Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

April 2005, Vol. 31, No. 2, 183–216

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS I:

A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW
Adrian J. Blow
Saint Louis University

Kelley Hartnett
Saint Louis University

Infidelity is perhaps the most complex issue encountered by couple therapists. Although
clinical literature, opinion, and speculation on this topic are abundant, research literature is
sparse. What little available research exists is, in most cases, neither robust nor helpful to the
practicing therapist. This article provides, in both narrative and table format, a comprehensive
methodological review of the available research literature on infidelity from 1980 to present.
Topics addressed in the narrative include the lack of a consensus on the definition of infidelity;
design challenges, such as retrospective research, confidentiality, measures, and variables;
and sampling issues, such as diversity and randomization. Throughout the article, we offer
suggestions for future research.

Three-thousand years ago, a Biblical epic unfolded when King David’s affair with Bathsheba lead him
to orchestrate her husband’s murder. It is intriguing to speculate about the public’s response to this scandal
at the time and, perhaps, even more fascinating to wonder how a couple therapist might have approached
the situation. Curiosity about infidelity and its ramifications certainly exists in contemporary society. For
therapists, the interest relates to the challenge of treating couples who are deeply hurt because of the betrayal
and secrecy that are almost always associated with infidelity. For the public, the attraction lies more in the
sordid details and often bizarre twists of these kinds of relationships; after all, realities of infidelity in public
life range from broken hearts to murder to exposures and resignations of high-profile leaders.
Atkins, Baucom, and Jacobson (2001) report that “infidelity is a common phenomenon in marriages
but is poorly understood” (p. 735). Indeed, in the practice of any couple therapist, it is common for a
percentage of couples to present with infidelity-related grievances. Couple therapists are too well aware of
the tremendous pain and heartache expressed by clients caught up in the throes of an affair—whether they
are the “perpetrator” or the “victim.” Infidelity is undeniably harmful—often devastating—to individuals
and relationships, and its repercussions present significant treatment challenges (Whisman, Dixon, &
Johnson, 1997).
Clearly, the topic of infidelity is one that is of great importance to the practice of therapists—and
even more important to the couples affected. Nevertheless, there is a surprising lack of robust and rigorous
research on the topic. Make no mistake: There is no shortage of information—many excellent books address
the subject, internet sites and chat forums reach out to wounded partners and repentant “perpetrators,”
television talk shows and other programs devote airtime to couples struggling in infidelity’s aftermath,
and tantalizingly written news articles and magazine exposés lure sympathetic and voyeuristic readers.
Although there is an inundation of speculation, commiseration, and curiosity surrounding infidelity, the
research in this area is extremely diverse in focus, includes many limited research designs, has produced
contradictory results, and is, in short, not particularly helpful to the practicing clinician.

Adrian J. Blow, PhD, and Kelley Hartnett, MA, Department of Counseling and Family Therapy, Saint Louis University,
St. Louis, Missouri.
Address correspondence to Adrian J. Blow, PhD, Saint Louis University, Department of Counseling and Family
Therapy, 152 McGannon Hall, 3750 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, 63108; E-mail: [email protected]

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 183

 As we discuss later in this article, there is little consensus in the literature on what, exactly, infidelity
is; neither do researchers agree on what behaviors ought to be considered under the category of infidelity.
Therefore, writers use any number of phrases to describe infidelity. For consistency’s sake, we will
generally use the term infidelity throughout this article. If we choose another word or phrase, we do so only
to remain true to the language or variables of the studies we reviewed.

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

This article, the first of two, has one primary purpose—to provide a methodological review and critique
of the main scholarly research articles that focus on the subject of infidelity in committed relationships. The
second article is a substantive review of the research findings (Blow & Hartnett, this issue).
Atkins et al. (2001) report that the research on infidelity has “suffered serious methodological
problems” (p. 736). Similarly, in our review of the infidelity literature, we found that research articles
make up only a very small proportion of it, and the few articles that do exist have many methodological
limitations. In fact, most of the major works on infidelity (although excellent sources) are based largely
on opinion, clinical experience, or limited research of the authors (e.g., Brown, 1999, 2001; Glass, 2002;
Pittman, 1989; Spring, 1996). Although these are respected clinicians, their views are limited to their
specific worlds and unique clients.
In this article, we review all of the major research studies on infidelity since 1980, and we focus on
the methodological strengths and limitations that exist in the research. We do this for two reasons. First,
because couple therapy is a scientific field, it is insufficient for practitioners to base their work solely on
conjecture and descriptions of authors’ clinical experiences. Unfortunately, however, some of the most
widely cited clinical literature addressing infidelity is based on opinion and case study information.
Further, many infidelity researchers have drawn conclusions based on data derived from methodologically
weak studies. When couple therapists turn to literature to inform their practice, it is critical that they cull
data from the most methodologically sound studies—or that they at least recognize the limitations of the
studies informing their practice. Second, by critically examining the methodologies of infidelity research,
we can provide clarity for future research in this key area.

ARTICLE SELECTION CRITERIA

We made every effort to include each research article focused on infidelity published in both top-tier
scholarly journals and in lesser-known journals (we did not include dissertations). We included only those
articles that were research studies and that directly addressed the subject of infidelity as a major variable of
investigation. We specifically reviewed each issue of journals considered “major” in the fields of marriage
and family therapy, family studies, and sex therapy, including the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
(2), Family Process (1), Journal of Family Psychology (1), Journal of Marriage and Family (7), Family
Relations (1), Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy (3), and Journal of Sex Research (7). The numbers in
parentheses indicate the number of articles we found in each journal. Further, we reviewed all of the major
social science databases, including PsycINFO, Sociofile, and ERIC. We also examined the references of
each article we found on infidelity, preliminarily reviewed any article that potentially researched our area
of review, and selected those articles that fit the criteria described above. As a result, we included articles
from an assortment of journals that do not specifically relate to the Couple and Family Therapy field. Thus,
we found research articles in the American Journal of Public Health (3), the Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology (2), and Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2), as well as single articles in
17 miscellaneous journals and four books from a variety of fields.
Despite our exhaustive literature search, we recognize that we may have overlooked one study or
another. Nevertheless, we feel confident that we have identified the major studies in this area. It is important
to note that this article is limited to studies that focus directly on the subject of infidelity in committed
relationships. We chose not to include articles that focus on another content area, such as jealousy (e.g.,
Buunk, 1984), while indirectly addressing infidelity. We also chose not to critique articles that are more

184 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

speculative in nature, such as those that asked participants—often college students or newly married
individuals—to project themselves into hypothetical infidelity-related scenarios and respond to questions
based on how they supposed they would feel or act in that situation (e.g., Harris, 2000; Nannini & Meyers,
2000; Shackelford & Buss, 1997b; Wiederman & LaMar, 1998). The research of Harris (2002), who found
that responses to hypothetical infidelity situations were not related to reactions to actual infidelity, supports
this decision.
We further narrowed our focus by limiting our search to articles published from 1980 to the present.
Our reasoning for this contemporary focus is twofold. First, there has been a great deal of development
in the area of sexuality and committed relationships since 1980. Second, in 1983, Thompson wrote an
extensive review of the infidelity literature. His excellent article is a good reflection of the state of the
literature prior to 1980.

SUMMARY OF THE STUDIES

In the Appendix, we list all of the articles we reviewed, along with noteworthy methodological
critiques. Although space is limited, we have attempted to include as much relevant material as possible,
including sample descriptors, definitions of variables, measures used, design details, and what we view to
be particular strengths and/or weaknesses of the specific study.

Characteristics of Studies
Sample. We rated sample size positively (+) if the samples were of adequate size to meet the
requirements of the methodology used, the approach to statistical analysis, and the statistical power needed
to reach significant findings. We noted quantitative samples as random (+) if the researchers took steps to
gather representative data from a national population.
Socioeconomic status (SES) and education. We rated SES as low when the reported salary of partic-
ipants was $30,000 or less. We rated SES as moderate when it was above $30,000. We rate education as
high if participants had completed college, average if the participants had completed high school and/or
some college, and low if the participants did not have a high school diploma.
Definition. We rated the researchers’ definition of infidelity positively (+) if it was inclusive of all
possibilities of infidelity relationships (sexual and emotional). We note that some studies, in their designs,
needed to have an exclusive sexual intercourse focus (such as studies that explored HIV transmission, [e.g.,
Pulerwitz, Izazola-Licea, & Gortmaker, 2001]).
Particular strengths/weaknesses. Some studies have unique qualities or characteristics in their design
that make them particularly interesting. We note these in the far right column of the Appendix.

Methodologies Used
The studies we reviewed employed various methodologies in order to collect participant data. We have
grouped these methodologies into categories and explain these next.
Longitudinal studies. We found two longitudinal studies (Amato & Previti, 2003; Amato & Rogers,
1997). These two studies focused on marital stability over the life course and infidelity was one variable
examined (Note: Infidelity was only one of a number of variables collected on participants).
Large, national data sets. We identified 13 studies that used large, national or international data
sets. These studies are general in nature and primarily gather prevalence data related to infidelity. They
do not focus on infidelity specifically, but infidelity is one variable measured—usually in terms of sexual
intercourse. For example, Treas and Giesen (2000) used data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life
Survey to analyze infidelity in a multivariate model.
Smaller sample quantitative studies. The majority of studies used small samples gathered via
convenience methods. Glass and Wright (1992) offer an example of an excellent small-sample study
that gathers data on both sexual and emotional infidelity. In general, however, these kinds of studies are
limited in their sampling (primarily Caucasian, nonrandom, and so on), and, in some cases, authors used
clinical samples (Beach, Jouriles, & O’Leary, 1985), rather than drawing data from more generalizable

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 185

populations.
Qualitative studies. We found four qualitative studies. Olson, Russell, Higgins-Kessler, and Miller
(2002) offer a particularly good study that provides rich data on emotional processes following the
disclosure of an affair.
Outcome studies. We found only two studies related to infidelity treatment outcome, both quite recent
(Atkins, Eldridge, Baucom, & Christensen, 2005; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004). This may indicate
a new trend where couple therapy research focuses on the effectiveness of specific treatment approaches
with particular presenting problems.

Definitional Issues
It is important to consider the ways in which researchers define the variable infidelity. In short, the
variable lacks a consistent operational definition, which is one of the most significant methodological
critiques of these studies. Infidelity is defined in a myriad of ways and can comprise a number of activities
including: “Having an affair,” “extramarital relationship,” “cheating,” “sexual intercourse,” “oral sex,”
“kissing,” “fondling,” “emotional connections that are beyond friendships,” “friendships,” “internet
relationships,” “pornography use,” and others. In addition, the meanings of studies and data may become
somewhat convoluted because each person participating in a study may define infidelity differently. Former
president Bill Clinton’s now infamous remark, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” offers a
particularly poignant illustration of this point.
The numerous definitions of infidelity make it difficult to evaluate studies, call into question the
validity of studies, and render comparisons among studies with differing definitions nearly impossible.
What is considered infidelity in one study is not necessarily the same kind of infidelity in another study.
What is more, partners within one relationship differ in definitions of infidelity—one partner might
consider an act to be infidelity, whereas the other might not. Further, each unique relationship—marriage,
cohabiting, heterosexual, or homosexual—has different rules regarding what is defined as infidelity.
These relationship-specific differences in definitions make content comparisons of infidelity between
relationships problematic; acts clearly defined as infidelity in one relationship may not be even close to
infidelity in another relationship.
In general, we found that most studies and couples favor a definition of infidelity that is limited to
heterosexual, extramarital intercourse. Thompson, in his 1983 review, wrote about this limiting definition
and argued for more “systematic and precise terminology” (p. 3) regarding infidelity research, offering
a three-part system of descriptors: A descriptor of whether the relationship is sanctioned by the primary
relationship, a descriptor of the relationship outside of which the behavior occurs (i.e., is the behavior
extramarital, extra-cohabiting, and so on), and a description of the behavior (intercourse, friendship,
frequency, number of partners, and the like). In the subsequent 20 years, researchers have largely disregarded
Thompson’s recommendations, and so the confusion over infidelity’s definition persists. Studies still use
narrow definitions of infidelity, and researchers continue to leave out important information.

