social networks showed less
sexual satisfaction, less emotional intimacy, less relationship satisfaction, and greater ambivalence.
Our results provide theoretical and empirical evidence on how infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks develop in couple relationships, and these results could help to inform possible forms of
prevention and intervention.
Keywords:
infidelity behaviors; social networks; relationship satisfaction; relationship ambivalence;
emotional intimacy; sexual satisfaction
1. Introduction
Empirical studies on the impact of social networking on the well-being of monogamous couples
in Puerto Rico (and Latin America) have been limited. This might seem surprising considering that
Puerto Rico has an Internet penetration rate of 85.2%, one of the highest rates in Latin America and
the Caribbean [
1
]. Some researchers in other countries have perceived wide access to cyberspace,
particularly social media, as a condition that facilitates the exercise of behaviors associated with
infidelity [
2
–
4
]. The characteristics of individuals, the interactions between them, and the perceptions
each individual has about their relationship and their partner have been studied as risk factors [4–6].
It is important to ask, and it is important that we clarify from the outset, the reasons why infidelity
through digital media should be studied independently of traditional face to face infidelity. Although
there are parallels in variables related to both behaviors, Internet-related vulnerabilities have seven
specific aspects that are unique [
7
]. These are: (1) behaviors that are perceived as inappropriate
in society tend to be more acceptable when engaged in over the Internet, (2) the Internet is easily
accessible, (3) it is economically affordable, (4) it allows anonymity, (5) it facilitates an approximation of
the interactions of everyday life, (6) it provides ambiguity in defining problematic behaviors, and (7) it
allows people to accommodate their needs in terms of their actual “I” versus their ideal (or digital) “I.”
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10, 297–309; doi:10.3390/ejihpe10010023 www.mdpi.com/journal/ejihpe
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 298
Digital media worsens the complexity of formulating consistent and clear criteria for judging
the infidelity behaviors that already exist outside digital platforms [
8
–
10
]. While we know that
infidelity behaviors on social media also contain sexual and emotional variants—some of which are
easily defined, such as flirting and intimate conversations—others may be more controversial, such as
remotely chatting with someone, even with strangers [
2
–
4
,
8
,
10
]. On the other hand, researchers have
detailed how certain behaviors that might be considered problematic are not perceived and described
as such by certain groups. For example, some people who practice cybersex behind their partners’
backs have been found to rationalize and justify their behaviors under the pretext of the absence of
physical contact [
5
]. For this reason, each researcher has been obliged to develop their own criterion of
the behaviors they will subject to scrutiny in quantitative research [11].
In this online study, we examined infidelity-related behaviors on social networks to associate
different variables with their occurrence in a sample of Hispanic women. In particular, we assessed
the impact of satisfaction on couple relationships, and how it is affected by sexual satisfaction and
emotional intimacy. We analyzed these variables while taking into account ambivalence in the couple
relationship, an individual quality that nuances how a woman interprets interactions with her partner.
Several studies have found that, in the United States and in other countries, it is women who often
recognize the negative impact of direct and indirect use of social networks on their interpersonal
relationships [
12
–
15
]. That is, it is women who tend to experience and more continuously identify the
interfering and possibly destructive effects of social networks on couple relationships. In fact, both the
evolutionary perspective [
16
] and the double-shot hypothesis (sociocultural perspective) [
17
] argue that
men and women differ in the ways they perceive infidelity due to differences in socialization. For this
reason, in this first study, we have decided to study the behavior of these variables specifically in women,
with a view to developing more robust studies in the future that would include both men and women.
1.1. Sexual Satisfaction and its Influence on Couple Relationships
For many people, sexuality is a fundamental part of a relationship. This has proven true for men
and women, from young people to those beyond middle age, both married and unmarried [
18
–
20
].
The impact of this factor is of such a magnitude that it is considered one of the integral elements
of stability and satisfaction in a relationship [
19
–
21
]. There is even evidence that changes in sexual
satisfaction predict changes in satisfaction with the relationship [
19
]. However, sexuality is just one of
the factors that contribute to relationship satisfaction, as the complexity of human interactions prevents
satisfaction from being minimized only to this aspect. For example, other contributing factors may
include equity in the distribution of tasks and in decisions on the household economy [
22
]. However,
considering all of the above, it is difficult to question the close relationship between sexual satisfaction
and the appreciation of the relationship.
However, is it sexual satisfaction that produces a pleasurable relationship, or is it the quality of
the relationship that motivates a fulfilling sex life? Suffice to say that the nature of this association is
questionable [
22
,
23
]. Although there are theoretical models to justify both perspectives, there is no
reliable empirical evidence to establish the dominance of one over the other [
23
]. Sexual satisfaction is a
complex construct that includes physical and emotional pleasure, as well as a subjective assessment of
a person’s sex life [
21
]. Some studies have concluded that the frequency of sexual activity is positively
correlated with sexual satisfaction [20,23], along with the variety of sexual activities [24]. In addition,
acts of physical intimacy such as petting, touching, and hugging have been observed to affect sexual
satisfaction, especially in long-term married couples [20].
1.2. Emotional Intimacy and Relationship Satisfaction
Intimacy has two aspects: sexual and emotional. While sexual intimacy is associated with affection
in general, contact, physical closeness, and sexual activity [
25
], emotional intimacy is tied to a feeling
of closeness with another person that leads to a tendency to self-reveal to the other. A high level
of emotional intimacy will be reflected by a high degree of trust among members of a relationship,
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 299
loving behaviors, and validating interactions [
26
]. Although it is usual to make a connection between
intimacy and sexuality in the everyday context, in the clinical environment it has been observed that
couples satisfied with their sex life do not always feel a marked emotional bond. Likewise, feelings of
attachment and emotional connection do not indicate sexual satisfaction [
27
]. In this study, we will
limit intimacy to its emotional side to distance this variable from those that might be more closely
related to sexual satisfaction, as discussed above.
