Content uploaded by Dylan Selterman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dylan Selterman on Mar 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20
What Do People Do, Say, and Feel When They
Have Affairs? Associations between Extradyadic
Infidelity Motives with Behavioral, Emotional, and
Sexual Outcomes
Dylan Selterman, Justin R. Garcia & Irene Tsapelas
To cite this article: Dylan Selterman, Justin R. Garcia & Irene Tsapelas (2021) What Do People
Do, Say, and Feel When They Have Affairs? Associations between Extradyadic Infidelity Motives
with Behavioral, Emotional, and Sexual Outcomes, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 47:3,
238-252, DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2020.1856987
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1856987
Published online: 30 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 164
View related articles
View Crossmark data
What Do People Do, Say, and Feel When They Have Affairs?
Associations between Extradyadic Infidelity Motives with
Behavioral, Emotional, and Sexual Outcomes
Dylan Selterman
a
, Justin R. Garcia
b
, and Irene Tsapelas
c
a
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA;
b
Department of Gender Studies &
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA;
c
Department of Psychology, Stony Brook
University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
In this study, we surveyed a sample of U.S. undergraduates and internet-
based participants (N¼495) about their experiences during/after romantic
infidelity (affairs), and their initial motivations to engage in infidelity.
Meaningful associations emerged between motivation and experience vari-
ables. Dyadic motivations (e.g., anger at one’s partner, lack of love) were
linked with longer affairs, more public dates with affair partners, and pri-
mary relationship dissolution. Conversely, non-dyadic situational motiva-
tions (e.g., feeling stressed or intoxicated) were linked with shorter affairs,
less satisfying sex during affairs, and lower rates of disclosure and dissol-
ution. These findings suggest meaningful infidelity typologies and may aid
researchers and practitioners in helping others resolve relational conflicts.
KEYWORDS
Motivation; infidelity;
interpersonal relationships;
intimacy; extra-dyadic sex
In this paper, we extend on the scientific understanding of romantic relationship infidelity, also
called extradyadic infidelity,non-consensual non-monogamy, affairs, and colloquially referred to as
cheating. Because infidelity is considered a severe relationship transgression which often predicts
relationship dissolution/divorce (Tsapelas, Fisher, & Aron, 2011), the bulk of prior research in
psychology, communication, and family studies posits that infidelity stems primarily from sub-
optimal relationship experiences, such as feeling neglected by a partner or spouse (e.g., Barta &
Kiene, 2005), though some work suggests that infidelity is both a cause and consequence of poor
relationship health (Previti & Amato, 2004). Researchers have typically attempted to capture these
deficits in relationship quality by measuring dissatisfaction or negative emotions such as anger
(Barta & Kiene, 2005), jealousy (Arnocky, Pearson, & Valiiancourt, 2015) and anxiety (Arnocky,
Sunderani, Gomes, & Vaillancourt, 2015).
We previously reported a new conceptualization of motivations for extradyadic infidelity,
showing that individuals having affairs can be motivated by a variety of psychosocial factors,
including to boost their self-esteem and autonomy, for their own sexual variety, or by situational
variables such as being intoxicated (Selterman, Garcia, & Tsapelas, 2019). These motives are con-
ceptualized as orthogonal to relationship health motivations. The current paper reports on add-
itional results and exploratory findings which expand on those reported earlier. Here we present
data on participants’self-reported actions both during and after their infidelity, including disclo-
sures, sexual behaviors, and relationship dissolution/initiation, alongside their subjective accounts
of the infidelity (affair satisfaction). In a sample of U.S. undergraduates and internet-based
ß2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CONTACT Dylan Selterman Dylan.Selterman@gmail.com Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College
Park 1147 Biology/Psychology Building College Park, MD 20742, USA.
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY
2021, VOL. 47, NO. 3, 238–252
https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1856987
participants, the present study examines how these infidelity activities –what people do, say, and
feel when they have affairs –vary as a function of people’s motivations for having those affairs.
These findings suggest that there may be meaningfully different infidelity typologies, characterized
by both different underlying motivations, different relational processes, and different behav-
ioral outcomes.
Extradyadic infidelity is widely understood as an intimate relationship transgression (Guitar
et al., 2017; Jankowiak, Nell, & Buckmaster, 2002; Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016), with consider-
able consequences for those involved, including dissolution of relationship bonds (Hall &
Fincham, 2006; Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett, 2002) and in some cases interpersonal violence and
even death (Kaighobadi, Starratt, Shackelford, & Popp, 2008; Nemeth, Bonomi, Lee, & Ludwin,
2012). The putative costs and benefits of infidelity may vary, however, depending on individual
motives that underlie an infidelity occurrence in the first place. Inasmuch, infidelity is commonly
cited as a justification for divorce; in some samples, infidelity is more commonly cited as a reason
for divorce than incompatibility or problematic drug use (Amato & Previti, 2003). Given that
infidelity is so problematic
1
for the long-term health of intimate relationships and the individuals
within these dyads, it is crucial for social and behavioral scientists to illuminate in detail people’s
experiences during and outcomes following infidelity.
Several theoretical explanations for infidelity exist. Some highlight the need to consider indi-
vidual differences in demographics and psychological traits, others point to the importance of
addressing gender and power dynamics, and others consider the interaction of sex and relation-
ship function (e.g., Barbaro, Sela, Atari, Shackelford, & Zeigler-Hill, 2019; Mark, Janssen, &
Milhausen, 2011; Schmitt, 2004; Williams & Knudson-Martin, 2013). Evolutionary perspectives
suggest that while posing risk, infidelity can be a facultative strategy to obtain new partners or
increase reproductive success, an ancestral potential that explains high degrees of jealousy, mate
guarding, and infidelity avoidance in many exclusive relationships (Buss, 2018; Buss et al., 1999).
These models also suggest that men would be more inclined to maximize their number of repro-
ductive partners given low investment, while women would benefit from securing good genes
through mating with an affair partner while retaining stable resources through a primary partner
(Schmitt, 2015). Infidelity experiences are also driven by access to available partners, which are a
function of intrapersonal variables such as income or urban residence, and interpersonal variables
such as social acceptability of affairs and the presence of interested partners (Allen & Atkins,
2005). Most of these models recognize infidelity as a relationship transgression, an interpersonal
violation of trust and commitment with negative consequences for individuals and couples.