The Dearth of Well-Designed Studies

We were surprised by the overall lack of rigorous, focused studies related to infidelity. This is not a
new critique; in 1970, Johnson conducted a study on infidelity in which he, at the time of his research,
reports on the dearth of studies on the subject. He states, “while there has been widespread interest in the
phenomenon of extramarital coitus, the topic has received scant attention and either has been omitted from
family analyses, treated as a pathologically based anomaly or only polemically discussed” (1970, p. 449).
In our review, we discovered that too few significant studies have been added in the subsequent 30 years.
Further, we found that these studies are scattered over a wide array of topics related to infidelity and
that rigorous, in-depth explorations involving multiple studies are lacking. Researchers offer a myriad of
reasons why infidelity research is difficult, and the following section explores some of the reasons proposed
in the literature.
Confidentiality fears. Infidelity is a difficult subject for individuals to talk openly about because of
its negative perception in society as a whole and because of its potential harmful effects on individuals,

186 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

primary relationships, families, extended families, and individuals’ careers. As a result, fears of breach
of confidentiality are necessarily high for individuals who have committed infidelity. As Charny and
Parnass (1995) note, some individuals involved in infidelity research cannot, and will not, tell about their
experiences. In addition to the threat of loss of confidentiality, research participants risk experiencing
significant shame if even the researcher knows “the truth.” If studies are designed in such a way that
confidentiality is in jeopardy—in reality or in fantasy—participants are not likely to participate openly or
be honest in their responses.
Even though Institutional Research Boards monitor and assure the confidentiality of studies,
participants may still fear that their secret will somehow be revealed. For example, in the Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994) study, participants were interviewed in their homes. Although the
interviewers were experienced, some participants may have been uncomfortable talking about their sexual
behavior in their place of residence—even if there was only a slight possibility that their conversation could
be overheard. Aside from the fear of being overheard, participants may simply have been embarrassed to
talk about their infidelities with a researcher whom they barely knew (Note: It could also be argued that
it is easier to talk to a stranger about such a subject). One recommendation is for researchers who conduct
interviews to inform their participants of the dilemma related to confidentiality, make them coresearchers,
and possibly allow the participants to select pseudonyms to describe themselves within the study.
Quantitative researchers conduct studies with anonymity as a key criterion. Ideally, this occurs by
asking participants to complete a survey and then mail their responses. In this type of design, there is no
way for the researchers to link participants to the responses (e.g., Glass & Wright, 1992). Other quantitative
designs may compromise anonymity through the process of data collection. For example, in longitudinal
studies, data and participants are necessarily connected. In other studies that used surveys (e.g., Laumann
et al., 1994), the data collected are primarily quantitative, but they are collected by means of face-to-face
interviews, often in the participant’s home. In short, anonymity is compromised as one moves toward
human-to-human interactions (as opposed to written surveys) even though there may be reassurances from
the interviewer.
For this reason, we recommend that all studies on the subject of infidelity be conducted with
anonymity as a major criterion whenever possible. In qualitative studies or studies in which anonymity
is not possible, researchers ideally should take extra time to establish trusting relationships with their
participants and should work from the assumption that their participants are fearful about the repercussions
of loss of confidentiality. To that end, it is important that researchers emphasize the confidentiality of the
study, contemplate where research interviews might take place (e.g., away from home and work), transcribe
all interview data themselves, and ensure that there is no way to make connections between the researcher,
the research participant, and the topic of the study. For example, an interview by an infidelity researcher
should not take place at a research participant’s place of employment or home. Even though outsiders may
have no way to link the researcher with the subject of infidelity, the research participant may internally feel
that he or she is at risk of being associated with an infidelity researcher.
Distorted information provided by study participants. Although other areas of relationships and
marriage lend themselves to observational research, infidelity is certainly not one of them. As such,
researchers must rely on participants to provide accurate self-reports of their behavior. It is likely that some
participants in studies on infidelity may provide information based on their fantasies, rather than on what
actually has occurred in their lives (Charny & Parnass, 1995). Furthermore, investigators are up against the
denial systems of the individual that may lead them to distort their behavior in a downward direction—that
is, they minimize extra-relational activities (Sprenkle & Weis, 1978). They may also conveniently leave
out embarrassing (although important) details. As a result, participants could over- or under-report their
reality.
Inaccuracy in self-reporting can be avoided by more carefully worded studies and questions. For
example, explicit questions about emotional involvement, types of sexual involvement, or meanings in
the primary relationship would all be extremely useful. Further, it is likely that accuracy in self-reporting
would improve significantly with greater assurances of confidentiality or anonymity of data (it should be
noted that anonymity may increase the over-reporting of events). Another way to increase accuracy of self-

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 187

report data might be to obtain data from all parties involved (i.e., offending party, victim of infidelity, and
other person). This might not be possible in all studies, but it might be realistic in more focused qualitative
explorations. This approach would certainly have implications for the anonymity of data collected.
The secretive, painful, and shameful nature of the subject of infidelity. The emotional repercussions
of infidelity represent one of the larger challenges of doing infidelity research. Those who participate in
infidelity usually go to great lengths to conceal its discovery. Charny and Parnass (1995) believe that the
“subject matter of concern here ‘intends,’ by its very nature, to elude observation and conceal important
aspects of truth” (p. 103). This runs counter to the goals of research, which aim to discover “the truth.” Even
though researchers have explored similarly subjective topics—such as marital and sexual satisfaction—with
a reasonable degree of accuracy, infidelity is more challenging because it involves betrayal and secrecy. We
believe that studies need to keep this concern at the forefront as data are collected. Further, infidelity often
represents a subject of deep relational pain and personal shame. As a result, it is likely that this would not
be high on the list of studies in which research participants would like to take part.
In summary, although many researchers suggest that collecting reliable and valid data about infidelity
is simply too complicated, the reasons offered are difficult for us to accept. Admittedly, the issues outlined
above present formidable complications for infidelity research. Nevertheless, social science research has
been done—and done well—on equally sensitive and difficult content areas, such as sexual practices
(Laumann et al., 1994). Infidelity researchers can learn from both the successes and failures of researchers
in these areas.

The Issue of Diversity

In reviewing the studies on infidelity, it is clear that researchers have not sufficiently considered
diversity issues, except in the cases of large, national samples that primarily gather data on prevalence.
These large-sample studies tend to include as many population and SES groups as possible. Unfortunately,
however, they provide only very general information on the subject (Choi, Catania, & Dolcini, 1994;
Forste & Tanfer, 1996; Laumann et al., 1994; Leigh, Temple, & Trocki, 1993). Most, if not all, of the
smaller sample studies are limited to heterosexual, middle-to-upper-class, married, Caucasian samples.
This is unfortunate in that these smaller sample studies examine interesting nuances related to infidelity
in relationships.
In our review of the articles (Appendix), we found that some studies gather data from countries other
than the United States such as Holland (Buunk, 1982, 1987), Thailand (Knodel, Low, Saengtienchai, &
Lucas, 1997; Vanlandingham, Knodel, Saengtienchai, & Pramualratana, 1998), Denmark (Solstad &
Mucic, 1999), Mexico (Pulerwitz et al., 2001), and New Zealand (Worth, Reid, & McMillan, 2002). One
study focused on same-sex couples specifically (Worth et al., 2002). Similar to the United States, these
studies generally include heterosexual, middle-to-upper-class, married participants.
To provide accurate data on infidelity, future studies need to attend specifically to variations in sexual
orientation, race, culture, ethnicity, gender and sex roles, educational background, and socioeconomic
status. Given the value-laden nature of infidelity—and relationships in general—we believe that studies of
such diverse groups will answer important questions on the topic. For example, it is likely that infidelity
has different meanings and, as a result, different rates of occurrence from culture to culture and even from
relationship to relationship.
In addition to the diversity issues addressed above, infidelity research has not distinguished enough
between the types of relationships explored in studies. For example, in studies that included both marriage
and committed relationships, the results were usually combined (Buunk, 1987; Forste & Tanfer, 1996;
Kurdek, 1991; Pulerwitz et al., 2001; Treas & Giesen, 2000). Future studies need to specify and distinguish
between committed relationships, cohabitation, marriage, dating relationships, and same-sex unions (or
marriages). Finally, because most studies have focused exclusively on marriage, they have neglected to
consider data from divorced, cohabiting, and separated individuals.

188 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

The Issue of Measures and Variables
Another important issue to consider in infidelity research is the instruments and questionnaires used
to measure important variables, such as the infidelity itself (i.e., what it entailed), marital/relationship
happiness, and sexual satisfaction. Rarely did any of the studies that we reviewed use the same measures or
questions to explore any one of these variables. For example, some studies (Appendix) used a single question
to measure relationship satisfaction (e.g., Atkins et al., 2001), whereas other studies used the Locke Wallace
(Beach et al., 1985; Locke & Wallace, 1959; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984), or the Dyadic Adjustment scale
(Cano & O’Leary, 2000; Spanier, 1976). This critique is not new; in 1995, Pinsof and Wynne suggested a
common battery of measures for all research in the couple and family therapy field.
In any type of research, it is often the answer to one question that captures the essence of a variable. In
infidelity research, that one question is often something like: Have you ever engaged in extramarital sex?
Yes or No (circle one). The answer to this question could mean a variety of things depending on the context.
Simply put, many questions asked by researchers to establish infidelity and its occurrences are ambiguous,
allowing for critical differences in interpretation by study participants and readers of studies.
Many studies used measures to connect infidelity to some other important variable in the primary
relationship, such as opportunities for affairs or sexual permissiveness. Aside from the previously mentioned
lack of uniformity in instruments used to assess such variables, some analyses do not even consider some
critically important variables. For example, few studies look at the repercussions of emotional infidelity.
Essential sample characteristics that are often ignored include children in relationships, the number of
marriages or committed relationships engaged in by individuals, and religious affiliations.
In terms of individual characteristics that influence infidelity, current research, with the exception of a
few studies, has paid little attention to issues such as depression, anxiety, alcoholism, personality style, and
attachment. Future research addressing such issues would build on the work of Cano and O’Leary (2000),
Sweeney and Horwitz (2001), and Allen and Baucom (2004) and their respective studies of depression,
anxiety, and attachment styles in relationships.
Definition of variables is also an important aspect to consider in evaluating studies. For example,
some studies show the variable of opportunity to be an important influencing factor that leads individuals
to engage in infidelity (Atkins et al., 2001; Treas & Giesen, 2000). However, studies define and measure
this variable in different ways. In the Atkins et al. (2001) study, opportunity is defined in terms of the
respondent’s income and employment status. Treas and Giesen (2000), in contrast, measured opportunity
by looking at three items: Whether the individual’s job required touching clients, customers, or coworkers;
whether the job required talking about the personal concerns of clients, customers, or coworkers; or whether
the job required being alone often with clients, customers, or coworkers. Although a discussion of the
specific merits of each of these two approaches is beyond the scope of this article, it is clear that in these
two studies, opportunity means something different.

The Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Nature of Infidelity Studies

Two major weaknesses of infidelity research are that studies are mostly cross-sectional, and the data
are gathered retrospectively (i.e., after the fact of the infidelity). This is a very important consideration,
given that many of the studies attempt to ascertain what predicts infidelities after they have already
occurred. Atkins et al. (2001) report that the retrospective dilemma “makes it impossible to know about the
temporal order of our predictors” (p. 747).
As such, infidelity research becomes a chicken-or-the-egg paradox: Does marital dissatisfaction predict
infidelity, or does infidelity predict marital dissatisfaction? The retrospective analysis of a relationship
after a significant relational injury quite likely leads to inaccurate reports of these important variables.
For example, in cross-sectional studies that measure relationship satisfaction (e.g., Atkins et al., 2001), the
variable of relationship satisfaction is measured after the infidelity, making it impossible to control for the
effects of the infidelity on the relationship satisfaction. This speaks to the limitations of cross-sectional
studies in this kind of research, as well as to the clear need for longitudinal studies on relationships and the
role of infidelity in these relationships. Beach et al. (1985) suggest that:

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 189

 Longitudinal work examining the impact of extramarital sexual activity on marital relationships
in the general community [as opposed to clinical populations] is called for to begin the task of
better understanding the impact of extramarital sexual activity and the factors differentiating
persons seeking therapy from those not seeking therapy. (p. 107)
Longitudinal studies would also help to capture important differences between individuals who have
the same vulnerabilities concerning infidelity. For example, if two individuals have the same opportunity
to engage in infidelity, why does one succumb and the other resist? The research does not answer this
question, and it is difficult to answer given the current limitations in research designs.
Amato and Rogers (1997) offer an example of a longitudinal study that captures the nature of
infidelity, yet still has some weaknesses. The authors define infidelity in terms of a sexual relationship
with someone else, and they ask questions of only one of the partners in the relationship. This study
highlights the difficulty of collecting accurate data even in longitudinal studies. For longitudinal studies
to be more accurate, on-going data need to be collected that specifically address all aspects of infidelity
(e.g., emotional, sexual, and the like) and from both partners in the relationship. It would be highly useful
if data were collected on individuals and relationships in the midst of infidelity. Admittedly, such studies
are complex, sensitive, labor intensive, and expensive to carry out.

The Lack of Random Sampling in Many Studies

Some studies analyzed data from large, national samples (Amato & Rogers, 1997; Atkins et al., 2001;
Laumann et al., 1994). In large part, these studies were designed to gather general data on relationships,
not necessarily to focus directly on the subject of infidelity. As you may notice (Appendix), most studies
that gathered data specifically about infidelity used nonrandom samples, and several studies based their
findings on clinical samples (e.g., Beach et al., 1985; Schneider, Corley, & Irons, 1998).
The samples themselves are one of the biggest critiques of infidelity studies. Large, national samples
tend to omit important data and are too general, missing the unique experiences of participants. The smaller
samples have their limitations as well; for example, the widely cited Glass and Wright (1985) study is based
on a commuter sample that includes relatively wealthy, Caucasian individuals. Although Olson et al. (2002)
attempted to examine individual experiences through qualitative methods, their sample is skewed toward
women, offended partners, married individuals, and Caucasians.

The Issue of Analyses of Variables

In general, infidelity researchers have used weak and unsophisticated statistical models to analyze
data, and the models used to explain infidelity are subsequently simplistic. Although the analyses used in
the studies we reviewed were appropriate for the questions asked, there is a need for both more complex
models of infidelity explanation and more rigorous statistical analyses. Atkins et al. (2001), in critiquing
infidelity studies, conclude that even when studies are randomized, researchers
have not used a multivariable modeling strategy in predicting infidelity . . . [and] when the
relationship between potential predictors and infidelity is not assessed in a single model,
important issues such as interactions among predictors, multicollinearity, and the combined
influence of multiple predictors cannot be assessed. (p. 736)
Studies like that conducted by Atkins et al. (2001) attempt to address some of these concerns by including
a random, national sample that analyzes variables “within a single regression model, allowing interactions
among predictors and controlling for the joint influence of multiple predictors” (p. 736).

The Issue of Age of Data

Another important issue to consider in looking at data on infidelity is the actual age of the data. For
example, some of the better studies offer data that are now quite outdated (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983;
Glass & Wright, 1985; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). In the last 20 years, many changes have occurred in
attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles. Therefore, it is likely that the results of some studies may
not accurately reflect the struggles of contemporary couples. For example, internet relationships are

190 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

a relatively new occurrence, and internet infidelity has affected some couples in ways we do not yet
understand.

The Issue of Comparison Groups

Comparison groups are rarely included in infidelity studies (a notable exception is Cano & O’ Leary,
2000), yet they could be very helpful in answering some important questions about the subject. For example,
we could find few studies that compare those who engage in infidelity with those who do not. A study that
concludes that low sexual satisfaction is related to infidelity does not address why those in relationships
with equally low or even lower sexual satisfaction do not engage in infidelity. Another example is that some
studies report that African American men are more vulnerable to engaging in infidelity (Amato & Rogers,
1997; Smith, 1991). However, we know little about the differences between African American men who
do and who do not engage in infidelity. We believe that comparison groups can help to understand what
makes people vulnerable to infidelities—why some engage in them, and why others, who share the same
or similar vulnerabilities, do not.

The Issue of Real-Life Infidelity

In our review of the studies on infidelity, it quickly became apparent that many of the studies that claim
to focus on infidelity do not in fact research infidelity directly. Instead, using vignettes or hypothetical
situations, these studies explore participants’ perceived reactions to hypothesized or fantasized infidelity.
This is problematic in arriving at conclusions, because these are situations in which infidelity has not in
fact taken place. Moreover, these samples are often convenience samples of undergraduate psychology
classes, rendering the conclusions drawn even less relevant to real-life infidelity. For example, Charny and
Parnass (1995) asked therapists to comment on infidelity in relationships they knew about from their own
lives or the lives of their acquaintances. However, readers of this study have no idea what is in the minds
of the participants as they answer the questions; nor do readers know what infidelity situation the study
participants are thinking about. Harris (2002), in a study of sexual and romantic jealousy that compared
hypothetical to actual infidelity situations, concluded that “responses to hypothetical infidelity were
uncorrelated with reactions to actual infidelity” (p. 7).

The Issue of Couple Data

One of the difficulties of doing research on couples has long been that it is a challenge to obtain
accurate relational data—that is, data that represent accurately the views of both members of a relationship
(Thompson & Walker, 1982). The vast majority of studies listed in the Appendix collected data from only
one individual in the relationship. Exceptions include Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) and Schneider et al.
(1998); these authors collected data from both partners and then coded their responses so that they could
be compared. Buunk (1982) collected data from both partners in a relationship, but he does not appear to
compare the responses in his analysis. A challenge for future researchers is to incorporate views from both
partners in both the data collection and analysis phases of the research such that the validity of the results
is enhanced.

DIRECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As we have described, much of the current infidelity research is troubled by design flaws, sampling
limitations, and ambiguous language. Correcting these errors offers researchers countless opportunities to
extend our understanding of infidelity and its effects.

Definitional Considerations
In light of our discussion of definitional difficulties earlier in the article, we suggest a broad definition
of infidelity that might be used in future research endeavors. In addition, we offer specific definitional
considerations to improve consistency across studies. Our broad definition of infidelity is the following:
Infidelity is a sexual and/or emotional act engaged in by one person within a committed relationship,

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 191

where such an act occurs outside of the primary relationship and constitutes a breach of trust and/or
violation of agreed-upon norms (overt and covert) by one or both individuals in that relationship in
relation to romantic/emotional or sexual exclusivity.
We propose that this definition will facilitate greater comparisons between studies if researchers
consider the following characteristics when conducting research. First, researchers need to ask participants
whether the reported infidelity incident constituted a breach of trust in the relationship related to romantic/
emotional or sexual exclusivity. Further, when it comes to the issues of romantic/emotional and sexual
exclusivity, we suggest that researchers adopt the continuums of Glass and Wright (1985, 1992). Regarding
sexual involvement, they use a 6-point continuum, which ranges from no sexual or physical involvement,
to kissing, petting, sexual intimacy without intercourse, and sexual intimacy involving intercourse (Glass &
Wright, 1985). They further specify a 5-point continuum to measure emotional/romantic involvement that
ranges from no emotional involvement to extremely deep emotional involvement. Finally, Glass and Wright
(1985) ask their participants to identify, using a 6-point continuum, if the infidelity was more emotional
or more sexual.
In addition, we suggest that research on infidelity include specific criteria—related to our general
definition above—that will more richly describe the specific study. The criteria described in the following
paragraphs build on Thompson’s (1983) ideas, and they ideally are specific and essential components of
future infidelity research.
Description of the primary relationship in which infidelity occurs. Studies must specify whether
the primary relationship is a marriage, committed relationship, dating relationship, heterosexual, gay,
lesbian, open, bisexual, or some combination thereof. Ideally, research could further clarify the nature and
meanings of different kinds of infidelity in each of these relationships. As a result, comparisons could then
be made between the types of relationships specifically explored in various infidelity studies.
Specification of the behaviors engaged in by the partner engaged in infidelity. The concept of
infidelity is often misrepresented by an exclusive focus on sexual intercourse. If we accept the definition
of infidelity as a breach of agreed-upon trust between two people, clearly sexual intercourse is not the only
behavior that might be defined as infidelity in a relationship. As a result, to facilitate comparisons between
studies, specifications of the types of infidelity explored are essential.
Definitions and attitudes toward infidelity by partners in the primary relationship. In addition to the
lack of consensus among researchers about what constitutes infidelity, there is a similar lack of agreement
on how couples define infidelity. Clearly, this word has different meanings from relationship to relationship.
It is further important to specify if the primary relationship partner in some way sanctions the secondary
relationship. If so, then that relationship would not be considered infidelity, per se, but something else
entirely.