Emotional intimacy is an element that contributes powerfully to satisfaction in the relationship
[25,28]
.
Some authors have even concluded that emotional intimacy could contribute more to satisfaction with
the relationship than sexual intimacy by itself [
25
,
29
]. Recent studies have found that young heterosexual
couples who pursued intimacy in their relationship reported higher satisfaction than those that gave
more importance to self-exploration and identity development as part of the process of get to know each
other [
29
]. This could be said for both men and women. While some research points out that there are
marked gender differences in the scope of emotional intimacy in the satisfaction of the relationship [
19
,
27
],
others deny that it is a moderating factor, either directly or indirectly [25,30].
1.3. Ambivalence in the Relationship
One element that has been little researched and linked to infidelity-related behaviors is the level
of ambivalence in the relationship. Ambivalence in the relationship can be defined as the feeling an
individual has, whether positive or negative, about their bond with that other person and how they
expect the bond to develop in the future [
31
]. Ambivalence occurs in intimate relationships when there
is a coexistence of opposing emotions and desires towards the other person that creates an uncertainty
about being in the relationship. Research has shown that higher levels of relationship ambivalence are
associated with greater ambiguity in partners’ roles and responsibilities among cohabiting couples [
32
,
33
].
These feelings may be the basis for increased instability in cohabiting relationships [
33
]. According
to McDaniel et al. [
4
], individuals are more likely to employ behaviors related to infidelity when they
feel more ambivalent about their stable partner. This same author conducted a study in the United
States which indicated that low satisfaction in the relationship and a high level of ambivalence were
significantly related to infidelity behaviors through social networks [
19
]. That is to say, people who feel
ambivalent in their couple relationships are more likely to practice behaviors of emotional infidelity
through social networks. This research will provide further evidence on how ambivalence is involved
in the practice of behaviors associated with infidelity in social networks.
1.4. Relationship Satisfaction and Infidelity-Related Behaviors
Cyber infidelity is defined as the act of having an affective/emotional or physical encounter with
another person other than your primary romantic partner through social media. It is important to clarify
that the spectrum of infidelity, including cybernetics, link together three different dimensions of behaviors
classified as infidelity: explicit, ambiguous, and misleading [
34
]. Explicit behaviors refer to specific
behaviors typically associated with physical or sexual infidelity (e.g., practicing sexting with another
person). Ambiguous behavior refers to certain behaviors that are not clearly associated with infidelity,
but in which there may be a possibility of betrayal (e.g., not allowing their partner to have access to their
electronic devices). Usually, these behaviors serve as a preamble to explicit behaviors. Finally, misleading
behaviors are characterized by lying or hiding information from the partner (e.g., lying or hiding with
whom they share, talk to, or interact with on social networks). The literature confirms that ambiguous
and misleading behaviors are more common and acceptable than explicit behaviors [
9
], even more so
when they occur in a cyber-friendly manner [
35
]. It is important to clarify that when we talk about
infidelity-related behaviors, we are referring particularly to the ambiguous and misleading behaviors
associated with infidelity on social networks. The importance of studying such behaviors lies in their
potential to be indicators and precursors of explicit behaviors of cyber infidelity [4,34,35].
There is evidence that infidelity can be emotional, sexual, or a combination of both [
36
]. Emotional
infidelity may include a relationship through social media, a relationship with a co-worker, or a
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 300
long-distance relationship, while sexual infidelity may include sexual intercourse with people at work
or other types of sexual activity [
37
]. These categories are not mutually exclusive, because a sexual
connection can be transformed into an emotional connection with the passage of time, especially in the
case of women [36].
In terms of relationship satisfaction, infidelity-related behaviors, which may include emotional
and sexual infidelity, are highly linked to individuals not being satisfied in their relationship [
38
–
40
].
Other studies have suggested that attitudes towards infidelity are significantly important, as people
who show more liberal stances on the issue of infidelity are more likely to be unfair to their partner [
41
].
A low level of satisfaction in the relationship could also be related to an individual’s lack of commitment
to their relationship. This is because satisfaction is an element that influences the level of commitment
that the person has; therefore, as there is a decrease in satisfaction, there is a greater tendency to engage
in infidelity behaviors [38].
1.5. Purpose of the Study
To date, no study in Latin America has examined infidelity-related behaviors in social networks
by associating them with other typical variables of couples’ relationships in order to develop an
explanatory model for these behaviors in Hispanic women. To achieve this, the following research
objectives were developed: (a) to examine whether low sexual satisfaction and low emotional intimacy
have any adverse effect on partner satisfaction and ambivalence, and (b) to examine whether sexual
satisfaction and emotional intimacy indirectly promote the exercise of infidelity-related behaviors
on social networks. We expect the results to reflect that relationship satisfaction and ambivalence
positively and significantly mediate the association between sexual satisfaction, emotional intimacy,
and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks (see Figure 1).
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2019, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4
worker, or a long-distance relationship, while sexual infidelity may include sexual intercourse with
people at work or other types of sexual activity [37]. These categories are not mutually exclusive,
because a sexual connection can be transformed into an emotional connection with the passage of
time, especially in the case of women [36].