For the purposes of this paper, we focus our attention on a theory with the explicit relevance
to the present study, which is the deficit model of infidelity (Thompson, 1983). This theory sug-
gests that sub-optimal relationship experiences (e.g., low satisfaction, high conflict, lacking com-
munication) play the most significant role in predicting infidelity. Put another way, this
theoretical perspective suggests that people have affairs because some aspect of their primary rela-
tionship is not meeting expectations. Consistent with this notion, research has uncovered a var-
iety of psychological, biological, and social factors that have been associated with engaging in
infidelity, most of which pertain to relationship quality in some direct or indirect way (e.g., Allen
& Atkins, 2005; Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001; Garcia et al., 2010; Schmitt, 2004). For
instance, attachment avoidance and anxiety, which are trait-like variables linked with negative
emotion and conflict in romantic relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) and relationship dis-
solution (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994), also predict the likelihood of infidelity (Allen & Baucom,
2004; Bogaert & Sadava, 2002). In summary, most existing models often treat infidelity as a
symptom of deeper underlying relational difficulties experienced by couples or within individuals
who are in dyads that suffer affairs.
There are limitations to this theoretical perspective however, one of which is that all infidelities
are inadvertently treated as psychologically monolithic, presumed to be a rooted in negative
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 239
dyadic experiences such as insecurity, conflict, and dissatisfaction. But recent evidence has
emerged demonstrating that some people are motivated to have affairs because of variables that
are independent from poor relationship health (see below), and the purpose of our current work
is to better illuminate the nuances within people’s experiences of infidelity. We argue that it is
necessary to consider diverse emotional and behavioral outcomes for those who com-
mit infidelity.
The current study is predicated on the findings reported in our previous analysis, in which
we developed a questionnaire to assess motivations for extradyadic infidelity in a way that
allowed for people to indicate possible motives beyond poor relationship health (Selterman
et al., 2019). In that analysis, we expanded on results from Barta and Kiene (2005), and sur-
veyed participants on a variety of additional motivations they may have had for committing
infidelity. We reported evidence for 8 statistically distinct infidelity motivation variables: (1)
Anger, or feeling upset with a partner’s actions, (2) Sexual Desire, or wanting to have more
sex, (3) Lack of Love, or feeling an absence of intimacy or affection for a partner, (4) Low
Commitment, or not orienting actions around the future of the relationship, (5) Esteem, or a
desire for greater autonomy or self-worth, (6) Situation, or clouded judgment due to intoxica-
tion or stress, (7) Neglect, or feeling mistreatment from a partner, and (8) Variety, or desiring
a greater number of sexual partners.
Selterman et al. (2019) also reported theoretically consequential associations between these
motives and individual difference factors (personality traits and gender identity). For example,
sociosexual orientation, which is the degree to which people are comfortable with uncommitted
or casual sex (Simpson, Wilson, & Winterheld, 2004), was associated with increased motivation
to have an affair because of a desire for sexual variety. Beliefs in romantic destiny, which is a pref-
erence toward initial romantic compatibility rather than relationship success through effort
(Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003), predicted infidelity motivated by lack of love and by neglect.
Men were more likely to report infidelity motivated by sexual desire, sexual variety, and situ-
ational factors, whereas women were more likely to report infidelity motivated by neglect. In con-
trast to previous findings (i.e., Barta & Kiene, 2005), we did not find meaningful associations
between infidelity motivations and the Big Five personality traits. In sum, our findings illumi-
nated an array of motivations for infidelity, supporting the notion that a “one-size-fits-all”
approach to understanding infidelity is flawed.
In this vein, we sought to further investigate a range of infidelity experiences, and to examine
how these experiences vary as a function of the motives for such affairs. We utilized the question-
naire data from Selterman et al. (2019), which assessed participants’infidelity experiences, to
examine previously unreported findings on interpersonal outcomes of infidelity, tapping into par-
ticipants’feelings of emotional intimacy, intimate dialogue, and sexual satisfaction with their
affair partners, specific sexual behaviors (e.g., oral sex) during affairs, disclosure of the affair, and
relationship status/breakup with their primary partners and affair partners. We sought to examine
how the infidelity motives identified above might predict particular infidelity experiences. Though
this investigation was exploratory, we generally expected a conceptual alignment between initial
motivations and infidelity outcomes. For instance, we anticipated that infidelity motivated by rela-
tionship deficits (e.g., lack of love) would predict greater emotional engagement and intimacy
with affair partners. Conversely, situational motivations for affairs might predict less intimate
engagement with affair partners.
More specifically, here we examine the following research questions:
RQ1a: Do deficit-related motivation variables (Neglect, Anger) correlate negatively or positively with
emotional satisfaction and intimacy during affairs?
RQ1b: Do non-deficit motivation variables (Situation Autonomy) correlate negatively or positively with
emotional satisfaction and intimacy during affairs?
240 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
RQ2: Do sexual motivation variables (Sexual Desire, Sexual Variety) correlate with sexual satisfaction and
specific sexual behaviors during affairs?
RQ3: Do deficit-related motivation variables (Neglect, Anger) predict disclosure of the affair to primary
partners, or relationship dissolution?
Method
Participants
Drawing from the same original dataset, as reported in Selterman et al. (2019) a total of 495 par-
ticipants fully completed the study materials (M
Age
¼20.36 years; 259 women, 213 men, 23 not
reporting gender on a binary scale; 87.9% identified as heterosexual). Approximately half (51.8%)
reported currently being in a romantic relationship, with 11.7% casually dating, 34.5% exclusively
dating, 2.0% cohabiting, and 3.6% engaged/married, and 4.4% not reporting. There was significant
variability in relationship length, ranging from 1 month to 28 years (M¼12.12 months;
SD ¼30.90; Median ¼12).
Data were collected from an additional 67 participants who failed an attention check and were
therefore excluded from analyses. We had estimated statistical power with the original goal to
examine the factor structure of 77 infidelity motivation items (Selterman et al., 2019), and thus
estimated a sample size of over 300 to be sufficient for a variable-factor ratio of at least 6, even if
communality was low, based on simulations by Mundfrom, Shaw, and Ke (2005). Power analysis
using GPower estimates (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) also suggested that a sample
of 450 would be sufficient for linear multiple regression analyses with 8 predictors to detect small
effects (R
2
¼.05). We conducted all analyses after data collection ended, and after
data exclusions.
Participants were recruited through the Psychology Department subject pool at a large
American Atlantic coast university and through relationship themed message boards on Reddit.