Other Considerations
It is important to distinguish whether infidelity is a first-time problem in a relationship or whether it
is actually a series of problems in a series of relationships. Further, it is important to ascertain the length
of the infidelity in relation to the primary relationship and length of time since infidelity occurred. As we
have noted, infidelity has different meanings, and the length of the infidelity can influence these meanings.
For example, a one-night stand in a 25-year marriage may have significantly different meanings when
compared with a 20-year affair in the context of a 25-year marriage. We also believe it is important to
include information on the number, gender, and descriptors of infidelity-related partners. For example, is
the individual who is engaging in infidelity intensely involved with one individual, or are there numerous
infidelities occurring? It is further important to ascertain if infidelities are same-sex or opposite-sex
relationships, as this might influence meanings of infidelity in relationships.
Researchers’ values in regard to infidelity may also influence study results. For example, a researcher
who is an advocate of open marital relationships may ask different questions and arrive at different
conclusions than would a more conservative researcher. Likewise, researchers who have been affected
by infidelity in their own relationships may investigate the topic from a different perspective than others
who have not experienced infidelity. We found no studies that described the researchers’ values regarding

192 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

infidelity, and although we are not suggesting that researchers disclose their own experience/s with
infidelity, an acknowledgement of values may prove to be very helpful in this work.
How researchers’ values may influence results may be similar to allegiance effects that occur in
outcome studies (Sprenkle & Blow, 2004; Wampold, 2001). In theory, research is a neutral and value-
independent endeavor; however, this ideal seems rare in practice. Researchers often investigate topics that
appeal to them because of their personal experiences, and some may have axes to grind. For example, a
researcher who engages in infidelity research to help her understand the philandering of her spouse may
seek unwittingly to prove her preconceived hypotheses—similar to the ways in which researchers who
study their own models inadvertently work harder to validate them. Although we acknowledge that this
might be a controversial suggestion, we believe that all researchers who explore value-laden topics should
disclose their values—specifically so readers may have an understanding of the intent behind the research.
For example, a researcher who believes that children raised in gay households will be harmed may be more
likely to find harmful effects than researchers who passionately believe that no harm will occur.
We found several questions not yet explored in the infidelity literature. For example, although the
nonresearch literature (Brown, 2001; Pittman, 1989) reports on different types of affairs—philandering,
love, one-night stands, or emotional connection—research literature has not tapped into these categories,
and neither has it addressed methods of treatment for different types of infidelities. Such exploration could
be helpful, as it seems natural to conclude that these infidelities have different meanings in relationships and
that treatment differs for different categories of infidelity. Infidelity rooted in the context of sexual compul-
sivity, for example, may be best treated from an addictions model, whereas infidelity rooted in power
dynamics of a relationship may need a more relational approach. The internet is also an untapped area when
it comes to infidelity. Some examples of unanswered questions are: Has the internet given individuals an
increased opportunity to engage in infidelity? Has this increased the rates of infidelity? To what extent is
infidelity in relationships fostered or hindered because of the internet? Future studies should also explore
what makes individuals and relationships vulnerable to infidelity. Glass and Wright (1992) suggest that
it would be useful to determine pathways toward future types of extra-relational involvement. This kind
of research has been helpful in the premarital and marital literature in regards to prediction of divorce
(Gottman, 1995). Another unexamined point of vulnerability is the multigenerational transmission of
infidelity. Given the interesting results gleaned from research on the multigenerational transmission of, for
example, alcoholism and depression, studies of intergenerational processes related to infidelity may have
similarly fruitful results. Another area that the current research has not addressed concerns relationships
that are formed as a result of infidelity—be it emotional, sexual, or both. Do these relationships make it,
and what are their unique challenges?
Hurlbert (1992) offers sound research direction, recommending that researchers examine the previously
ignored elements of infidelities, such as how people decide to begin and end infidelities, how infidelities
evolve over time, and the “interaction sequences that precede, include, and follow extramarital sexual
activity” (p. 112). Hurlbert, like others, also advocates for longitudinal research as a means of gathering
more accurate, useful data about the impact of infidelity on individuals and relationships. Although
longitudinal designs are time consuming and expensive, we recommend that longitudinal relationship
research include more specific assessments of infidelity-related variables.
Treatment options for couples wanting to recover from infidelity are still severely limited. In our
review, we found only two recent research articles that specifically explored the treatment of infidelity
(Atkins et al., 2005; Gordon et al., 2004). It would be helpful to ascertain why individuals react differently
to infidelity. Are responses that are more traumatic related to previous hurts, the couples’ dynamic, the
nature of the infidelity, or some other issue? Further, additional qualitative studies along the lines of Olson
et al. (2002) would help clinicians to understand more clearly the process of recovery from infidelity.
Finally, intentionally separating different complexities of presenting problems in outcome studies (Atkins
et al., 2005) adds to our understanding of which types of presenting problems are best suited to which type
of treatment strategy. In this study, couples in which infidelity remained a secret did not improve when
compared to couples where infidelity was known. In doing more of this kind of research, we may find that
long-term outcomes are different depending on the specific issues that the couples are dealing with and

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 193

how the issue plays out in their relational dynamics. For example, emotional infidelity may be much more
difficult to treat and have far poorer outcomes than a one-night stand on a business trip.
One final observation, we could not help but notice that the major journals in the marriage and family
therapy field contain only a limited number of research articles related to infidelity. We find the lack of
field-specific infidelity research to be curious and worrisome given the pervasive challenge of working
with couples affected by infidelity.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have attempted to review the methodology of all research addressing infidelity in
committed relationships. Notably, we have concluded that infidelity research is limited, beginning with
basic definitional and methodological issues. We provide suggestions for improving these methodologies
along with directions for future research. We also provide a detailed appendix outlining the major studies
on the topic and their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is our hope that researchers will be able to
answer many of the important questions related to the subject in future studies.

REFERENCES

References marked with a double asterisk are found in the Appendix alone.

**Afifi,W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational transgression: The role of
discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291–308.
Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement. Family Process, 43,
467–488.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal
of Family Issues, 24, 602–626.
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 59, 612–624.
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample.
Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.
Atkins, D. C., Eldridge, K. A., Baucom, D. H., & Christensen, A. (2005). Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy: Optimism
in the face of betrayal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 144–150.
Beach, S. R. H., Jouriles, E. N., & O’Leary, K. D. (1985). Extramarital sex: Impact on depression and commitment in couples
seeking marital therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 11, 99–108.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow.
**Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191–204.

Brown, E. M. (1999). Affairs: A guide to working through the repercussions of infidelity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Brown, E. M. (2001). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Buunk, B. (1982). Strategies of jealousy: Styles of coping with extramarital involvement of the spouse. Family Relations, 31,
13–18.
Buunk, B. (1984). Jealousy as related to attributions for the partner’s behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 107–112.
Buunk, B. (1987). Conditions that promote breakups as a consequence of extradyadic involvements. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 5, 271–284.
Cano, A., & O’Leary, D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive episodes and symptoms of nonspecific
depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 774–781.
Charny, I. W., & Parnass, S. (1995). The impact of extramarital relationships on the continuation of marriages. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 21, 100–115.
Choi, K. H., Catania, J. A., & Dolcini, M. M. (1994). Extramarital sex and HIV risk behavior among US adults: Results from
the National AIDS Behavioral Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 2003–2007.
Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 58, 33–47.
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles,
12, 1101–1120.

194 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behaviors,
and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 361–387.
Glass, S. P. (2002). Not “just friends”: Protect your relationship from infidelity and heal the trauma of betrayal. New York:
Free Press.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital
affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–246.
Gottman, J. M. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail and how you can make yours last. New York: Fireside.
**Hansen, G. L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 382–390.

Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy
reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082–1091.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7–12.
**Hertlein, K. M., Ray, R., Wetchler, J. L., & Killmer, J. M. (2003). The role of differentiation in extradyadic relationships.

Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 2, 33–50.

Hurlbert, D. F. (1992). Factors influencing a woman’s decision to end an extramarital sexual relationship. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 18, 104–113.
Johnson, R. E. (1970). Some correlates of extramarital coitus. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 449–456.
Knodel, J., Low, B., Saengtienchai, C., & Lucas, R. (1997). An evolutionary perspective on Thai sexual attitudes and behavior.
Journal of Sex Research, 34, 292–303.
Kurdek, L.A. (1991). Sexuality in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in
close relationships (pp. 177–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in
the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leigh, B. C., Temple, M. T., & Trocki, K. F. (1993). The sexual behavior of US adults: Results from a national survey. American
Journal of Public Health, 83, 1400–1408.
**Lieberman, B. (1988). Extrapremarital intercourse: Attitudes toward a neglected sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research,

24, 291–299.
**Liu, C. (2000). A theory of marital sexual life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 363–374.

Locke, H., & Wallace, K. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and
Family Living, 2, 251–255.
**Meyering, R. A., & Epling-McWherter, E. A. (1986). Decision-making in extramarital relationships. Lifestyles: A Journal of

Changing Patterns, 8, 115–129.

Nannini, D. K., & Meyers, L. S. (2000). Jealousy in sexual and emotional infidelity: An alternative to the evolutionary
expansion. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 117–123.
Olson, M. M., Russell, C. S., Higgins-Kessler, M., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Emotional processes following disclosure of an
extramarital affair. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 423–434.
Pinsof, W. M., & Wynne, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). The efficacy of marital and family therapy: An empirical overview, conclusions,
and recommendations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 585–613.
Pittman, F. S. (1989). Private lies: Infidelity and the betrayal of intimacy. New York: Norton.
**Prins, K. S., Buunk, B. P., & VanYperen, N. W. (1993). Equity, normative disapproval, and extramarital relationships. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 39–53.

Pulerwitz, J., Izazola-Licea, J. A., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2001). Extrarelational sex among Mexican men and their partners’ risk
of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1650–1652.
**Reiss, I. L., Anderson, R. E., & Sponaugle, G. C. (1980). A multivariate model of the determinants of extramarital sexual

permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 395–411.

Schneider, J. P., Corley, M. D., & Irons, R.R. (1998). Surviving disclosure of infidelity: Results of an international survey of 164
recovering sex addicts and partners. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 5, 189–217.
**Schneider, J. P., Irons, R. R., & Corley, M. D. (1999). Disclosure of extramarital sexual activities by sexually exploitative

professionals and other persons with addictive or compulsive sexual disorders. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy,
24, 277–287.
**Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997a). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045.

Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997b). Anticipation of marital dissolution as a consequence of spousal infidelity. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 793–808.
Smith, T. W. (1991). Adult sexual behavior in 1989: Number of partners, frequency of intercourse, and risk of AIDS. Family
Planning Perspectives, 23, 102–107.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 195

Solstad, K., & Mucic, D. (1999). Extramarital sexual relationships of middle-aged Danish men: Attitudes and behavior.
Maturitas, 32, 51–59.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
**Spanier, G. B., & Margolis, R. L. (1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19,

23–48.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Blow, A. J. (2004). Common factors and our sacred models. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30,
113–129.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Weis, D. L. (1978). Extramarital sexuality: Implications for marital therapists. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 4, 279–291.
Spring, J. A. (1996). After the affair: Healing the pain and rebuilding trust when a partner has been unfaithful. New York:
HarperCollins.
Sweeney, M. M., & Horwitz, A. V. (2001). Infidelity, initiation, and the emotional climate of divorce: Are there implications for
mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 295–309.
Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22.
**Thompson, A. P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

46, 35–42.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 44, 889–900.
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62, 48–60.
Vanlandingham, M., Knodel, J., Saengtienchai, C., & Pramualratana, A. (1998). In the company of friends: Peer influence on
Thai male extramarital sex. Social Science and Medicine, 47, 1993–2011.
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
**Weis, D. L., & Jurich, J. (1985). Size of community of residence as a predictor of attitudes toward extramarital sexual

relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 173–178.

Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple problems and treatment issues in
couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361–366.
**White, R., Cleland, J., & Carael, M. (2000). Links between premarital sexual behaviour and extramarital intercourse: a multi-

site analysis. AIDS, 14, 2323–2331.

**Widmer, E. D., Treas, J., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. Journal of Sex Research,

35, 349–358.
**Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34,

167–174.
**Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Expectations and attributions regarding extramarital sex among young married

individuals. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 21–35.

Wiederman, M. W., & LaMar, L. (1998). “Not with him you don’t!” Gender and emotional reactions to sexual infidelity during
courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 288–297.
Wiggins, J. D., & Lederer, D. A. (1984). Differential antecedents of infidelity in marriage. American Mental Health Counselors
Association Journal, 6, 152–161.
Worth, H., Reid, A., & McMillan, K. (2002). Somewhere over the rainbow: Love, trust, and monogamy in gay relationships.
Journal of Sociology, 38, 237–253.

196 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 APPENDIX

Appendix Key: SS: Sample Size; A: Mean Age; R: Race; SES: Socioeconomic Status; Ed: Years of
Education; %M: Percent Married; CR: Committed Relationship; RL: Length of Marriage/Relationship in
Years; %I: Percent Engaged in Infidelity; NR: Not Reported; NA: Not Applicable; AA: African American;
C: Caucasian; H: Hispanic; AS: Asian; O: Other; (+)/(–): Strength/Weakness; M: Male; F: Female; EMS:
Extramarital sex; EDI: Extradyadic sexual involvement; EM: Extramarital; Rel: Relationship.

Authors Study Design Particular

Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Afifi, Definition of Infidelity: Used the identity manage- (+) Used data from actual
Falato, & Cheating; sexual and/or ment framework to explore cheating experiences
Weiner romantic involvement. (+) the relationship between only.
(2001) Sample Characteristics: the infidelity discovery and (+) Controlled for defini-
SS: 115 (+); F 54%, M subsequent relational out- tion of infidelity.
46%. A: 20. R: 85%C, comes. (+) Includes data on
10%AS. SES: NR. Ed: Participants completed a sur- length of time since
High. %M: 0. RL: NR. vey related to cheating in infidelity.
%I: 100. relationships and measures (–) Sample: Nonrandom,
related to impact of infi- college sample of dat-
delity including relational ing relationships.
outcome, forgiveness, and
quality change in relation-
ship.

Allen & Definition of Infidel- Explored relationships (+) Analysis of actual

Baucom ity: Romantic or sexual between extradyadic infidelity situations.
(2004) behavior ranging from involvement and adult (+) Anonymous comple-
falling in love to sexual attachment with participants tion of study materials.
intercourse. (+) reporting prior infidelity. (+) Explored a wide
Sample Characteristics: Measures included: Extra- variety of types and
Undergraduate Sample dyadic Experiences Ques- meanings of infidelity
SS: 504. A: 19 (Range tionnaire (developed for using robust statistical
17–23). R: 81% C, 13% study); questions to delin- methods and research
AA, 3% AS, 1% H, 2% eate the type of relationship design.
O. SES: NR. Ed: High. (casual, obsessive, ambiva- (–) Sample: Nonrandom
%M: NR. RL: At least lent, close, contained); via convenience sam-
one month. %I: 69 (204 Experiences in Close pling and self-selection
females and 141 males). Relationships Inventory; of participants.
Community Sample SS: The Relationship Question- (–) Sample: Educated;
250; M 47%, F 53%. Age: naire; Impression Manage- largely Caucasian.
40 (range 21–84). R: 86% ment Scale of the Balanced (–) Retrospective data.
C, 11% AA, 1% AS, 1% Inventory of Desirable (–) Reliance on self-
H, 1% O. SES: NR. Ed: Responding. report.
High %M: 100. RL: NR
%I: 46; M 25%, F 21%.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 197

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Amato Definition of Infidelity: 17-year longitudinal study that (+) Sample: Random,
& Previti Cheating on a spouse; investigated why people’s national, longitudinal.
(2003) leaving spouse for another marriages ended in divorce. (–) Sample: Data on mar-
partner. (+) Contacted those in the sample riage only.
Sample Characteristics: whose marriages ended in (–) Data collected from
SS: 208 (+); F 63%, M divorce to find out the rea- one spouse only.
37%. A: 45 (at divorce). son why.
R: 91% C. SES: NR. Ed:
13. %M: all divorced. RL:
16. %I: 18.4

Amato & Definition of Infidelity: Longitudinal study that (+) Sample: Random,
Rogers EMS. (–) explored the extent to which national, longitudinal.
(1997) Sample Characteristics: marital problems, among (–) Ambiguous wording
SS: 2034 (+). A: < 55. R: them infidelity, predict of infidelity-related
NR. SES: Moderate. Ed: divorce. Data analysis based question; could mean
14. %M: 100 (at outset of on individuals for whom sexual experiences in
study). 84 at later data col- information on marital sta- relationships prior to
lection point. RL: 13. %I: tus existed at two or more marriage.
M 4; F 2. points in time. (–) Sample: Marriage
only.
(–) Data collected from
one spouse only.

Atkins, Definition of Infidelity: In one model, examined (+) Sample: Large,

Baucom, & EMS. (–) the influence of various random, national.
Jacobson Sample Characteristics: predictor variables on the (+) Tested assertions of
(2001) SS: 4118 (+) (General likelihood of engaging in previous research.
Social Survey of National infidelity. (+) (–) Sample: Married.
Opinion Research Cen- Multivariable modeling (–) Infidelity is not
ter). A: 18+. R: NR. SES: procedure. necessarily present in
Measured, but NR. Ed: Marital satisfaction measured current relationship.
Measured, but NR. %M: through single question. (–) Could refer to previous
100. RL: NR. %I: 13. relationship.
(–) Retrospective, cross-
sectional design.

198 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Atkins, Definition of Infidelity: Exploratory study that inves- (+) Sample: Random
Eldridge, A sexual and/or secret tigated outcomes of therapy assignment to one of
Baucom, & emotional relationship with couples experiencing two treatment groups.
Christensen with someone other than infidelity. (+) Study measured treat-
(2005) spouse. (+) Participants were distressed ment outcome using
Sample Characteristics: couples who sought multiple data collection
SS: 134 couples; 19 infi- treatment. Couples points throughout treat-
delity.(-) A: M 43, F 41. assessed at four points ment.
R: 78% C, 7% AA, 5% in treatment using the (+) Data included mul-
AS, 5% H, 4% O. SES: Dyadic Adjustment Scale tiple criteria related
Moderate to high. Ed: and Marital Satisfaction to infidelity and were
High. %M: 100. RL: 8.5. Inventory–Revised. analyzed using a com-
%I: 100% of couples in Therapist also completed a plex statistical model
study; 58% M; 42% F. questionnaire that measured (Hierarchical Linear
specific attributes of the Modeling).
infidelity relationship. (+) Included helpful
contextual couple data
(e.g., number of chil-
dren).
(–) Sample: Married.
Specific demographics
of infidelity sample not
reported.

Beach, Definition of Infidelity: Explored the effects of (–) Sample: Nonrandom,

Jouriles, & EMS. (–) EMS on depression and clinical sample, mar-
O’Leary Sample Characteristics: commitment in couples ried, no diversity data.
(1985) SS: 120 couples (only 24 seeking marital therapy. (–) Given that a marital
individuals engaged in Subjects completed clinic population was
EMS) (–). A: M 35, F 33. Locke-Wallace Marital used, those who sought
R: NR. SES: NR. Ed: NR. Adjustment Test, Broderick divorce immediately
%M: 100. RL: 10. %I: 20. Commitment Scale, Beck following disclosure
Depression Inventory, 30- are not represented.
minute face-to-face separate
interview.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 199

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Blumstein Definition of Infidelity: This study explored how cou- (+) Sample: Random,
& Schwartz Nonmonogamy. (+) ples put their lives together national, including a
(1983) Sample Characteristics: and gathered a diverse diverse array of cou-
SS: 3574 couples (+). A: range of data on couples ples in terms of sexual
Husbands 39.9, wives including money, sex, and orientation, values, and
37.3, cohabiting men 32.3, work. contextual conditions.
cohabiting women 29.7, Data collected by means of (+) Data collected from
gay men 35.2, lesbians a survey filled out by both both partners in a cou-
32.2. R: 95% C, 2% AA, partners in a relationship ple and coding used to
1% AS, 2% H, 1% O. as well as by face-to-face ensure that these data
SES: Wide range. Ed: interviews with couples could be compared.
Wide range. %M: 1203 in their own homes. Each (+) Collected detailed
Married, 642 Cohabiting, person was interviewed data on number of mar-
957 Gay, 772 Lesbian. privately as well as together riages, gays and les-
RL: Married 13.9, cohab- with his or her partner. bians, cohabiting cou-
iting 2.5, gay 6.0, lesbian ples, religion, children,
3.7. %I: NR. political persuasion.
(–) Data outdated (study
began in 1975).

Bogaert Definition of Infidelity: Explored the relationship (+) Sample: Inclusive of

& Sadava Affair. (+/–) between adult attachment all kinds of relation-
(2002) Sample Characteristics: processes and sexuality. ships.
SS: 792 (+) (from the Measures: Simpson’s mea- (+) Used complex statisti-
Niagara Young Adult sure of adult attachment; cal procedures.
Health Study). A: 28. R: questions related to sexual (–) Sample: Nonrandom;
62% Canadian. SES: Low. behavior including infidelity young adults.
Ed: NR. %M/CR: 72%. in past year.
RL: NR. %I: 5.

Buunk Definition of Infidelity: Examined the ways in which (+) Members of the sam-
(1982) EMS. (–) people cope with their ple had long-term EM
Sample Characteristics: spouse engaging in EMS or relationships.
SS: 50 couples (–). A: a long-lasting EM relation- (+) Study gathers couple
73% 27–46. R: Dutch. ship. data.
SES: High. Ed: 51% high. Each spouse completed (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
%M: 100. RL: NR. %I: questionnaire separately
100. and explored demograph-
ics, jealousy coping style,
relationship satisfaction,
neuroticism, self-esteem.