In terms of relationship satisfaction, infidelity-related behaviors, which may include emotional
and sexual infidelity, are highly linked to individuals not being satisfied in their relationship [38–40].
Other studies have suggested that attitudes towards infidelity are significantly important, as people
who show more liberal stances on the issue of infidelity are more likely to be unfair to their partner
[41]. A low level of satisfaction in the relationship could also be related to an individual’s lack of
commitment to their relationship. This is because satisfaction is an element that influences the level
of commitment that the person has; therefore, as there is a decrease in satisfaction, there is a greater
tendency to engage in infidelity behaviors [38].
1.5. Purpose of the Study
To date, no study in Latin America has examined infidelity-related behaviors in social networks
by associating them with other typical variables of couples’ relationships in order to develop an
explanatory model for these behaviors in Hispanic women. To achieve this, the following research
objectives were developed: (a) to examine whether low sexual satisfaction and low emotional
intimacy have any adverse effect on partner satisfaction and ambivalence, and (b) to examine whether
sexual satisfaction and emotional intimacy indirectly promote the exercise of infidelity-related
behaviors on social networks. We expect the results to reflect that relationship satisfaction and
ambivalence positively and significantly mediate the association between sexual satisfaction,
emotional intimacy, and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The hypothesized mediation model used for this research.
2. Methods
2.1. Research Design
To achieve the objectives of this study, a non-experimental design of a cross-section
correlational-causal type [42] was used, examining whether sexual satisfaction and emotional
intimacy have any direct effect on partner satisfaction and indirect effect on infidelity-related
behaviors on social networks. Data collection was carried out by questionnaires through the
PsychData platform, using a paid ad on the main social networks as a method of recruitment,
including on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google+, and WhatsApp. This announcement directed
participants to the online survey, where they read the informed consent, which reported the
following: (a) the purpose of the study, (b) the inclusion criteria, (c) the voluntary nature of the study,
(d) the possible risks, and (e) the right to withdraw from the study at any time. To protect the privacy
of the participants, the questionnaires were completed anonymously (participants did not have to
provide their name, phone number, or email) and participants were able to print a copy of the
informed consent if desired. The participants were not financially compensated for their time. All
subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study
was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the
Figure 1. The hypothesized mediation model used for this research.
2. Methods
2.1. Research Design
To achieve the objectives of this study, a non-experimental design of a cross-section
correlational-causal type [
42
] was used, examining whether sexual satisfaction and emotional intimacy
have any direct effect on partner satisfaction and indirect effect on infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks. Data collection was carried out by questionnaires through the PsychData platform, using a
paid ad on the main social networks as a method of recruitment, including on Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, Google+, and WhatsApp. This announcement directed participants to the online survey,
where they read the informed consent, which reported the following: (a) the purpose of the study,
(b) the inclusion criteria, (c) the voluntary nature of the study, (d) the possible risks, and (e) the right to
withdraw from the study at any time. To protect the privacy of the participants, the questionnaires
were completed anonymously (participants did not have to provide their name, phone number, or
email) and participants were able to print a copy of the informed consent if desired. The participants
were not financially compensated for their time. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion
before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 301
Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Carlos Albizu
University in San Juan, Puerto Rico (Code: Fall 17-07).
2.2. Participants
Originally, 392 Hispanic women agreed to participate in this study and started to answer the
questionnaires. However, 51 women left the study before completing 50% of the survey items,
consequently they were removed from the sample. The final sample was composed of 341 Hispanic
women; of which 323 answered 100% of the survey items. The average age of the participants was 33.95
(SD =7.53) and the average number of years of cohabitation with their partners was 7.52
(SD =6.77)
.
In Table 1we present the sociodemographic data of the sample. To participate in this study, we
established the following inclusion criteria: being a resident of Puerto Rico, being 21 years of age or
older, and having a heterosexual relationship of cohabitation (married or free union).
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the sample.
n%
Type of Relationship
Marriage 155 45.50%
Cohabiting (free union) 186 54.50%
Academic Preparation
High school or less 24 7.00%
Associate degree/technical 86 25.20%
Bachelor’s degree 120 35.20%
Master’s degree 91 26.70%
Doctoral degree 20 5.90%
Annual Income
$0–25,000 211 61.90%
$26,000–50,000 101 29.60%
$51,000–100,000 21 6.20%
$101,000 or more 8 2.30%
Note: N=341.
2.3. Measurement
Sociodemographic Data: To identify the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, we
developed a general data questionnaire composed of relevant data such as age, sex, academic
preparation, type of relationship, and annual income.
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) [
43
]: The RAS is a seven-item generic measure of relationship
satisfaction. The answers were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent);
items 4 and 7 were reverse scored (e.g., In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship? How
often do you wish you had not gotten into this relationship? In general, how satisfied are you with your
relationship?). In the present study, the Spanish version of the RAS was adapted for females. Average
scores ranged from 1 to 5, while total scores ranged from 7 to 35. The higher the score, the more satisfaction
and value was attributed to the relationship and towards their partner by the person (α=0.92).
Subjective Sexual Satisfaction Scale [
44
]: This instrument consisted of 20 items organized on a
four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree) (e.g., I consider my sex life
to be very exciting; I am satisfied with the amount of sex I practice per week; I feel satisfied with the
frequency of my orgasms). The scale consisted of four factors: subjective assessment, emotional aspect,
sexual execution, and self-image. The possible range was 20 to 80 points. The higher the score, the
higher the person’s sexual satisfaction (α=0.89).