Student participants received extra credit in their courses upon completion. Inclusion criteria for
participation was to be over 18 years of age and have committed at least 1 instance of extradyadic
relationship infidelity. We did not limit our sample to participants who are currently in a roman-
tic partnership, which ultimately meant that participants would report on an instance of their
infidelity within either a past or current partnership. We did not provide a specific definition of
infidelity behaviors for inclusion criteria, given that infidelity behaviors vary across individuals
and can involve some mixture of emotional intimacy, romance, and/or sexual contact. All partici-
pants reported an instance of their own infidelity in the context of some type of romantic rela-
tionship, which could be a dating relationship, marriage, etc., and most (94.3%) indicated that
their infidelity included sexual contact.
Materials and procedure
The study was administered online via Qualtrics software, and measures were completed during a
single study session. Participants responded to a specific instance of their own infidelity, with
items assessing their motives, emotions, and behaviors during their affair. As indicated above, we
developed a questionnaire to assess motivations for extradyadic infidelity in a way that allowed
for people to indicate possible motives beyond poor relationship health (Selterman et al., 2019).
Based on exploratory factor analysis on 77 items (some original and some included from prior
research), we found evidence for 8 infidelity motivation variables, some of which overlapped con-
ceptually with the four previously identified by Barta and Kiene (2005). These were: (1) Anger
(e.g., “My primary partner had been unfaithful to me”;“Before my affair, my primary partner and
I got into an argument, which led me to seek revenge”), (2) Sexual Desire (e.g., “My primary
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 241
partner had lost interest in sex”;“My primary partner refused to perform certain acts during sex
that I normally enjoy”), (3) Lack of Love (e.g., “I was not sure if I really loved my primary
partner”;“I was not sure if my primary partner was the right person for me”), (4) Low
Commitment (“I was not very committed to my primary partner”;“Even though we were seeing
each other, we were not technically ‘in a relationship’publicly”), (5) Esteem (e.g., “I wanted to feel
better about myself”;“I wanted to assert my independence and autonomy”), (6) Situation (e.g., “I
was drunk/intoxicated and I was not thinking clearly”;“I was overwhelmed at the time due to
external stressors (e.g., school, work, family issues) and was not thinking clearly”), (7) Neglect (e.g.,
“I felt neglected by my primary partner”;“My primary partner was emotionally distant”), and (8)
Variety (e.g., “I wanted a greater variety of sexual partners”;“I am the kind of person
who cheats”).
Participants reported on specific experiences and outcomes with their extra-dyadic affair part-
ner: sexual satisfaction, emotional/intellectual satisfaction, intimacy, sexual behaviors (e.g., oral
sex, vaginal intercourse), subjective sexual frequency, public displays of intimacy or affection,
intimate dialogue (e.g., saying “I love you”), relationship status/breakup, and disclosure of the
affair. Some of these questionnaire items tap into participants’subjective experiences (e.g., “Please
indicate the level of satisfaction you feel/felt with the sexual aspect of the relationship with your
affair partner”on a 1-7 scale; 1 ¼very dissatisfied; 7 ¼very satisfied), while others prompted par-
ticipants to consider their actions (e.g., “My primary partner and I: (a) Broke up as a direct result
[of the affair] (b) Broke up for other reasons, (c) Maintained being in a relationship”). Full ques-
tionnaire materials, including instructions and scale items, are openly available here: https://osf.
io/4jpgs/.
Results
We utilized the 8-factor model for infidelity motivations (Selterman et al., 2019) for all analyses.
Thus, our motivation variables included (a) Anger, (b) Sexual Desire, (c) Lack of Love, (d) Low
Commitment, (e) Esteem, (f) Neglect, (g) Situation, and (h) Variety. Because the findings
reported below are exploratory and because of the potential for a higher familywise false-positive
rate, we sought to utilize a more stringent cutoff for statistical significance. We employed
Benjamini and Hochber’s(1995) method to control for the false discovery rate with the formula
(i/m)Q and a false discovery rate of .10. We retained the results that both (a) emerged signifi-
cant with this statistical correction and (b) for which the 95% confidence interval did not include
zero. The Beta coefficients reported below emerged in multiple regression models that included
all motivation factors simultaneously.
We organized all statistical tests according to families of conceptual variables (i.e., length of
time, sexual behaviors, intimacy, relationship status, disclosure). Within each family of conceptual
results, we first describe findings based on categorical predictors (e.g., gender) with t-tests, X
2
tests, and ANOVAs, then we describe findings based on continuous variables (e.g., sexual satisfac-
tion, affair motivations) with Pearson correlations and multiple regression models.
Time/length of affair
Participants reported that their infidelities lasted anywhere between less than a day to 5 years
(M¼68 days; SD ¼173.60; Median ¼14 days; Mode ¼1 day). We performed a log-transformation
on the affair duration variable to increase normality. Women reported longer affairs (M¼75.40
days) compared to men (M¼52.84 days), t(467) ¼3.02, p¼.003, [95% CI: .40, .09], d¼
.28. Affair duration variable was associated with motivations Lack of Love (b¼.13, p¼.011,
[95% CI: .02, .15]), Esteem (b¼.19, p¼.036, [95% CI: .01, .20]) and Variety (b¼.19, p<
242 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
.001, [95% CI: .07, .22]), and inversely associated with Situation (b¼.21, p<.001, [95% CI:
.24, .09]).
Sexual behaviors and sexual satisfaction
Participants reported an array of physical and sexual activities with their affair partners: 86.7%
reported kissing, 72.9% cuddling/close touch, 53.5% mutual masturbation, 45.9% performing oral
sex, a similar percentage 46.9% receiving oral sex, 53.3% vaginal intercourse, and 6.1% anal inter-
course, whereas only 5.7% reported that their affair was not physical/sexual in nature.
Men were more likely than women to report having engaged in mutual masturbation, X
2
(1)
¼9.62, p¼.002, received oral sex X
2
(1) ¼55.72, p<.001, and had vaginal intercourse X
2
(1)
¼11.49, p¼.001. There were no gender differences in kissing, performing oral sex, or anal
intercourse. Women were more likely than men to say that their affair was not sexual X
2
(1) ¼
4.26, p¼.039. The percentage breakdown of sexual actions by gender can be found in Table 1.
Compared to women, men reported stronger agreement with the statement that sex with their
affair partners was better than sex with primary partners t(452) ¼2.40, p¼.017 [95% CI: .07,
.71]. Men were also more likely to report having sexually explicit dialogue with their affair part-
ner X
2
(1) ¼19.57, p<.001. On a subjective frequency scale, men and women did not differ in
their perceptions of sexual frequency with their affair partners t(467) ¼.53, p¼.594, d¼.049,
nor did they differ in affair sexual satisfaction t(466) ¼1.65, p¼.100, d¼.153. Overall, partici-
pants reported subjectively having more frequent sex with primary partners (M ¼4.94, SD ¼
1.71) compared with affair partners (M ¼3.40, SD ¼2.06), t(483) ¼11.38, p¼.001, d¼.52,
[95% CI: .42, .61].