200 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Buunk Definition of Infidelity: Explored conditions that (+) Sample: Includes both
(1987) EDI. (–) promote breakups in mar- married (68%) and
Sample Characteris- riage as a result of EDIs. cohabiting (31%). All
tics: SS: 44 (–). A: 55% Compared individuals subjects in both groups
27–46. R: Dutch. SES: whose relationships had and involved in EDI within
High. Ed: High. %M/CR: had not ended as a result of the last two years.
100% divorced or no EDI. (+) Comparison groups
longer together vs. 100% Subjects filled out question- helps ascertain why
together in matched naires that explored some relationships end
control group. RL: NR. attitudes toward EDIs; and some do not.
%I: 80. Control group push forces (high costs and (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
matched on education, low rewards in primary (–) Overrepresentation of
sex, age, length of rela- relationship); general level individuals with neu-
tionship, and number of of relational dissatisfaction tral/positive attitudes
children. and extent to which it was towards EDI.
viewed as the cause for (–) Questionnaire filled
the EDI; degree of conflict out in home.
generated by EDI; pull (–) Not able to control
forces (general positive for the effects of the
evaluation of alternatives divorce/breakup on the
to primary relationship); participants’ responses.
number of EDIs in past;
degree of involvement
in EDI at the moment of
breakup; attitude toward
short and long-term EDIs;
attribution for separation.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 201

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Cano & Definition of Infidelity: Study examined whether (+) Study includes a
O’Leary Infidelity referred to humiliating marital events, comparison group
(2000) generically. (+) including infidelity, pre- (comparable) to control
Sample Characteristics: cipitated major depressive for interfering variables
Group One SS: 25 (-). A: episodes and symptoms of such as marital discord.
41. R: C. SES: High. Ed: nonspecific depression and (+) Study quantifies the
14. %M: NR. RL: 13. %I: anxiety while controlling effects of infidelity on
44 of husbands. for marital discord, depres- the mental health of
Group Two SS: 25 (-). A: sion, stressful life events. individuals.
41. R: C. SES: High. Ed: 15. The study included two (–) Sample: Caucasian,
%M: 100. RL: 14. %I: 0. groups. Group one had married, high SES,
experienced discovery of non-random. View-
husband’s infidelity, sepa- points of women only.
ration/divorce as a result (–) Unclear how the sam-
of infidelity, or marked ple viewed infidelity.
violence. Group two was (–) Possible that some
a “maritally discordant” women did not call
group who had had no about the study because
humiliating marital events they were experiencing
in the previous 6 months. more severe depres-
Measures included: Dyadic sion.
Adjustment Scale, Mood
and Anxiety Symptom
Questionnaire, Structured
Clinical Interview for Diag-
nostic Statistical Manual-IV,
family history of depression
questionnaire.

Charny & Definition of Infidelity: Explored the impact of EMS (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
Parnass Sexual relationship. (–) on the continuation of (–) Therapists give views
(1995) Sample Characteristics: marriages. Study gathered related to recollection
SS: 62 (–). A: NR. R: perceptions of therapists of affairs, but there is
Israeli. SES: NR. Ed: NR. related to infidelity. no way of knowing
%M: NR. RL: NR. %I: Subjects completed a ques- what they had in mind.
100. tionnaire seeking in-depth It is possible that they
information about an affair remember the most
the subjects knew a lot personal cases.
about (person involved in (–) Values and experi-
affair could be client, fam- ences of therapists
ily/friend, or therapist them- clearly bias their
selves). memories.

202 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Choi, Definition of Infidelity: Examined the prevalence and (+) Sample: Over-
Catania, Vaginal/anal intercourse. correlates of EMS among sampled African
& Dolcini (–) heterosexual respondents. American and Hispanic
(1994) Sample Characteristics Used phone to collect data on populations. Includes a
(National AIDS Behav- monogamy beliefs, church national, random sam-
ioral Survey). National attendance, sexual problems ple, an urban sample,
SS: 1525 (+). Age: 18–75. of subject and spouse, sex- and a special Hispanic
R: AA, C, H. SES: Bal- ual communication, gender, urban sample.
anced. Ed: Balanced. %M: education, age, and EMS. (–) Sample: Married.
100. RL: NR. %I: 2.2. (–) Phone surveys may
Urban SS: 3184 (+). Age lead to omission of
Range: 18-75. R: AA, C, infidelity information.
H. SES: Balanced. Ed:
Balanced. %M: 100. RL:
NR. %I: 2.5.

Forste & Definition of Infidelity: Examined sexual exclusivity (+) Sample: Random.
Tanfer Sexual activity. (–) among dating, cohabiting, Over-sampled African
(1996) Sample Characteristics: and married women. American and Hispanic
SS: 1235 (+) (from Included two subsamples, women.
National Survey of and the variables of age, (+) Looks at the differ-
Women). A: 41% 25–29. religion, education, gender, ences between married,
R: 16% AA, 8% H. SES: race and ethnicity, SES, cohabitating, and dat-
NR. Ed: 58% at least number of previous sex ing women.
some college. %M: 49. partners, length of relation- (+) Explored multiple
RL: 4. %I: 4 married, 20 ship, currently married and variables.
cohabiting, 18 dating. previously cohabited, cur- (–) Sample: Women only;
rently married and have not heterosexual focus.
previously cohabited, sexual (–) Study unable to con-
exclusivity among dating trol for acculturation in
women, sexual exclusivity analyses, making eth-
among married women, nicity data murky.
sexual exclusivity among (–) Study reports dif-
cohabiting women. ficulty in determining
how education affects
results (i.e., does higher
education represent dif-
ferences in resources
or in nontraditional or
liberal attitudes?).

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 203

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Glass & Definition of Infidelity: Explored gender differences (+) Sample: Partial
Wright Emotional EM involve- in EM affairs, as well as the national representation.
(1985) ment or sexual EM relationship between marital (+) Includes emotional
involvement. (+) dissatisfaction and the type involvement.
Sample Characteristics: of EM involvement. (+) Anonymous data col-
SS: 301 (+). A: M 38, F Survey and measures lection.
36 (median). R: C. SES: included marital satisfaction (–) Sample: Nonrandom;
Middle-upper. Ed: High. measured on a single self- Caucasian, middle-
%M: 100. RL: M 13, F report item, a 17-item scale upper class, educated,
10 (median). %I: M 44, F to measure justifications for professionals, com-
24 (sexual); M 51, F 49 EM relationships, Guttman muter group (data
(emotional). scale to measure EM sexual collected at airport),
behavior, questions related married.
to satisfaction in marriage
and EM emotional involve-
ment.

Glass & Definition of Infidelity: Explored the extent to which (+) Partial national repre-
Wright Variety of sexual activi- individuals would feel justi- sentation.
(1992) ties explored, rather than fied in having EM relation- (+) Anonymous data col-
a focus on intercourse. ships. lection.
Also looks at emotional Survey and measures (+) Focused on broad
affairs. (+) included Locke-Wallace range of sexual and
Sample Characteris- Marital Adjustment, survey emotional connections.
tics: SS: 303 (+). A: items ranking justifications, (–) Sample: Nonrandom;
M 40, F 37. R: C. SES: measure of degree of EM Caucasian, commuter
Middle-upper. Ed: Very sexual involvement, emo- (data collected at air-
high. %M: 100. RL: M tional involvement, or both. port), middle-to-upper
15, F 13. %I: M 44, F class professionals,
25 (sexual); M 63, F 47 married.
(emotional). (–) Appears to be the
exact same data set as
reported in the above
1985 study.

204 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Gordon, Definition of Infidelity: Study used a replicated case (+) Replicated case study
Baucom, Affair/Extramarital affair study design to explore the design presenting both
& Snyder (seems to assume sexual efficacy of an integrative quantitative and quali-
(2004) relationship). (–) treatment for couples deal- tative data.
Sample Characteristics: ing with the aftermath of (+) Provides outcome
SS: Six couples. (-) A: F infidelity. Data collected at data for infidelity treat-
31, M 35. R: 10% C; 1% various points in the treat- ment intervention.
H; 1% AA. SES: NR. Ed: ment, as well as at 6-month (+) Included helpful
NR. %M: 5 of 6 couples. follow-up. All couples com- contextual couple data
RL: 4. %I: 100% (4 M, pleted treatment. Measures: (e.g., number of chil-
2 F) Beck Depression Inventory, dren).
Marital Satisfaction Inven- (–) Sample: Small. Volun-
tory-Revised, and a For- teers who responded to
giveness Inventory. media announcements.
(–) Exclusion criteria.
(–) Videotaping may have
influenced outcomes.

Hansen Definition of Infidelity: Focused on extradyadic rela- (+) Data collected anony-
(1987) Infidelity asked about in tionships during committed mously.
terms of erotic kissing, dating relationships and (–)(+) Courtship focus.
petting, and sexual inter- courtship. (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
course (no way to distin- Questionnaire gathered data Limited to sociology
guish between the three in on extradyadic relations, students at southern
the responses). (–) religiosity, sexual attitude university; largely Cau-
Sample Characteristics: (liberal or conservative), casian.
SS: 215 (+). A: 21. R: extradyadic permissiveness
81% C. SES: NR. Ed: (Reiss’ EM permis-
NR. %M: All subjects had siveness scale), gender
been in a committed dat- role orientation (Brogan &
ing relationship. RL: NR. Kutner’s scale), premarital
%I: M 65, F 40 (kissing); sexual activity, extradyadic
M 47, F 19 (petting); M permissiveness, gender,
35, F 12 (sex). years subject dating (not
length of relationship), and
extradyadic relations during
courtship.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 205

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Harris Definition of Infidelity: Study examined sexual and (+) Sample: Included
(2002) Romantic involvement, romantic jealousy in het- subjects of both homo-
sexual involvement, emo- erosexual and homosexual sexual and heterosexual
tional involvement. (+) adults. Also looked at the orientations.
Sample Character- differences between hypo- (+) Sample: A high per-
istics: SS: 196 (+); thetical and real life infidel- centage of the sample
48 Homosexual W, 50 ity. had actual involvement
Homosexual M, 49 Participants recruited through with infidelity.
Heterosexual W, 49 ads in newspaper, peri- (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
Heterosexual M. A: 37. R: odicals, and flyers in S.
NR. SES: NR. Ed: NR. California. Handouts also
%M: NR. RL: NR %I: distributed in public places.
NR. Consisted of an anonymous
questionnaire.

Hertlein, Definition of Infidelity: Study explored the role of (+) Sample: Included
Ray, Extradyadic activity of a differentiation of self in only those who were
Wetchler, sexual or emotional nature extradyadic relationships. in a committed dating,
& Killmer that threatens the intimacy Participants were college cohabiting, or married
(2003) of the dyad (+). students who were in com- relationship.
Sample Characteristics: mitted relationships. Data (+) Measures an impor-
SS: 125 (+). A: 27. R: gathered on an infidelity tant variable of dif-
75% C, 8% AA, 12%H, scale, a differentiation-of- ferentiation of self in
2.4% AS. SES: NR. Ed: self scale, demographics, infidelity.
College students. %M: and other infidelity-related (–) Sample: Nonrandom;
NR. RL: 6. %I: 41.6. questions. college student popula-
tion.

Hurlbert Definition of Infidelity: Explored factors that influ- (–) Sample: Purposive,
(1992) Mostly emotional to ence a woman’s decision to nonrandom (selected
mostly sexual. (+) end an EM sexual relation- from workshop partici-
Sample Characteristics: ship. pants).
SS: 59 (–). A: 28. R: 85% Survey and measures (–) Used present-day
C, 10% AA, 5% H. SES: included familiarity (affair characteristics of sub-
Lower-middle. Ed: NR. length in days as well as jects to predict past
%M: 100. RL: 5. %I: 100. number of days subjects behavior.
knew partner prior to (–) Included only women
sexual intercourse), Sexual who made decision to
Opinion Survey to assess end EM sexual rela-
sexual attitudes, masculinity tionship.
subscale of personal attri- (–) Affair length con-
butes questionnaire, 8-point founded with affair
continuum to assess type of type.
affair (mostly emotional to
mostly sexual), Rubin’s lov-
ing scale to measure degree
of love.