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 302
Infidelity-Related Behaviors on Social Networks Inventory [
35
]. This inventory evaluates
ambiguous and misleading behaviors associated with infidelity on social networks, such as hiding
information, keeping secrets, and developing emotional intimacy with others, among others. It consists
of eight items organized on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree)
(e.g., Sometimes, I prefer to hide things from my partner that I share with other people online or on
social media; I have had some conversations by text message or on social networks that I prefer to
hide from my partner; I prefer that my partner does not have access to my social networks; It would
make me uncomfortable for my partner to read the conversations I have with other people through
text messages or on social networks). The lowest score that can be obtained in the final version is 8
and the highest is 48, such that a higher score indicates a greater incidence of behaviors related to
cyberinfidelity (α=0.93).
Emotional Intimacy in Couple Relationships Scale [
45
]: This instrument consists of 10 items
organized on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree) (e.g.,
Generally, my partner understands my concerns and personal situations; I would like my partner to
show me more interest and emotional closeness; I feel confident enough to tell my partner anything
that happens to me). The scale consists of two factors: emotional closeness and emotional distance.
The lowest score that can be obtained is 10 and the highest is 40, where high scores suggest high
emotional intimacy (α=0.90).
Relationship Ambivalence: To measure this variable, we developed five items that could predict a
possible rupture. To create the items, we used the taxonomy of marital instability developed by Booth and
Edwards [
46
]. We performed an exploratory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood extraction
method with an oblique rotation. The analyses showed a one-dimensional structure explaining 58% of
the variance (see Table 2). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test supported the adequacy of the sample data
for the analysis, KMO =0.761. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was meaningful,
χ2
(10) =585.069,
p<0.001,
demonstrating that correlations between items were significantly different from zero, and this was an
additional indicator of adequacy for factor analysis. All of the items obtained discrimination indexes
(r
bis
) greater than 0.30. The scale obtained an internal consistency index of 0.81 Cronbach’s alpha.
All five items were arranged on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 5 (totally) (e.g., I
feel ambivalent or unsure about continuing in the relationship with my partner). The possible range
was 5 to 25 points, where a higher score indicates greater ambivalence in the relationship.
Table 2. Items on relationship ambivalence, factorial loadings, and item discrimination indexes.
Items FL rbis
1. I feel ambivalent or insecure about continuing in my relationship
with my partner. 0.89 0.77
2. I have considered ending my relationship with my partner or
divorcing at some point during the last year. 0.95 0.80
3. I have talked with a close friend about the possibility of ending my
relationship or obtaining a divorce. 0.84 0.75
4. If my relationship with my partner ends today, I can think of at
least one person with whom I would like to start dating. 0.39 0.40
5. If my relationship with my partner ended today, I think I would not
suffer much. 0.33 0.31
Note. FL =Factorial loadings of present study; rbis =item discrimination indexes.
2.4. Data Analysis
The IBM SPSS Statistics program (version 25) was used to analyze the data, which obtained
descriptive information, instrument reliability, an exploratory analysis of the ambivalence scale, and
correlations between each of the variables. Then, to test the hypothetical research model (Figure 1), a
structural equation model (SEM) was used in the STATA program (version 15.1), with a sequential
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 303
multiple mediation model that simultaneously estimates multiple direct and indirect effects, with
their standard errors (Full-information Maximum Likelihood) and Satorra-Bentler corrections; these
corrections are used when the data is not normally distributed [
47
]. The model suggests that low
sexual satisfaction and low emotional intimacy predict low satisfaction in the relationship, causing
greater ambivalence which, in turn, could encourage the exercise of behaviors related to infidelity in
social networks. To confirm if the model fit, the Chi Square Test was used (
χ2sb
), along with the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA
sb
), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR),
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI
sb
), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI
sb
). RMSEA
sb
values less than 0.08 and
SRMR values less than 0.05 indicate an adequate adjustment of the model [
48
]. Likewise, CFI
sb
and
TLIsb values greater than 0.95 represent a good fit of the model [48].
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis
The results reflected that 49% (n=166) of the participants would be uncomfortable if their partner
read the conversations they have with others on social networks, while 41% (n=140) reported that if
at some point their partners read the conversations they have with others on social networks, they
could be annoyed. For their part, 53% (n=180) indicated that they have had conversations on social
networks that they prefer to hide from their partners and 35% (n=120) prefer to hide things from
their partners that they share with others on social networks. In turn, 28% (n=97) prefer that their
partners do not have access to their social networks because of some things they might find on them.
In addition, the results showed that 27% (n=93) prevent their partners from using their cell phone, for
fear that they will access conversations they have had with others on social networks. Finally, 29%
(n=98) showed high levels of behaviors related to cyber infidelity [35].
3.2. Correlations
Spearman’s correlation coefficient analysis was performed for all measures, internal consistency
indices were calculated, and means and standard deviations of the measures were obtained.
The analyses revealed significant associations between infidelity-related behaviors in social networks
and all the variables in the study (see Table 3).
Table 3.
Correlations between variables, means, standard deviations, Shapiro–Wilk test, and
Cronbach Alpha.
M SD SW α1 2 3 4
1. Sexual satisfaction 56.78 10.82 0.99 0.89 -
2. Emotional intimacy 23.84 7.44 0.98 0.90 0.50* -
3. Relationship satisfaction 24.85 6.05 0.97 0.92 0.56* 0.72* -
4. Relationship ambivalence 12.49 5.66 0.94 0.81 −
0.41*
−
0.66*
−
0.75*
-
5. Infidelity-related behaviors 23.10 12.49 0.91 0.93 −
0.22*
−
0.35*
−
0.42*
0.52*
Note. M=Mean; SD =standard deviation;
α
=Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; SW =Shapiro–Wilk; * =significant
correlations p<0.001. Degrees of freedom Shapiro–Wilk =341, all values p<0.001.