Affair sexual satisfaction was positively correlated with agreement that having sex with affair
partners was better than having sex with primary partners r¼.62, p<.001 and affair duration r
¼.27, p<.001. Affair sexual satisfaction was also positively associated with motivations of
Sexual Desire (b¼.15, p¼.003), Lack of Love (b¼.12, p¼.022), and Variety (b¼.16, p¼
.001), and negatively with Situation (b¼.17, p<.001).
Love and intimacy
In terms of frequencies, 37.6% of participants reported engaging in intimate conversations with
their affair partners, while 61.2% reported sexually explicit dialogue, 62.8% reported expressing
fondness and affection, and 11.1% reported exchanging the words, “I love you.”Women and men
did not significantly differ in their rates of intimate conversations X
2
(1) ¼3.39, p¼.066,
expressing fondness/affection X
2
(1) ¼1.47, p¼.226, or saying, “I love you”X
2
(1) ¼2.43, p¼
.119. Women and men also did not significantly differ in their intimacy with affair partners t
(470) ¼1.77, p¼.077, d¼.16 or emotional satisfaction with affair partners t(470) ¼.60,
p¼.549, d¼.06, although women did report higher intimacy with primary partners before
their affairs t(470) ¼2.18, p¼.030, d¼.20.
Table 1. Percentage of participants reporting specific sexual behaviors with infidelity partners, split by gender (N¼472).
Sexual Behaviors Men Women
Kissing 187 (87.8%) 227 (87.6%)
Mutual Masturbation 130 (61.0%)
a
121 (46.7%)
b
Perform Oral Sex 105 (49.3%) 109 (42.1%)
Receive Oral Sex 140 (65.7%)
a
81 (31.3%)
b
Vaginal Intercourse 132 (52.4%)
a
120 (46.3%)
b
Anal Intercourse 14 (6.6%) 11 (4.2%)
No Sexual Contact 7 (3.2%)
a
20 (7.7%)
b
Different subscripts across columns denote a statistically significant difference for the two groups at the p<.01 level.
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 243
Participants’felt closeness/intimacy with their primary partners did not significantly differ as a
function of having intimate conversations with affair partners t(482) ¼1.69, p¼.092 [95% CI:
.05, .62], or feeling fondness and affection toward affair partners t(482) ¼.40, p¼.688 [95%
CI: .27, .41]. If participants exchanged the words “I love you”with their affair partners, they
reported feeling more intimacy with their affair partners t(482) ¼5.85, p<.001 [95% CI:
2.02, 1.01], and higher emotional satisfaction during the affair t(482) ¼5.97, p<.001
[95% CI: 1.77, .89] compared to those who did not verbally express love. Furthermore, those
who reported saying, “I love you”to their affair partners had longer affairs (M¼194.73 days)
compared to those who did not (M¼52.23 days), t(481) ¼4.68, p<.001, [95% CI: .83,
.13], d¼.67.
Participants’felt closeness/intimacy with their primary partners was unrelated to felt closeness
with their affair partners, r¼.01, p¼.908. However, participants’intimacy with primary part-
ners was inversely associated with emotional satisfaction with their affairs (r¼.14, p¼.002).
In addition, felt closeness with affair partners was linked with affair emotional satisfaction (r¼
.55, p<.001), and affair emotional satisfaction was also linked with affair sexual satisfaction (r¼
.45, p<.001). Affair duration was associated with emotional satisfaction with the affair partner
(r¼.38, p<.001) and felt closeness with affair partners (r¼.34, p<.001).
Having more public dates (e.g., dinner, movies) with affair partners was positively linked with
Lack of Love motivation b¼.16, p¼.001; 95% CI: .07, .31 and inversely with Situation motiv-
ation b¼.14, p¼.004; 95% CI: .34, .07. Public displays of affection with affair partners
was positively linked with Lack of Love b¼.13, p¼.011; 95% CI: .04, .29, Esteem b¼.13, p¼
.023; 95% CI: .03, .40, and Variety motivations b¼.13, p¼.010; 95% CI: .05, .33, and inversely
with Situation motivation b¼.12, p¼.013; 95% CI: .33, .04. Those saying “I love you”
scored higher on Lack of Love t(493) ¼2.38, p¼.018 [95% CI: .83, .08], and Neglect
motivations t(493) ¼2.63, p¼.009 [95% CI: .91, .13]. Intimacy with affair partners was
linked with Lack of Love motivation (b¼.16, p¼.003) but not the other motivations.
Emotional/intellectual satisfaction during affairs was linked with Lack of Love motivation (b¼
.26, p<.001) and negatively with Situation motivation (b¼.21, p<.001).
Breakup/dissolution
About one-fifth (20.4%) of participants broke up with their primary partners as a result of the
affair, while 27.3% reported breaking up for other reasons, while 21.8% maintained the primary
relationship even though their partner found out about the affair, and 28.3% maintained the rela-
tionship with their partner not finding out about the affair. Women and men did not differ sig-
nificantly in their breakup rates X
2
(1) ¼.74, p¼.389.
Those who broke up with their primary partners after their affairs scored higher on emotional
satisfaction with their affair partners t(480) ¼4.15, p<.001, [95% CI: .31, .88], d¼.38, and
they reported lower intimacy with their primary partners t(480) ¼4.01, p<.001, [95% CI:
.98, .35], d¼.37 compared to those who remained in their primary relationship. Those
who broke up also went on more dates (e.g., dinner/movie) with their affair partners t(478) ¼
2.55, p¼.011, [95% CI: .08, .63], d¼.23, agreed with the idea that the affair sex was better than
sex with their primary partners t(464) ¼4.13, p<.001, [95% CI: .34, .96], d¼.38, reported
subjectively less frequent sex with primary partners t(478) ¼3.27, p¼.001, [95% CI: .80,
.20], d¼.30, and subjectively more sex with affair partners t(479) ¼2.29, p¼.023, [95%
CI: .06, .80], d¼.20, and higher sexual satisfaction with their affair partners t(477) ¼2.44, p¼
.015, [95% CI: .08, .75], d¼.22, relative to those whose primary relationships remained intact.