206 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses

Knodel, Definition of Infidelity: Study collected qualitative (+) Sample: International

Low, EMS (–) data on Thai views of male perspective.
Saeng- Sample Characteristics: and female sexual behavior (+) Qualitative research.
tienchai, SS: 14 focus groups (113 including infidelity. (–) Sample: Sample
& Lucas participants) (+), 47 inter- Data collected through 14 purposive and oppor-
(1997) views (21 M). A: NR. focus groups and in-depth tunistic.
R: Thai. SES: Middle- individual interviews.
low. Ed: NR. %M: 100.
RL: NR. %I: 11/21 men
engaged in infidelity at
some point.

Kurdek Definition of Infidelity: Explored sexuality, including (+) Sample: Primarily

(1991) Sexual exclusivity. (–) infidelity, in homosexual from Midwest, but
Sample Characteristics: and heterosexual relation- includes 25 states.
SS: 220 couples (+). A: ships. (+) The study explored
31. R: NR. SES: Middle- Adapted measures for the sexuality in a wide
high. Ed: 30% college population—global rela- variety of couples
graduates, 31% some tionship satisfaction (from including homosexual,
college. %M: 22. RL: 2- Dyadic Adjustment Scale); lesbian, heterosexual,
4.5 depending on type of sexual satisfaction (from married, and unmar-
primary relationship. %I: Marital Satisfaction Scale, ried.
31, 1, 0, 4 for gay, lesbian, the Dyadic Adjustment (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
heterosexual cohabit- Scale, and the Attractions,
ing, and married couples Barriers, and Alternatives
respectively. measure); the importance of
sexual fidelity—(from Sur-
vey of Relationship Values
and from the Attractions,
Barriers, and Alternatives
measure developed for this
study).

Laumann, Definition of Infidelity: Subjects interviewed, and in (+) Sample: Random,

Gagnon, EMS (–). so doing completed a sur- national.
Michael, & Sample Characteristics: vey that captured the sexual (+) Comprehensive study
Michaels SS: 3159 (+) (National practices of the subjects. of sexual practices.
(1994) Health and Social Life
Survey). A: 18–59 range
balanced across age
groups. R: 76% C, 13%
AA, 8% H. SES: Bal-
anced. Ed: Balanced. %M:
54%; 16% divorced, 28%
never married, 2% wid-
owed. RL: NR. %I: F 20;
M 15-35.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 207

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Leigh, Definition of Infidelity: Explored the sexual behavior (+) Sample: Random.
Temple, Number of sexual partners of adults in the U.S. Ethnically diverse.
& Trocki in last year. (–) Face-to-face interviews and (+) Comprehensive study
(1993) Sample Characteristics: a 20-page, self-adminis- of sexual practices.
SS: 1907 (+). A: 67% 18– tered questionnaire that
49. R: 76% C, 13% AA, gathered information on a
9% H, 3% AS, 1% O. variety of variables includ-
SES: NR. Ed: 40% some ing infidelity.
college. %M: 58. RL: NR.
%I: 6.4% in last 5 years.

Lieberman Definition of Infidelity: Assessed attitudes towards (–) Sample: Nonrandom.

(1988) Sexual intercourse. (–) sexual intercourse in pre- Limited to one class
Sample Characteristics: marital committed relation- at one eastern US
SS: 131 (+). A: 95% 18– ships and in marriage. College.
21. R: NR. SES: NR. Ed: The survey was a 16-item, (–) Study focused
College students. %M: 0. forced-choice questionnaire on college-aged
RL: NA. %I: NR. asking for demographics students who were
and had participants agree/ not necessarily in
disagree with 11 statements long-term committed
concerning extrapremarital relationships at time of
and EMS. the study.

Liu (2000) Definition of Infidelity: Looked at the relationship (+) Rigorous quanti-
EMS. (–) between marital duration tative methodology
Sample Characteristics: and EMS. that empirically tests
SS: 1372 (+). A: M 43, Subjects were initially inter- assertions with a large
F 40. R: 83% C, 10% viewed in order to collect data set.
AA, 7% O. SES: NR. Ed: data. This study is a second- (+) Sample: National.
Average-high. %M: 100. ary analysis of data to test Includes minority
RL: 17. %I: 3.6 in previ- a theory. Data collected on populations.
ous year. marital duration, age, gen- (–) Sample: Married,
der, race, education, church heterosexual bias.
attendance, physical plea-
sure of marital sex, number
of children, health status,
sexual interests, EMS atti-
tudes, employment char-
acteristics (opportunity for
EMS), place of residence
(central city vs. rural area),
and participation in EMS.

208 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Meyering Definition of Infidelity: Study explored situational (–) Marriage focus.
& Epling- EMS. (–) determinants, motives, and (–) Sample: Nonrandom,
McWherter Sample Characteristics: restraints affecting EM Midwestern.
(1986) SS: 254 (+); M 42.5%. A: decision making.
27. R: Midwest. SES: NR. Subjects anonymously
Ed: High. %M: 41. RL: completed an extramarital
12.1. %I: NR. involvement attitude ques-
tionnaire.

Olson, Definition of Infidelity: Qualitative study looking at (+) Sound qualitative

Russell, Sexual intercourse focus interactional and emotional study focusing on after-
Higgins- is implied. (–) processes among couples math of infidelity and
Kessler, Sample Characteristics: after a spouse disclosed an aids in healing.
& Miller SS: 13 (+). A: NR. R: NR. affair. (+) Provides in-depth
(2002) SES: NR. Ed: NR. %M: Participants had to have been descriptions of real-
85. RL: NR. %I: 15 of part of a marriage in which life themes and stories
sample; 85 of spouses. infidelity had occurred and that capture the intense
had been disclosed. Two emotions for those
of the sample were the experiencing infidelity.
“offending party” and 11 (–) Sample: Marriage
the “injured party.” (–) focus, nonrandom,
Data collected via phone some subjects in couple
interviews. Interview began therapy.
with question related to the (–) Injured party predom-
“circumstances surrounding inantly women. Of the
the affair and its discovery.” two men in the sample,
Probes from an interview one is the offending
guide explored emotional party.
and relationship processes (–) Study skewed in the
surrounding disclosure. direction of people who
Subjects were asked what stayed married; the
advice they would give to emotional process for
other couples or to their those who divorce is
therapist. likely quite different.
(–) Data only reflects the
viewpoint of one part
of the couple unit.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 209

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Prins, Definition of Infidelity: Examined the degree to (–) Sample: Nonrandom,
Buunk, & EMS. (–) which inequity, normative marriage bias, recruited
VanYperen Sample Characteristics: disapproval, and marital dis- via newspaper ads.
(1993) SS: 214 (+). A: 41. R: NR. satisfaction were related to
SES: NR. Ed: Varied from involvement in EM sexual
elementary only (4%) to relationships or desire to
college (7%). %M: 87%. engage in EMS.
RL: NR. %I: 30. Relationship equity was mea-
sured by the Hatfield Global
Measure of relationship
equity and the Equity For-
mula Measure. Relationship
and sexual satisfaction mea-
sured with Buunk’s Rela-
tionship Satisfaction Scale.
An author-constructed scale
measured disapproval of
EMS in general and disap-
proval because of AIDS.
Survey included a question
asking about number of EM
relationships during rela-
tionship, as well as desire to
engage in EMS.

Pulerwitz, Definition of Infidelity: Study explored the risk of (+) Random National
Izazola- Sexual intercourse. (–) HIV and STDs among mar- Mexican sample.
Licea, & Sample Characteristics: ried and cohabiting women (+) Care taken to balance
Gortmaker SS: 3990 (+); all M. A: in Mexico by studying the factors such as SES
(2001) 37. R: Mexican. SES: Bal- sexual behavior of their and education levels.
anced. Ed: Balanced. %M: partners. (–) Restricted to men in
88. RL: NR. %I: 15. Data were collected through committed relation-
face-to-face interviews, ships (i.e., married or
which included a 25-minute cohabiting for at least
survey. one year).

210 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Reiss, Definition of Infidelity: Looked at a multivariate (+) Sample: Random,
Anderson, EM sexual permissive- model of the determinants national.
& Sponau- ness. (–) of EM sexual permissive- (+) The study looked at a
gle (1980) Sample Characteristics: ness and then tested the complex causal model
SS: 833 (+) (Secondary model by using national of EM sexual involve-
analysis of data from surveys. ment.
the National Opinion The authors looked at the (-) Outdated study.
Research Center’s General relationship between EM
Social Surveys of 1973, sexual permissiveness and:
1974, 1976, and 1977). A: happiness of marriage,
45. R: NR. SES: NR. Ed: premarital sexual permis-
NR. %M: 100. RL: NR. siveness, religiosity, gender
%I: NR. equality, political liberality,
education, gender, and age.

Schneider, Definition of Infidelity: A Study explored how couples (+) Anonymous and self-
Corley, & variety of sexually addic- were affected by the disclo- administered.
Irons (1998) tive behaviors. (–) sure of one partner’s sexu- (+) Includes couple data.
Sample Characteristics: ally addictive behaviors. (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
SS: 164 (+); 50% M; Survey filled out separately Clinical sample of sex
included couple data in by each partner that was addicts and their part-
42 cases. A: 44.6. R: NR. self-administered and ners.
SES: High. Ed: High. included multiple choice
%M/CR: 93. RL: NR %I: and open-ended questions.
50%. Interpreted using both
quantitative and qualitative
methods. Couples recruited
through therapists who treat
sex addicts and partners.

Schneider, Definition of Infidelity: Focused on infidelity that (–) Sample: Nonrandom

Irons, & Sexual misconduct. (–) occurs in the context of convenience; educated,
Corley Sample Characteristics: compulsive sexual behavior. many professionally
(1999) SS: 197 (+). A: 44. R: NR. Qualitative, survey design, employed.
SES: NR. Ed: High. %M/ including an anonymous, (–) 91% of men in sample
CR: 75. RL: NR. %I: 91% self-administered question- diagnosed with com-
of the 100 sex addicts in naire with both closed- and pulsive sexual behav-
the sample. open-ended questions. ior. 94% of women
Therapists specializing in (partners) viewed to be
compulsive sexual behav- noncompulsives.
iors distributed surveys to (–) Subjects in treatment
clients (sex addicts), former voluntarily or by inter-
clients, and their partners. vention of family or
friends.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 211

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Shackelford Definition of Infidelity: Two studies in which the (+) Focus on sexual and
& Buss Sexual unfaithfulness; research sought to identify emotional infidelity.
(1997a) falling in love with some- the range and diversity of (+) Committed relation-
one else (+). acts that lead one to suspect ship focus.
Sample Characteristics: a long-term partner’s sexual (+) Complex statistical
Study 1 SS: 204 (+); M 89 and emotional infidelity. analysis.
F 115. A: 18.8. R: 82% C. Study 1 used a cue nomi- (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
SES: NR. Ed: Undergrad- nation method. Subjects Undergraduate popula-
uate students. %M/CR: recalled a past, present, or tion. Low mean age.
80. %I: NR. future committed relation- (–) Emotional infidelity
Study 2 SS: 230 (+); M ship and identified cues ambiguous on survey
114, F 116. A: 18.8. R: to emotional and sexual (i.e., “falling in love.”).
81% C. SES: NR. Ed: infidelity. Study 2 had par- (–) Unclear as to what
Undergraduate students. ticipants fill out surveys subjects were thinking
%M/CR: 91. RL: NR. on romantic relationship in describing cues.
%I: 40 either emotional or history. Subjects pre-
sexual. sented with the 170 cues
nominated in Study 1. Each
item was rated in terms of
subjects’ present, past, and
future experience with infi-
delity.