3.3. Structural Model of Infidelity-Related Behaviors on Social Networks
An SEM was then used to test the hypothesized research model of the impact of sexual satisfaction
and emotional intimacy on the practice of infidelity-related behaviors on social media. Given that the
data was not normally distributed (see Table 3), Satorra-Bentler adjustments were used to calculate
the adjustment of the structural equation models, since the non-normality of the data changes the
estimation errors and the global adjustment of the model [
47
]. According to the adjustment rates, the
fit of our conceptual model is considered to be good (
χ2sb
=19.19 (3) p<0.001, RMSEA
sb
=0.06 (CIs
[0.04, 0.08]), CFI
sb
=0.99, TLI
sb
=0.97, SRMR =0.03). Figure 2shows the model and the respective
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 304
standardized route estimates. According to the results, both sexual dissatisfaction (
β
=0.26, 95% CIs
[0.16, 0.35]) and low emotional intimacy (
β
=0.57, 95% CIs [0.49, 0.65]) predict low satisfaction with
the relationship. In turn, this low satisfaction causes greater ambivalence in the couple relationship
(
β
=
−
0.75, 95% CIs [
−
0.80,
−
0.69]). In our model, this ambivalence in the relationship predicted
a greater practice of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks (
β
=0.52, 95% CIs [0.41, 0.63]).
As for the direct effects of sexual satisfaction (
β
=0.00, 95% CIs [
−
0.10, 0.10]) and emotional intimacy
(
β
=
−
0.03, 95% CIs [
−
0.15, 0.09]), no significant effect was found for infidelity-related behaviors on
social networks.
Bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects based on 1000 bootstrapping resamples and a 95%
confidence interval were conducted for the indirect effects of sexual satisfaction and emotional
intimacy on infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. As expected, significant indirect
effects were observed between sexual satisfaction and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks
(
β=−0.12,
95% CIs [
−
0.17,
−
0.07]) and between emotional intimacy and infidelity-related behaviors
on social networks (
β=−0.37,
95% CIs [
−
0.48,
−
0.26]). These results confirm that satisfaction and
ambivalence in the relationship completely mediate the relationship between sexual satisfaction and
infidelity-related behaviors on social networks, as well as the relationship between emotional intimacy
and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2019, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8
effects of sexual satisfaction (β = .00, 95% CIs [–.10, .10]) and emotional intimacy (β = –.03, 95% CIs [–
.15, .09]), no significant effect was found for infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects based on 1000 bootstrapping resamples and a 95%
confidence interval were conducted for the indirect effects of sexual satisfaction and emotional
intimacy on infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. As expected, significant indirect effects
were observed between sexual satisfaction and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks (β = –
.12, 95% CIs [–.17, –.07]) and between emotional intimacy and infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks (β = –.37, 95% CIs [–.48, –.26]). These results confirm that satisfaction and ambivalence in
the relationship completely mediate the relationship between sexual satisfaction and infidelity-
related behaviors on social networks, as well as the relationship between emotional intimacy and
infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Figure 2. Model of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. IRBSN = infidelity-related behaviors
on social networks. Values with an asterisk (*) and cross (
†
) represent the standardized beta coefficients
of regression. ** = p < .001;
†
= p > .05.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this research was to present to the scientific community an explanatory model
of how infidelity-related behaviors on social networks originated in a sample of Hispanic women. To
this end, we developed a hypothesized model which proposes that low sexual satisfaction and low
emotional intimacy will negatively affect satisfaction and stability in a relationship (ambivalence),
significantly increasing the practice of the infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. In this
model, we underline the mediating role of satisfaction and ambivalence in the relationship as a bridge
of interaction between sexuality, emotional intimacy, and infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks. Our results help us to theoretically and empirically understand how these dynamics
develop in couple relationships, with the future objective of developing possible forms of prevention
and intervention.
Surprisingly, 29% of participants showed high levels of ambiguous and misleading behaviors
related to social network infidelity. This number significantly exceeds the 11% found in a sample of
Americans [19]. These behaviors can be indicators of and precursors to explicit behaviors of cyber
infidelity [4,34]. Specifically, these behaviors are: discomfort if the partner reads their conversations
(49%), belief that the partner would be upset if they read their messages (41%), hiding conversations
(53%), greater emotional intimacy with other people on social networks than with their partner (35%),
and preferring that the partner does not have access to their social networks (29%) nor cell phone
(27%). It is important to note that these behaviors are more common and acceptable than explicit
behaviors [7], and have been shown to have pernicious and unfavorable effects on relationships and
families [4].
Figure 2.
Model of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. IRBSN =infidelity-related behaviors
on social networks. Values with an asterisk (*) and cross (
†
) represent the standardized beta coefficients
of regression. ** =p<0.001; †=p>0.05.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this research was to present to the scientific community an explanatory model
of how infidelity-related behaviors on social networks originated in a sample of Hispanic women.
To this end, we developed a hypothesized model which proposes that low sexual satisfaction and
low emotional intimacy will negatively affect satisfaction and stability in a relationship (ambivalence),
significantly increasing the practice of the infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. In this model,
we underline the mediating role of satisfaction and ambivalence in the relationship as a bridge of
interaction between sexuality, emotional intimacy, and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Our results help us to theoretically and empirically understand how these dynamics develop in couple
relationships, with the future objective of developing possible forms of prevention and intervention.