Participants did not score differently as a function of breakups in terms of their intimacy with
affair partners t(480) ¼1.12, p¼.262, d¼.10, duration of affairs t(478) ¼.22, p¼.829, d
¼.02, or public displays of affection t(477) ¼1.26, p¼.210, d¼.12.
244 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
As for infidelity motivations, those who broke up with their primary partner scored higher on
Anger t(482) ¼2.48, p¼.013, [95% CI: .06, .51], Lack of Love t(482) ¼7.71, p<.001, [95% CI:
.66, 1.11], Neglect t(482) ¼2.94, p¼.003, [95% CI: .12, .61], and Low Commitment t(482) ¼3.30,
p¼.001, [95% CI: .15, .59], but lower on Situation t(482) ¼2.27, p¼.024, [95% CI: .42, .03].
The breakdown for infidelity motivations as a function of breakup status is displayed in Table 2.
Affair relationship
With regards to affair partners, 29.9% of participants remained friends with their affair partners
after the affair ended, 31.1% reported seeing their affair partners occasionally, 25.3% opted for no
contact after the affair, and 11.1% began a committed romantic relationship with their affair part-
ners. Gender was not associated with affair relationship status X
2
(4) ¼3.97, p¼.411.
Affair partner status was associated with affair emotional satisfaction F(4, 475) ¼6.11, p<.001,
intimacy with affair partners F(4, 475) ¼10.94, p<.001, and public displays of affection F(4, 472)
¼4.20, p<.002. Post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected analyses for these omnibus effects showed a gen-
eral pattern that those who began a committed relationship with their affair partners scored differ-
ently compared to those who avoided contact with affair partners, but all other group comparisons
(e.g., occasional contact, friendship) were not significantly different from each other. Specifically,
those who began committed relationships with affair partners scored higher on emotional satisfac-
tion compared to those who avoided contact t¼3.87, p¼.001, [95% CI: .29, 1.68], but not more
than those who were friends with their affair partners t¼1.31, p¼.686, or those who had occa-
sional contact t¼1.53, p¼.542. A similar pattern emerged for intimacy with affair partners, which
was higher for those who began committed relationships compared to those who did not have con-
tact t¼3.73, p¼.002, [95% CI: .29, 1.87], but not more than those who were friends with their
affair partners t¼1.09, p¼.810, or those who had occasional contact t¼.62, p¼.972. Public dis-
plays of affection was higher amongst those who began committed relationships compared to those
with no further contact t¼3.14, p¼.018, [95% CI: .11, 1.55], but not more than those who were
friends with their affair partners t¼1.89, p¼.595, or those who had occasional contact t¼.27, p
¼.999. Aside from these variables, affair partner status was not associated with affair duration F(4,
473) ¼.969, p¼.424, affair sexual satisfaction F(4, 472) ¼2.08, p¼.082, agreement that sex with
affair partners was better than primary partners F(4, 459) ¼.78, p¼.539, subjective frequency of
sex with primary partners F(4, 473) ¼.31, p¼.869 or affair partners F(4, 459) ¼.69, p¼.603, or
intimacy with primary partners F(4, 474) ¼2.10, p¼.080.
As for infidelity motivations, affair partner status was associated with Situation F(4, 477) ¼
3.41, p¼.009, Esteem F(4, 477) ¼3.40, p¼.009, and Variety F(4, 477) ¼3.47, p¼.008. Post-
hoc Bonferroni-corrected analyses showed that those reporting occasional contact with their affair
partner scored higher in Situation motivation compared to those who formed a committed rela-
tionship t¼3.36, p¼.009 [95% CI: .11, 1.10], and no significant differences emerged for the
other groups. Those reporting occasional contact with their affair partner scored higher in
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for infidelity motivation factors based on primary relationship status following infidel-
ity (N¼472).
Infidelity Motivation Broke Up Stayed Together
Factors (N¼236) (N¼248) td
Anger 3.07 (1.25) 2.79 (1.27) 2.48.23
Sexual Desire 2.59 (.99) 2.49 (1.10) 1.15 .05
Lack of Love 4.42 (1.31) 3.54 (1.22) 7.71 .70
Neglect 4.03 (1.34) 3.66 (1.41) 2.94 .13
Low Commitment 2.89 (1.23) 2.52 (1.25) 3.30 .15
Situation 3.4 (1.11) 3.66 (1.08) 2.27.10
Esteem 3.15 (1.04) 3.08 (1.00) .73 .03
Variety 3.62 (1.23) 3.75 (1.13) 1.20 .05
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 245
Esteem compared to those who remained friends t¼3.44, p¼.006 [95% CI: .09, .79], and no sig-
nificant differences emerged for the other groups. Finally, those reporting occasional contact with
their affair partner scored higher in Variety motivation compared to those who formed a com-
mitted relationship t¼3.58, p¼.004 [95% CI: .20, 1.48], and no significant differences emerged
for the other groups.
Disclosure
Some participants confessed their affairs to their primary partners (34.34% of the sample), while
others kept their affairs secret (46.26%). Women (40.927%) were more likely than men (29.58%)
to confess X
2
(1) ¼6.55, p¼.010, while there were no gender differences in keeping affairs a
secret X
2
(1) ¼.77, p¼.381. Those who confessed were more likely to start a committed rela-
tionship with their affair partners compared to those who did not confess X
2
(1) ¼5.97, p¼
.015, but confessions were unrelated to whether participants broke up with their primary
partnersX
2
(1) ¼2.39, p¼.122 remained friends with their affair partners X
2
(1) ¼3.33, p¼
.068, or cut off contact with affair partners X
2
(1) ¼.18, p¼.674. Secrecy was unrelated to
breaking up with primary partners X
2
(1) ¼3.44, p¼.064, remaining friends with affair partners
X
2
(1) ¼2.82, p¼.093, starting a committed relationship with their affair partners X
2
(1) ¼
2.44, p¼.118, or having no contact with affair partners, X
2
(1) ¼2.21, p¼.137.
Those who confessed were less likely to report subjectively frequent sex with their affair part-
ners t(493) ¼2.37, p¼.018 [95% CI: .85, .08] and less likely to say that sex with affair
partners was better than sex with primary partners t(493) ¼2.36, p¼.019 [95% CI: .72,
.07]. Confessing was unrelated to affair duration t(493) ¼1.51, p¼.132, dates (e.g., dinner/
movies) t(493) ¼.04, p¼.968, public displays of affection t(493) ¼.04, p¼.968, subjective
sex frequency with primary partners t(493) ¼1.92, p¼.055, intimacy with primary partners t
(493) ¼.34, p¼.732, intimacy with affair partners t(493) ¼1.52, p¼.130, or emotional
satisfaction with affair partners t(493) ¼.72, p¼.475.
