A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Family Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Sexual Infidelity in a National Survey of American Women:
Differences in Prevalence and Correlates as a Function
of Method of Assessment
Mark A. Whisman
University of Colorado at Boulder Douglas K. Snyder
Texas A&M University
The purposes of this study were (a) to estimate the annual prevalence of, and to identify the
predictors of, sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married women (N⫽4,884);
and (b) to evaluate whether the prevalence and predictors of infidelity varied as a function of
whether the assessment of infidelity was based on a face-to-face interview versus a computer-
assisted self-interview. Annual prevalence of infidelity was much smaller on the basis of the
face-to-face interview (1.08%) than on the computer-assisted self-interview (6.13%). Al-
though many of the predictor variables replicated results from previous studies (e.g., demo-
graphic variables, religiosity, sexual experience), findings also indicated that childhood
sexual abuse (i.e., forced sex) predicted greater probability of infidelity. Finally, the magni-
tude of the association with infidelity for 4 of the 9 predictor variables differed between the
2 methods for assessing infidelity. This study’s findings underscore the importance of
assessing infidelity with methods such as computer-assisted self-interviews that minimize the
influence of social desirability and impression management.
Keywords: infidelity, affair, extramarital sex, predictor, computer-assisted assessment
Data from controlled community studies indicate that
approximately 20%–40% of men and 20%–25% of women
will engage in an extramarital affair in their lifetimes (Gree-
ley, 1994; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994),
and that approximately 2%–4% of married men and women
are likely to have engaged in extramarital sex in the past
year (Billy, Tanfer, Grady, & Klepinger, 1993; Choi, Ca-
tania, & Dolcini, 1994; Forste & Tanfer, 1996; Treas &
Giesen, 2000; Wiederman, 1997). Couple therapists view
extramarital affairs as one of the most damaging relation-
ship events and one of the most difficult problems to treat in
couple therapy (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). Fur-
thermore, infidelity is the most commonly cited cause of
divorce in the United States (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997)
and the single most common cause of conjugal dissolution
across 160 societies (Betzig, 1989). In addition, infidelity
has been associated with increased risk of mental health
problems, including depression and anxiety (Cano &
O’Leary, 2000). Given the high prevalence and adverse
consequences of infidelity, there is a growing body of lit-
erature conducted to identify the correlates of infidelity (for
a review, see Allen et al., 2005).
Although there is a sizable body of literature on the
prevalence and correlates of infidelity, there has been rela-
tively little attention devoted to issues in the assessment of
infidelity. That is to say, infidelity is a sensitive topic and, as
such, may be difficult to accurately assess. Public opinion
surveys have found that over the years, 70%–80% of Amer-
icans say that extramarital sex is always wrong, and most
others express at least some disapproval (Smith, 1994).
Because most people view infidelity unfavorably, the as-
sessment of infidelity is likely to be influenced by social
desirability and impression management: The socially de-
sirable response would be to deny that one has engaged in
infidelity to avoid shame or embarrassment and to conform
to perceived social norms. Therefore, prevalence estimates
for infidelity are likely to vary depending upon how much
they are influenced by social desirability. For example,
social desirability effects are likely to be large in a face-to-
face interview relative to an anonymous self-report ques-
tionnaire, thereby likely resulting in lower prevalence rates
of infidelity in the interview format relative to the question-
naire format. Indeed, assessment methods that result in
higher reports of sensitive behaviors relative to other as-
sessment methods are often assumed to be more accurate
(Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003). In the only study of
which we are aware that addressed this topic with respect to
infidelity, lifetime prevalence of infidelity based on partic-
ipants’ responses to a self-administered questionnaire that
was returned in a privacy envelope (15.5%) was higher
relative to responses to a face-to-face interview (11.2%;
Treas & Giesen, 2000). However, analyses were limited to
people who were married only once in the former assess-
Mark A. Whisman, Department of Psychology, University of
Colorado at Boulder; Douglas K. Snyder, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Texas A&M University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Mark A. Whisman, University of Colorado at Boulder, Department
of Psychology, 345 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0345. E-mail:
whisman@colorado.edu
Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 21, No. 2, 147–154 0893-3200/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147
147
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