Surprisingly, 29% of participants showed high levels of ambiguous and misleading behaviors
related to social network infidelity. This number significantly exceeds the 11% found in a sample of
Americans [
19
]. These behaviors can be indicators of and precursors to explicit behaviors of cyber
infidelity [
4
,
34
]. Specifically, these behaviors are: discomfort if the partner reads their conversations
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 305
(49%), belief that the partner would be upset if they read their messages (41%), hiding conversations
(53%), greater emotional intimacy with other people on social networks than with their partner (35%),
and preferring that the partner does not have access to their social networks (29%) nor cell phone (27%).
It is important to note that these behaviors are more common and acceptable than explicit behaviors [
7
],
and have been shown to have pernicious and unfavorable effects on relationships and families [4].
Once the high prevalence of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks was confirmed in the
sample, it was necessary to explain what factors promote or facilitate the exercise of them. Our linear
structural equation model, which was validated by the results of this study, provides empirical evidence
on the direct, pernicious, and unhealthy effect that a lack of sexual satisfaction and poor emotional
intimacy can have on the quality of relationships in our sample. These results are consistent with
what is stated by some theoretical models, such as the triangular theory of love [
49
], which indicates
that two of the fundamental elements in stable relationships are emotional intimacy and passion
(conceptualized in our study as sexual satisfaction). These elements are typical of two basic needs of
the human being: affective need and sexual need. As a considerable amount of research [
6
,
19
,
25
,
28
],
including our findings, have shown, when these needs are compromised, the result is dissatisfaction in
the romantic relationship.
Consequently, our model suggests that, once the satisfaction in the relationship is lacerated,
the individual will begin to experience emotions and feelings opposed to their partner, generating
ambivalence in the relationship, as seen in our sample. That is, uncertainty about whether to maintain
or leave the relationship. As our results demonstrated within our sample, these feelings of ambivalence
play a significant role in the exercise of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. This finding is
consistent with the results of McDaniel et al. [
4
], who found that low satisfaction in the relationship and
a high level of ambivalence were significantly related to infidelity behaviors through social networks.
The novelty of our study was the inclusion of measures of sexual satisfaction and emotional intimacy.
In this sense, our research expands the work done by McDaniel et al. [
4
], finding significant and inverse
correlations between infidelity-related behaviors on social networks, sexual satisfaction, and emotional
intimacy. Similarly, our study showed, like other studies [
25
,
29
], that emotional intimacy contributes
more to a couple’s well-being than sexual satisfaction. In fact, some authors suggest that emotional
distance when interacting with other variables such as unresolved conflicts determine a decrease in
sexual satisfaction and an increase in infidelity [
22
]. Finally, our findings suggest that individuals with
less sexual satisfaction, less emotional intimacy, and less relationship satisfaction are more likely to
practice infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
As for the theoretical implications of this study, it was shown that low sexual satisfaction and
low emotional intimacy in our sample are risk factors that can undermine the quality of the romantic
relationship, and indirectly increase the risk of practicing infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Previous research has found that emotional connection and good communication are necessary for a
good quality relationship [
50
]. In this sense, the negative effects of these variables could be minimized
if the couple seeks to maintain emotional closeness and openness to dialogue on issues related to
their sexuality. It has been established that communication within the couple is fundamental for
its functioning and facilitates the expression of feelings, thoughts, fears, perception of the partner,
negotiation, and problem-solving. Another important theoretical contribution of this study is that, for
the first time in Latin America, it became apparent in our sample that satisfaction in the relationship
and ambivalence completely mediate the relationship between sexual satisfaction, emotional intimacy,
and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
As for the practical implications of the study, valuable information is provided for the design of
interventions aimed at the prevention and reduction of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
The findings propose several focuses in therapeutic practice with couples who are experiencing
cyber infidelity: (1) thoroughly assess the sexual lifestyle of the partners and determine the levels of
sexual satisfaction of the couple, and then intervene in this area, (2) develop strategies to improve
effective communication, (3) strengthen emotional intimacy through therapeutic models focused on
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 306
affective closeness (e.g., The Gottman Method of Relationship Therapy), and, (4) finally, institute
behavioral norms on the use of social networks. It has been shown that when individuals identify
that the other member of the relationship dialogues effectively, in a validating and close way,
it increases willingness to engage good communication by fostering adequate levels of satisfaction
in the relationship [
51
]. In preventive terms, it is vital that the couple, from the beginning, establish
good bonds of communication and have openness towards dialogue around those issues related to
sexuality and affectivity. Psychologists can use the findings of this study to psychoeducate couples
during therapy, and need not wait for infidelity-related behaviors on social networks to come out in
order to start discussing these issues.
It is worth noting that this study is the first in Latin America and the Caribbean to study the
effects of sexual satisfaction and emotional intimacy on infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
However, some limitations were identified that readers and future researchers should consider. First,
when a cross-sectional design has been used, readers should be wary of causal inferences, since it is
unknown whether the results will be sustained over time. It is likely that the relationship between
infidelity-related behaviors on social networks, sexual satisfaction, emotional intimacy, relationship
satisfaction, and relationship ambivalence is bidirectional and reciprocal in our sample. This means
that if we had built a model with the direction of causality completely reversed from their current
theoretical model, we would have found an identical fit. For this reason, it is recommended to
carry out longitudinal investigations that allow a more depth understanding of the phenomenon of
infidelity-related behaviors on social networks. Second, our study was limited by respondents only
being women. It may very well be that infidelity-related behaviors on social networks among men are
affected in different ways by sexual satisfaction and emotional intimacy. This idea should be tested in
future works. Third, the current study did not have dyadic data and so examining these same questions
within dyadic samples is an extremely important future direction. Fourth, the type of sampling used
does not allow generalization of the research results. Fifth, although online data collection has been
shown to be reliable, valid, reasonably representative, cost-effective, and efficient [
52
], it may be
limited with respect to the generalization of data given it generates an availability sample. Future
research should consider conducting face to face interviews and using objective evidence of social
media infidelities.