Secrecy was associated with agreement that sex with affair partners was better than sex with
primary partners t(483) ¼2.65, p¼.008 [95% CI: .11, .73], but secrecy was not associated with
affair duration t(481) ¼.40, p¼.691, dates t(481) ¼.35, p¼.728, public displays of affection
t(481) ¼.75, p¼.451, subjective frequency of sex with primary partners t(481) ¼1.88, p¼
.060, intimacy with primary partners t(481) ¼1.58, p¼.114, intimacy with affair partners t
(481) ¼1.35, p¼.179, or emotional satisfaction with affair partners t(481) ¼1.60, p¼.111.
Those who confessed reported higher motivations of Anger t(493) ¼3.04, p¼.002 [95% CI:
.13, .59] and Neglect t(493) ¼2.49, p¼.013 [95% CI: .07, .58], but lower motivations of Sexual
Desire t(493) ¼2.45, p¼.015 [95% CI: .44, .05] and Variety t(493) ¼4.57, p<.001
[95% CI: .72, .29], compared to those who did not disclose. Confessions were unrelated to
lack of Love t(493) ¼.30, p¼.768, Low Commitment t(493) ¼1.10, p¼.273, Situation t
(493) ¼1.25, p¼.211, or Esteem t(493) ¼1.67, p¼.096. Those who kept the affairs a secret
from their partners scored lower on Anger t(493) ¼3.02, p¼.003 [95% CI: .56, .12], Low
Commitment t(493) ¼2.36, p¼.019 [95% CI: .49, .04], and Esteem t(493) ¼2.98, p¼
.003 [95% CI: .46, .09], but higher Variety motivation t(493) ¼2.38, p¼.018 [95% CI: .04,
.46]. Secrecy was unrelated to Sexual Desire t(493) ¼1.46, p¼.144, Lack of Love t(493) ¼.11,
p¼.914, Neglect t(493) ¼1.28, p¼.203, or Situation t(493) ¼1.45, p¼.149.
The full dataset for this study can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/edcba/.
Discussion
Our findings illuminate specific infidelity experiences, which include a wide range of interper-
sonal outcomes including behaviors, communications, and felt emotions. We explored how these
246 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
experiences were associated with participants’motivations for engaging in their extradyadic infi-
delity. These findings deepen our understanding of what people commonly do, say, and feel dur-
ing and after episodes of infidelity, and may suggest a need for theoretical innovation to
conceptualize typologies for infidelities, which we discuss further below.
Though nearly all participants reported physical/sexual engagement with their affair partners,
only 53.3% reported intercourse or mutual masturbation, and fewer reported oral sex. Men were
more likely to report engaging in these sexual behaviors. Those motivated by sexual desire, lack
of love, and variety expressed greater sexual satisfaction with their affairs. By contrast, those moti-
vated by situational factors reported being less sexually satisfied with the affair. This type of affair,
motivated by situational factors, was also more short-lived. There are a number of possible
explanations that warrant further investigation. It is possible that because participants whose
affairs were shorter had less time/experience to become sexually acclimated with affair partners,
and this could explain why affair sexual satisfaction was relatively lower. It is also possible that
those motivated by situational factors may not have a relatively high degree of romantic and sex-
ual attraction or sexual interest in the affair partner, which could serve as a barrier to connection
and sexual satisfaction (Mark & Herbenick, 2014; Sprecher, 2002). Similarly, situational infidelity
may result in less interpersonal communication about sexual preferences, and having less post-sex
affection, which are both linked with sexual satisfaction in committed relationships (Babin, 2013;
Muise, Giang, & Impett, 2014). This finding is also consistent with prior research showing that
while uncommitted sexual encounters can be intimate and satisfying, they are relatively less so
than sex in committed relationships (Garcia, Gesselman, Seibold-Simpson, Merriwether, &
Massey, 2018; Mark, Garcia, & Fisher, 2015). It is also possible that guilt associated with a rela-
tionship transgression weighs more heavily on those whose infidelity was motivation by situ-
ational factors as opposed to discontent emotional states, further limiting overall sexual
satisfaction. These findings highlight the need for further research on the role of sexual satisfac-
tion in infidelity motivations and outcomes.
Consistent with deficit models of relationship infidelity, emotional and romantic variables
were linked with poor relationship health (Thompson, 1983). Specifically, lack of love and neglect
motivations predicted participants’reported intimacy with affair partners, saying “I love you,”
going on dates, public displays of affection, and longer affairs, while situation motivation was
inversely associated with these experiences. This suggests that when people feel emotional short-
falls in their primary relationships, they may be seeking a deeper quality of romantic connection
or intimacy in their affairs to augment feelings of missing or insufficient intimacy from their pri-
mary partners. Furthermore, the closer people felt with their primary partners before the affair,
the less emotional/intellectual satisfaction they felt with their affair partners. This suggests that
for some, when infidelity occurs in the context of high degrees of primary relationship closeness,
this closeness may hinder emotional satisfaction with affair partners, although a causal or longitu-
dinally predictive pattern was not accessible in the present study.
Some individuals are motivated to use their affair as a means to hurt their primary partners or
end their relationships (Tafoya & Spitzberg, 2007). Consistent with this idea, participants scoring
higher in anger, lack of love, low commitment, and neglect were more likely to break up with
their primary partners and to disclose their affairs. By contrast, situation, sexual desire, and var-
iety motivations were inversely linked with primary relationship breakup and infidelity disclosure.
These results suggest that different types of motivations for infidelity predict whether or not par-
ticipants were honest with their partners about it, and whether they attempted to maintain their
primary relationship despite the affair. Given the devastation that infidelity can cause to individu-
als and romantic relationships including marriages (Fife, Weeks, & Stellberg-Filbert, 2013; Hall &
Fincham, 2006; Yuan & Weiser, 2019), these findings may indicate that while some participants
wanted their primary partners to suffer, others had no intention to hurt their partner or termin-
ate the relationship. For the latter, those participants’motivations seemed to stem from a desire
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 247
for sex and variety, and after the affair, wanting to preserve their primary relationship and (per-
haps) spare their partner from hurt feelings.