Smith Definition of Infidelity: Looked at adult sexual (+) Sample: Random.

(1991) Sexual partner. (–) behavior in 1989, including National.
Sample Characteristics: the number of partners, fre- (–) We cannot be sure
SS: 761 (+) (Secondary quency of intercourse, and how accurate the find-
analysis of data from the risk of AIDS. ings are because this
1988 and 1989 National The subjects filled out the survey asks a host of
Opinion Research General Social Survey other questions.
Center’s General Social along with a self-admin- (–) Self-report of infidel-
Surveys). A: NR. R: NR. istered questionnaire on ity; unsure how par-
SES: NR. Ed: Balanced. sexual behavior. ticipants interpreted the
%M: 100. RL: NR. %I: questions.
1.5 in last year.

Solstad Definition of Infidelity: Study explored men’s atti- (+) Sample: International
& Mucic EMS. (–) tudes and behavior towards perspective.
(1999) Sample Characteristics: EMS. (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
SS: 439 (+) (part of a gen- Explored the perspectives (+) In-depth, survey inter-
eral health examination). of men who had and had views of subjects.
A: 51 R: Danish. SES: not been involved in EMS.
NR. Ed: Low. %M: NR. Subjects completed a ques-
RL: NR. %I: NR. tionnaire related to sexual-
ity. 100 of the subjects were
interviewed.

212 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Spanier & Definition of Infidelity: The first part of this study (–) Sample: Nonrandom,
Margolis Sexual activity. (–) looked at several variables rural Pennsylvania,
(1983) Sample Characteristics: to determine if they were divorced or separated
SS: 205 (+). A: 33. R: NR. related to the occurrence individuals only.
SES: Low-Middle. Ed: 14. of EMS in people who (–) Focus on sexual inter-
%M: All divorced or sepa- ultimately divorced. The course.
rated. RL: 9. %I: M 39, F second part of the study
38 (sexual intercourse); M looked at variables related
32, F 25 (sexual, but no to how these sexual
intercourse). relationships affected
postmarital adjustment.
In-depth structured interview
of 550 questions focused on
demographics, background
information, and personal
qualities. Three scales
measured post marital
adjustment.

Sweeney Definition of Infidelity: Investigated the importance (+) Sample: Random.

& Horwitz “Involvement” with some- of spousal infidelity and National.
(2001) one else before marriage divorce initiator status for (+) Study looks at the
ended. (–) understanding depression mental health implica-
Sample Characteristics: following a recent marital tions of important vari-
SS: 580 (+) (Data were disruption. ables such as infidelity
drawn from two waves Measures: Center for Epide- and divorce.
of the National Survey of miologic Studies Depres- (+) Oversamples of
Families and Households). sion Scale (CES-D); for underrepresented
A: 30. R: 82% C; rest AA “initiator status,” authors groups.
and H. SES: 3.7x pov- asked if respondents wanted (–) Sample: Married only.
erty threshold. Ed: High their marriage to end at least (–) Secondary analyses
school. %M: All divorced as much as their spouse did. of large data sets that
or separated. RL: NR. do not focus specifi-
%I: 40. cally on infidelity can
produce ambiguous
results.

Thompson Definition of Infidelity: Investigated the emotional (+) Focus on both emo-
(1984) Three types, including and sexual components of tional and sexual infi-
strongly emotional with EM relationships. delity.
no sex, sexual with no Survey, conducted by tele- (–) Sample: Nonrandom.
emotional component, and phone, included open- and
combined emotional and closed-ended questions.
sexual. (+)
Sample Characteristics:
SS: 378 (+). A: M 40, F
37. R: Australian. SES:
NR. Ed: NR. %M: 70.
RL: NR. %I: 44.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 213

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Treas & Definition of Infidelity: Explored sexual infidelity (+) Sample: Large, ran-
Giesen “Genital contact and among married and cohabi- dom, nationally repre-
(2000) sexual excitement or tating Americans. The study sentative sample with
arousal, that is, feeling asks why some people are African American and
really turned on, even if sexually exclusive, whereas Hispanic oversamples.
intercourse or orgasm did others have sex with some- (+) Controls for the way
not occur.” (–) one besides their mate. in which data collected
Sample Characteristics: Data collected by means of related to infidelity.
SS: 2589 (+). A: 31–40. face-to-face interviews and (–) Sample: Excluded
R: Over-sampled AA and self-administered question- same-sex couples.
H. SES: NR. Ed: Post- naire. Asked questions (–) Definition of infidelity
secondary trade school. related to sexual tastes, could rule out emo-
%M: 100 married or values, interest, attitudes tional attachments.
cohabiting. RL: 11. %I: 11 towards EDI, opportunities,
of ever-married or ever- shared networks, religious
cohabiting. attendance and difference,
education and age differ-
ence, cohabitating data,
duration, dissatisfaction,
and general demographics.

Vanland- Definition of Infidelity: Study explored key social (+) Sample: International
ingham, EMS. (–) dynamics underlying pat- perspective.
Knodel, Sample Characteristics: terns of male EM behavior (+) Qualitative research.
Saengtien- SS: 14 focus groups in Thailand.
chai, & – 50% M and 50% W (+). Focus group interviews and
Pramu- A: NR. R: Thai sample. individual interviews. Study
alratana SES: NR. Ed: Low. %M: came up with several path-
(1998) NR. RL: NR. %I: NR. ways of peer influence on
EMS with prostitutes.

Weis & Definition of Infidelity: Examined the size of a com- (+) Sample: Large, ran-
Jurich Sexual relationship. (–) munity of residence as dom, national.
(1985) Sample Characteris- predictor of attitudes toward (–) Outdated data from
tics: SS: 7500 (approx) EMS. the 1970s.
(+); Used data from Survey measured EM sexual (–) The study is limited
the National Opinion attitudes by asking respon- in that it only addresses
Research Center’s Gen- dents to report their opinion attitudes towards infi-
eral Social Surveys for about a married person delity.
1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, having sexual relations
and 1980. A: 18+. R: NR. with someone other than
SES: NR. Ed: NR. %M: the marriage partner. Data
NR. RL: NR. %I: NR. analyzed using step-wise
regression.

214 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
White, Definition of Infidelity: Data collected from interna- (+) Sample: Random,
Cleland, EMS. (–) tional countries and used clustered, probability
& Carael Sample Characteristics: to explore the relationship samples.
(2000) SS: 1028, 1085, 649, between premarital and EM (+) International perspec-
683 (+). A: 15–49. R: sexual activity in men. tive.
Cote d’Ivoire, Tanzania, In face-to-face interviews,
Lusaka, and Thailand. subjects were administered
SES: NR. Ed: Low. %M: a questionnaire related to
NR. RL: NR. %I: NR. sexual behaviors—age at
first intercourse, number of
premarital partners, and age
at marriage.

Widmer, Definition of Infidelity: Secondary analysis of data (+) Sample: Large, ran-
Treas, & EMS. (–) that looked at attitudes dom.
Newcomb Sample Characteristics: toward nonmarital sex (+) International data.
(1998) SS: 33,590 (+) (Data from (including EMS). (–) Sample: Limited to 24
the International Social Data collected in 24 countries largely western, indus-
Survey Program and from by means of a standardized trialized nations that
individual countries’ rep- questionnaire. Explored elected to participate in
lications). A: NR. R: NR. respondents’ attitudes the sample.
SES: NR. Ed: NR. %M: regarding family, sexuality, (–) Marriage bias.
NR. RL: NR. %I: NR. and gender roles.

Wiederman Definition of Infidelity: Examined the prevalence, (+) Sample: Random,

(1997) EMS. (–) incidence, and correlates of national, including
Sample Characteristics: EMS. diverse subjects.
SS: 2172 (+) (Data from Data gathered by means of (–) Sample: Marriage
General Social Survey). survey questionnaire and bias.
A: 18+. R: 86% C, 10% face-to-face interviews. (–) There is ambiguity
AA, 4% O. SES: NR. Ed: Data collected included as to whether data on
NR. %M: 66. RL: NR. ethnicity, size and type of EMS relates to spouse
%I: M 23, 12 F (ever); M community, current marital or other sexual partner.
4, F 2 (past year). status, ever been divorced/
legally separated, sexual
experience, EMS attitude,
occurrence of EMS over
lifetime, and occurrence of
EMS over last 12 months.

April 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 215

 Authors Study Design Particular
Details Details Strengths/Weaknesses
Wiederman Definition of Infidelity: Explored perceptions of (–) Sample: Small,
& Allgeier Sexual behavior. (–) young, married individu- nonrandom, college
(1996) Sample Characteristics: als with regard to sexual students, Caucasian,
SS: 45 (–). A: 28. R: All exclusivity. Also attempted Midwestern, young
but one C. SES: NR. Ed: to determine if the inter- marriages.
Very high. %M: 100. RL: relationship between sex, (–) Face-to-face inter-
5. %I: NR. love, and marriage may be views minimized ano-
predictive of attributions nymity.
concerning EMS.
Face-to-face interviews that
inquired about exclusivity
expectations in marriage,
communication about EMS,
and attributions for partner
EMS and its consequences.
Subjects filled out the asso-
ciation of Sex-Love-Mar-
riage Scale.

Wiggins Definition of Infidelity: Explored antecedents of (+) Sample: Specifically

& Lederer Not specified but appears infidelity from individuals focused on individuals
(1984) to focus on sexual inter- at a clinic who voluntarily for whom infidelity has
course. (–) sought marital counseling occurred and been a
Sample Characteristics: related to their infidelity. problem.
SS: 59 (–). A: 34. R: NR. Measures: Locke-Wallace (–) Sample: Small,
SES: NR. Ed: NR. %M: Marital Adjustment Test, non-random, clinical
100. RL: NR. %I: 100. Self-Acceptance scale from (help seeking), married
Shostrom’s Personal Orien- couples only, included
tation Inventory, Wiggins only those employed
Satisfaction with Spouse outside of the home.
and Marriage, Holland’s (–) Sexual satisfaction
Vocational Preference narrowly measured.
Inventory, general questions
including yes-no sexual sat-
isfaction, number of liaisons
and with who, and when in
marriage infidelity began.

Worth, Definition of Infidelity: Sex- A qualitative study that inter- (+) Qualitative research.
Reid, & ual exclusivity, monogamy, viewed gay men and dis- (+) International perspec-
McMillan emotional fidelity (+) cussed issues of monogamy, tive.
(2002) Sample Characteristics: trust, and sexual behavior (+) Two researchers inter-
SS: 20 men (11 couples negotiation. viewed couple sepa-
represented) (+). A: 36. R: Subjects recruited through rately but at the same
New Zealand. SES: Bal- advertisement in local gay time.
anced. Ed: Balanced. %M/ press. Interviews were in- (–) Interviews conducted
CR: 100 in committed rela- depth, unstructured, and in the homes of the
tionships. RL: 5. %I: NR. lasted 1-2 hours. couples.

216 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2005