5. Conclusions
This research showed that there is a high prevalence (30%) of the infidelity-related behaviors on
social networks among the Hispanic participants of this online study. Overall, women who practice
infidelity-related behaviors on social networks showed less sexual satisfaction, less emotional intimacy,
less relationship satisfaction, and greater ambivalence. The most important contribution of this research
was the empirical validation of the explanatory model that we developed for this study. The model
confirmed that low sexual satisfaction and low emotional intimacy negatively affect satisfaction and
ambivalence, significantly increasing the practice of infidelity-related behaviors on social networks.
Our results provide theoretical and empirical evidence on how infidelity-related behaviors on social
networks develop in relationships, and could inform the development of possible forms of prevention
and intervention.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.A.G.-R.; methodology, J.A.G.-R.; validation, J.A.G.-R.; formal analysis,
J.A.G.-R; investigation, J.A.G.-R., and F.A.-S.; resources, J.A.G.-R., F.A.-S., and E.M.P.-T.; data curation, J.A.G.-R.;
writing—original draft preparation, J.A.G.-R., F.A.-S. and E.M.P.-T.; writing—review and editing, J.A.G.-R., and
E.M.P.-T.; visualization, J.A.G.-R., and F.A.-S.; supervision, J.A.G.-R.; project administration, J.A.G.-R.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 307
References
1.
Miniwatts Marketing Group. Internet Usage and Population in the Caribbean. 2017. Available online:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats11.htm#caribbean (accessed on 8 August 2019).
2.
Hertlein, K.M.; Piercy, F.P. Essential elements of Internet infidelity treatment. J. Marital Fam. Ther.
2012
,38,
257–270. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Li, D.; Zheng, L. Relationship quality predicts online sexual activities among Chinese heterosexual men and
women in committed relationships. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016,70, 244–250. [CrossRef]
4.
McDaniel, B.T.; Drouin, M.; Cravens, J.D. Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on
social media sites and marital satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017,66, 88–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Mileham, B.L.A. Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: An ethnographic exploration. Comput. Hum. Behav.
2007,23, 11–31. [CrossRef]
6.
Roberts, J.A.; David, M.E. My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and
relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016,54, 134–141. [CrossRef]
7.
Hertlein, K.M.; Blumer, L.C. The Couple and Family Technology Framework: Intimate Relationships in a Digital
Age; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
8.
Adams, A.N. Social Networking Sites and Online Infidelity. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis,
MN, USA, 2017.
9.
Cravens, J.D.; Whiting, J.B. Clinical implications of Internet infidelity: Where Facebook fits in. Am. J.
Fam. Ther. 2014,42, 325–339. [CrossRef]
10.
Vossler, A. Internet Infidelity 10 Years On: A Critical Review of the Literature. Fam. J.
2016
,24, 359–366.
[CrossRef]
11.
Henline, B.H.; Lamke, L.K.; Howard, M.D. Exploring perceptions of online infidelity. Pers. Relatsh.
2007
,14,
113–128. [CrossRef]
12.
Carbonell, X.; Chamarro, A.; Beranuy, M.; Griffiths, M.; Oberst, U.; Cladellas, R.; Talarn, A. Problematic
Internet and cell phone use in Spanish teenagers and young students. An. Psicol. 2012,28, 789–796.
13.
Cotten, S.R.; Anderson, W.A.; Tufekci, Z. Old wine in a new technology or a new type of digital divide?
New Media Soc. 2009,11, 1163–1186. [CrossRef]
14.
McDaniel, B.T.; Coyne, S.M. Technoference: The interference of technology in couple relationships and
implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult.
2016
,5, 85–98.
[CrossRef]
15.
Villafuerte, C.M.; Vera, M. Phubbing y g
é
nero: Uso, abuso e interferencia de la tecnolog
í
a. In Proceedings of
the XI Congreso Iberoamericano Ciencia, TecnologíayGénero, San José, CA, USA, 28 July 2016.
16.
Buss, D.M.; Larsen, R.J.; Westen, D. Sex differences in jealousy: Not gone, not forgotten, and not explained
by alternative hypotheses. Psychol. Sci. 1996,7, 373–375. [CrossRef]
17.
Treger, S.; Sprecher, S. The Influences of Sociosexuality and Attachment Style on Reactions to Emotional
Versus Sexual Infidelity. J. Sex. Res. 2011,48, 413–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Butzer, B.; Campbell, L. Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of
married couples. Pers. Relatsh. 2008,15, 141–154. [CrossRef]
19.
Sprecher, S. Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment,
and stability. J. Sex. Res. 2002,39, 190–196. [CrossRef]
20.
Heiman, J.R.; Long, J.S.; Smith, S.N.; Fisher, W.; Sand, M.S.; Rosen, R.C. Sexual satisfaction and relationship
happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2011,40, 741–753. [CrossRef]
21.
Schmiedeberg, C.; Schröder, J. Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship duration? Arch. Sex. Behav.