Some participants remained in contact with their affair partners. Those who did not maintain
contact showed higher levels of commitment to their primary partners, and may have viewed
affair partners as a threat to their primary relationships. This is consistent with clinical
approaches with couples who attempt to work through infidelity and preserve their relationship,
focusing on the ways in which they value their spouses/partnerships, which in turn can even lead
to experiences of positive growth following such transgressions (Perel, 2017). By this line of rea-
soning, the continued presence of an affair partner would stand in the way of such reconciliation
and potential growth. However, others in our sample began committed relationships with their
affair partners. Those participants who initiated a new relationship with the affair partner scored
lower on sexual desire, variety, and situation motivations, and higher on lack of love motivation.
This suggests that deficits in the primary relationship are a predictor of wanting to begin anew
with affair partners. This may further suggest that there are certain relationship conditions that
make the success of attempted mate poaching (Schmitt & Buss, 2001; Schmitt & International
Sexuality Description Project, 2004) more favorable.
As noted above, infidelity is one of the most commonly cited reasons for relationship distress
and dissolution, and it is a significant factor in predicting mental health outcomes and divorce
(Tsapelas, Fisher, & Aron, 2011). Infidelity is also one of the most challenging variables for mari-
tal counselors to assist their clients with (Hertlein, Wetchler, & Piercy, 2005; Olmstead, Blick, &
Mills, 2009; Snyder & Doss, 2005). It is critical for scientists to develop a detailed conceptualiza-
tion of infidelity that allows for understanding subtleties and nuances in such experiences. We
hope our findings will guide future research into more of the various reasons why people engage
in infidelity, and how those initial motivations for affairs predict relationship outcomes. Being
that we used a cross-sectional design, we cannot conclude to what extent participants’initial
motives caused or predicted their experiences. Future clinically-focused research can also investi-
gate to what extent having knowledge of a cheating partner’s motivations is helpful for resolving
dyadic distress and promoting relationship satisfaction and stability. Infidelity motivations and
experiences are worth studying from the vantage point that not all infidelities are created equal.
The existing evidence suggests that underlying motivations for infidelity are differentially associ-
ated with the likelihood of specific outcomes, including whether or not relationships will function
healthily and whether partners will remain together. The current findings highlight the import-
ance of researchers and clinicians avoiding the characterization and treatment of infidelity as
monolithic and primarily stemming from relationship deficits. While this may be true in many
cases, many others report being motivated by non-dyadic factors, and those affairs appear very
different behaviorally and emotionally compared to affairs motivated by dyadic factors. It may
also be the case that combinations of infidelity motivation factors, or interactions between them,
would uniquely predict relationship outcomes. Future researchers can explore the application of
latent class analyses to examine how clusters of motives predict such outcomes.
It is also worth noting that there is a growing interest in consensually non-monogamous rela-
tionships (CNM; Moors, 2017), which includes open relationships, polyamory, swinging, and
other non-exclusive arrangements where members of a couple agree that they will engage roman-
tically and sexually with other partners (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2017). It is possible
that there is a spillover that affects how monogamous couples view infidelity, which could in turn
affect the associations between variables such as the ones we examined in the current study. It
will be important to study how attitudes toward and experiences with CNM affects infidelity
(non-consensual non-monogamy) across different relationship structures. Perhaps attitudes toward
infidelity will become less negative and partners will be more forgiving of such transgressions
even if they are not consensual. Perhaps motivations to have affairs will be less likely to stem
from dyadic factors such as lack of love, if people view their monogamous relationships as strong
248 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
enough to withstand an affair. As we noted elsewhere (Selterman et al., 2019), it would be inter-
esting to compare and contrast the motivations/outcomes of people in monogamous relationships
to have affairs with the motivations/outcomes of CNM practitioners. Perhaps some overlaps
would emerge, such as the need for sexual variety and excitement, but alongside some important
differences, such as with commitment or satisfaction (Mitchell, Bartholomew, & Cobb, 2014).
However, all of these ideas are speculative and future research is needed.
Regarding generalizability, we are limited by the demographic characteristics of our sample,
which was skewed toward non-married young adult individuals located mainly in North America,
most of whom were recruited through a university psychology department. Thus, we caution
against overgeneralizing across age, relationship status, and cultural variables such as tightness
(Gelfand et al., 2011). Specifically, students on a campus may be developmentally prone to (sex-
ual) novelty and risk-taking, have more opportunities to engage in infidelity if they are physically
close to many available and willing affair partners, and live in social environments that do not
necessarily stigmatize or penalize affairs to a painful degree. Our findings our most likely to gen-
eralize to other human populations with similar features, such as older adults in urban environ-
ments with abundant access to affair partners and permissive social environments that condone
such behaviors (Atkins et al., 2001). In more socially restrictive, rural, or sparsely populated areas,
when opportunities are lower, perhaps these motivations for infidelity would not have as much
predictive impact on relationship outcomes.
2
However, the findings that emerged are largely con-
sistent with other findings in the literature on sexuality and infidelity across demographic groups.
For instance, our finding that men were more likely than women to report receiving (rather than
performing) oral sex is consistent with other work showing similar patterns for casual sex
encounters (Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Thus, we are cautiously optimistic in the generalizability and
reproducibility of these results and encourage more empirical work on these constructs.
Concluding thoughts
These exploratory findings should be taken as an initial step in better understanding the pathways
to different behavioral, emotional, and sexual outcomes following infidelity. These findings dem-
onstrate that diverse motivations for engaging in infidelity are associated with what people do,
say, and feel during and after affairs, Hopefully our work will inspire replications and extensions
to ascertain confidence in generalizability and to better inform research and clinical practice
related to the impact of infidelity on individuals and relationships.
Notes
1. We recognize that an increasing number of people are showing interest with and engagement in
consensually non-monogamous relationships (Moors, 2016). In such relationships, the behaviors which are
normally considered transgressive in monogamous relationships are far less problematic and often
affirmative or joyful (Conley et al., 2017; Moors, 2017). Although many people engage in some form of
consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, research to date shows that most American’s
practice and expect social monogamy and sexual exclusivity in their romantic relationships (Haupert et al.,
2017). We will return to this topic in the Discussion.
2. See Selterman et al. (2019) for a developmental perspective on how infidelity research on young adults
may partially generalize to other age groups, and see Tsapelas, Fisher, and Aron (2011) for a summary of
findings regarding infidelity and demographic variables.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Christin Probst and Jesse Harrington for assistance with administering the study and analyses.
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 249
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Dylan Selterman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9407-6759
Justin R. Garcia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-4578
References
Allen, E. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2005). The multidimensional and developmental nature of infidelity: Practical appli-
cations. Journal of Clinical Psychology,61(11), 1371–1382.
Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement. Family Process,
43(4), 467–488.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People's reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjust-
ment. Journal of Family Issues,24(5), 602–626.
Arnocky, S., Pearson, M., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Health, anticipated partner infidelity, and jealousy in men and
women. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–10. doi:10.1177/1474704915593666
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Gomes, W., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Anticipated partner infidelity and men’s intimate
partner violence: The mediating role of anxiety. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 186–196. doi:10.1037/
ebs0000021
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random
sample. Journal of Family Psychology,15(4), 735–749.
Babin, E. (2013). An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex and
sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,30(3), 270–292. doi:10.1177/0265407512454523
Barbaro, N., Sela, Y., Atari, M., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2019). Romantic attachment and mate reten-
tion behavior: The mediating role of perceived risk of partner infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,36(3), 940–956. doi:10.1177/0265407517749330
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender,
personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,22, 339–360.
doi:10.1177/0265407505052440
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to
multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological),57(1), 289–300.
Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships,9(2), 191–204.
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replic-
able. Perspectives on Psychological Science,13(2), 155–160. doi:10.1177/1745691617698225
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., …& Bennett, K.
(1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences
in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships,6(1), 125–150. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.
tb00215.x
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous
relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science,12(2), 205–232.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for
correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,41, 1149–1160.
Fife, S. T., Weeks, G. R., & Stellberg-Filbert, J. (2013). Facilitating forgiveness in the treatment of infidelity: An
interpersonal model. Journal of Family Therapy,35(4), 343–367.
Garcia, J. R., MacKillop, J., Aller, E. L., Merriwether, A. M., Wilson, D. S., & Lum, J. K. (2010). Associations
between dopamine D4 receptor gene variation with both infidelity and sexual promiscuity. PLoS One,5(11),
e14162.
Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., Seibold-Simpson, S. M., Merriwether, A. M., & Massey, S. G. (2018). Intimacy
through casual sex: Relational context of sexual activity and affectionate behaviours. Journal of Relationships
Research,9(e12), 1–10.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., & Aycan, Z. (2011). Differences between
tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science,332(6033), 1100–1104.
Guitar, A.E., Geher, G., Kruger, D.J., Garcia, J.R., Fisher, M.L., & Fitzgerald, C.J. (2017). Defining and interpreting
definitions of emotional and sexual infidelity. Current Psychology, 36(3), 434–446.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and for-
giveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,25(5), 508–522.
250 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
Haupert, M. L., Moors, A. C., Gesselman, A. N., & Garcia, J. R. (2017). Estimates and correlates of engagement in
consensually non-monogamous relationships. Current Sexual Health Reports,9(3), 155–165.
Hertlein, K. M., Wetchler, J. L., & Piercy, F. P. (2005). Infidelity: An overview. Journal of Couple & Relationship
Therapy, 4(2–3), 5–16. doi:10.1300/J398v04n02_02
Jankowiak, W., Nell, M. D., & Buckmaster, A. (2002). Managing infidelity: A cross-cultural perspective. Ethnology,
41(1), 85.
Kaighobadi, F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Popp, D. (2008). Male mate retention mediates the relation-
ship between female sexual infidelity and female-directed violence. Personality and Individual Differences,44(6),
1422–1431.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal ana-
lysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66(3), 502.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation
and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review,7(1), 41–55.
Mark, K. P., Garcia, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Perceived emotional and sexual satisfaction across sexual relation-
ship contexts: Gender and sexual orientation differences and similarities. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality,24(2), 120–130.
Mark, K. P., & Herbenick, D. (2014). The influence of attraction to partner on heterosexual women’s sexual and
relationship satisfaction in long-term relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(3), 563–570. doi:10.1007/
s10508-013-0184-z
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples: Demographic, interpersonal,
and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior,40(5), 971–982. doi:10.1007/
s10508-011-9771-z
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Mitchell, M. E., Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. J. (2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. Journal of
Sex Research,51(3), 329–339.
Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “the cou-
ple”increased over time?. Journal of Sex Research,54(6), 677–684. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208
Muise, A., Giang, E., & Impett, E. A. (2014). Post sex affectionate exchanges promote sexual and relationship satis-
faction. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(7), 1391–1402. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0305-3
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor
analyses. International Journal of Testing,5(2), 159–168. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
Nemeth, J. M., Bonomi, A. E., Lee, M. A., & Ludwin, J. M. (2012). Sexual infidelity as trigger for intimate partner
violence. Journal of Women’s Health,21(9), 942–949.
Olmstead, S. B., Blick, R. W., & Mills, L. I. (2009). Helping couples work toward the forgiveness of marital infidel-
ity: Therapists’perspectives. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(1), 48–66.
Perel, E. (2017). The state of affairs: Rethinking infidelity. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships,21(2), 217–230. doi:10.1177/0265407504041384
Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance.
Evolutionary Psychology,8, 390–404.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing
mateships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology,80(6), 894–917.
Schmitt, D. P., & International Sexuality Description Project. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching
across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s part-
ner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86(4), 560–584. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.560
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personal-
ity associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality,18(4),
301–319. doi:10.1002/per.520
Schmitt, D. P. (2015). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp.
258–291). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Selterman, D., Garcia, J. R., & Tsapelas, I. (2019). Motivations for Extradyadic Infidelity Revisited. Journal of Sex
Research,56(3), 273–286. doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1393494
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a
partner’s infidelity. Cognition & Emotion,16(2), 299–307.
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J.H.
Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Snyder, D. K., & Doss, B. D. (2005). Treating infidelity: Clinical and ethical directions. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 61(11), 1453–1465.
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 251
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love,
commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research,39(3), 190–196. doi:10.1080/00224490209552141
Tafoya, M. A., Spitzberg, B. H. (2007). The dark side of infidelity: Its nature, prevalence, and communicative
functions. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.,
pp. 201–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research,19(1), 1–22.
doi:10.1080/00224498309551166
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Drawing the line: The development of a comprehensive assessment of
infidelity judgments. Journal of Sex Research,53, 910–926. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1062840
Tsapelas, I., Fisher, H. E., & Aron, A. (2011). Infidelity: When, where, why. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg
(Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 175–195). New York, NY: Routledge.
Williams, K., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Do therapists address gender and power in infidelity? A feminist ana-
lysis of the treatment literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,39(3), 271–284. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.
2012.00303.x
Yuan, S., & Weiser, D. A. (2019). Relationship dissolution following marital infidelity: Comparing European
Americans and Asian Americans. Marriage & Family Review,55(7), 631–650. doi:10.1080/01494929.2019.
1589614
252 D. SELTERMAN ET AL.