2015,45, 1–9. [CrossRef]
22.
Sprecher, S.; Cate, R.M. Sexual Satisfaction and Sexual Expression as Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction
and Stability. In The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships; Harvey, J.H., Wenzel, A., Sprecher, S., Eds.;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 235–256.
23.
McNulty, J.K.; Wenner, C.A.; Fisher, T.D. Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual
satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2016,45, 85–97. [CrossRef]
24.
Haavio-Mannila, E.; Kontula, O. Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Arch. Sex. Behav.
1997
,26,
399–414. [CrossRef]
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 308
25.
Dandurand, C.; Lafontaine, M.F. Intimacy and couple satisfaction: The moderating role of romantic
attachment. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 2013,5, 74–90. [CrossRef]
26.
Hand, M.M.; Thomas, D.; Buboltz, W.C.; Deemer, E.D.; Buyanjargal, M. Cyberpsychology, Facebook
and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social network use.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013,16, 8–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Yoo, H.; Bartle-Haring, S.; Day, R.D.; Gangamma, R. Couple Communication, Emotional and Sexual Intimacy,
and Relationship Satisfaction. J. Sex. Marital Ther. 2014,40, 275–293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Greeff, A.P.; Malherbe, H.L. Intimacy and marital satisfaction in spouses. J. Sex. Marital Ther.
2001
,27,
247–257. [PubMed]
29.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J.; Arnhold, V.; Connolly, J. Intercorrelations of intimacy and identity dating goals
with relationship behaviors and satisfaction among young heterosexual couples. Soc. Sci.
2014
,3, 44–59.
[CrossRef]
30.
Sanderson, C.A.; Cantor, N. The association of intimacy goals and marital satisfaction: A test of four
mediational hypotheses. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001,27, 1567–1577. [CrossRef]
31.
Luescher, K.; Pillemer, K. Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child
relations in later-life. J. Marriage Fam. 1998,60, 413–425. [CrossRef]
32.
Nock, S. A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. J. Fam. Issues
1995
,16, 53–76. [CrossRef]
33.
Klausli, J.F.; Owen, M.T. Stable maternal cohabitation, couple relationship quality, and characteristics of the
home environment in the child’s first two years. J. Fam. Psychol. 2009,23, 103–106. [CrossRef]
34.
Wilson, K.; Mattingly, B.A.; Clark, E.M.; Weidler, D.J.; Bequette, A.W. The gray area: Exploring attitudes
towards in delity and the development of the perceptions of dating in delity scale. J. Soc. Psychol.
2011
,151,
63–86. [CrossRef]
35.
Gonz
á
lez-Rivera, J.A. Conductas relacionadas a la infidelidad en las Redes Sociales: Validaci
ó
n y estudio
psicométrico. Inf. Psicol. 2019,19, 43–51. [CrossRef]
36.
Glass, S.P.; Wright, T.L. Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction.
Sex. Roles 1985,12, 1101–1120. [CrossRef]
37.
Blow, A.J.; Hartnett, K. Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. J. Marital Fam. Ther.
2005,31, 217–233. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Drigotas, S.M.; Safstrom, C.A.; Gentilia, T. An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1999,77, 509–524. [CrossRef]
39.
Shaw, A.M.; Rhoades, G.K.; Allen, E.S.; Stanley, S.M.; Markman, H.J. Predictors of extradyadic sexual
involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. J. Sex. Res. 2013,50, 598–610. [CrossRef]
40.
Whisman, M.A.; Gordon, K.C.; Chatav, Y. Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of
married individuals. J. Fam. Psychol. 2007,21, 320–324. [CrossRef]
41.
Treas, J.; Giesen, D. Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. J. Marriage Fam.
2000
,62,
48–60. [CrossRef]
42.
Montero, I.; Le
ó
n, O.G. A guide for naming research studies in psychology. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol.
2007
,
7, 847–862.
43. Hendrick, S. A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. J. Marriage Fam. 1988,50, 93–98. [CrossRef]
44.
Gonz
á
lez-Rivera, J.A.; Veray-Alicea, J.; Santiago, D.; Castro, S.; Quiñones, R. Desarrollo y validaci
ó
n de una
escala para medir satisfacci
ó
n sexual subjetiva en adultos puertorriqueños. Salud Conducta Hum.
2017
,4,
52–63.
45.
Gonz
á
lez-Rivera, J.A. Desarrollo y validaci
ó
n de un instrumento para medir intimidad emocional en
relaciones de pareja. Inf. Psicol.. in press.
46.
Booth, A.; Johnson, D.; Edwards, J.N. Measuring marital instability. J. Marriage Fam.
1983
,45, 387–394.
[CrossRef]
47.
Satorra, A.; Bentler, P.M. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis.
Psychometrika 2001,66, 507–514. [CrossRef]
48.
Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Psychology
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
49. Sternberg, R.J. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 1986,93, 119–135. [CrossRef]
50.
Leggett, C.; Rossouw, P.J. The impact of technology use on couple relationships: A neuropsychological
perspective. Int. J. Neuropsychother. 2014,2, 44–99. [CrossRef]
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020,10 309
51.
Armenta, C.; D
í
az-Loving, R. Comunicaci
ó
n y Satisfacci
ó
n: Analizando la Interacci
ó
n de Pareja. Psicol. Iberoam.
2008,16, 23–27.
52.
Meyerson, P.; Tryon, W.W. Validating Internet research: A test of the psychometric equivalence of Internet
and in-person samples. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2003,35, 614–620. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
