Arch Sex Behav

DOI 10.1007/s10508-017-1018-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater? Serial Infidelity Across

Subsequent Relationships
Kayla Knopp1 • Shelby Scott2 • Lane Ritchie1 • Galena K. Rhoades1 •
Howard J. Markman1 • Scott M. Stanley1

Received: 22 January 2017 / Revised: 12 June 2017 / Accepted: 15 June 2017

 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract Although there is a large body of research addressing Keywords Dating relationships

predictorsofrelationshipinfidelity,nostudytoourknowledgehas Extra-dyadic sexual involvement
Infidelity
specifically addressed infidelity in a previous relationship as a risk
factor for infidelity in a subsequent relationship. The current study
addressed risk for serial infidelity by following adult participants Introduction
(N = 484) longitudinally through two mixed-gender romantic
relationships. Participants reported their own extra-dyadic sexual Although the vast majority of romantic relationships in the U.S.
involvement (ESI) (i.e., having sexual relations with someone include expectations of monogamy (Conley, Moors, Matsick,
other than their partner) as well as both known and suspected & Ziegler, 2013; Treas & Giesen, 2000), infidelity is widespread,
ESI on the part of their partners in each romantic relationship. with estimates of lifetime engagement in extra-relational affairs
Findings from logistic regressions showed that those who reported around20%formarriedcouples(Blow&Hartnett,2005b)andup
engaginginESIinthefirstrelationshipwerethreetimesmorelikely to 70% for unmarried couples (Wiederman & Hurd, 1999).
to report engaging in ESI in their next relationship compared to Relationship infidelity is usually damaging (Allen et al., 2005),
those who did not report engaging in ESI in the first relationship. frequently leading to psychological distress both for those who
Similarly, compared to those who reported that their first-rela- engage in infidelity and for their partners (Cano & O’Leary,
tionship partners did not engage in ESI, those who knew that their 2000), as well as to relationship distress or dissolution (Allen &
partners in the first relationships had engaged in ESI were twice as Atkins, 2012; Johnson et al., 2002). Indeed, infidelity is one of
likely to report the same behavior from their next relationship part- themost commonlyreported causesofdivorce(Amato& Previti,
ners. Those who suspected their first-relationship partners of ESI 2003; Scott, Rhoades, Stanley, Allen, & Markman, 2013) and
were four times more likely to report suspicion of partner ESI again one of the most difficult issues for couple therapists to treat
in their next relationships. These findings controlled for demo- (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). The current study sought
graphic risk factors for infidelity and held regardless of respondent to address gaps in the literature about risks of serial infidelity by
genderormarital status. Thus,prior infidelityemergedasan impor- assessing the degree to which infidelity in one romantic rela-
tant risk factor for infidelity in next relationships. Implications for tionship predicted similar experiences in participants’ next
novel intervention targets for prevention of serial relationship infi- relationships.
delity are discussed. Researchers have examined a variety of individual and con-
textual risks for becoming involved in an extra-dyadic relation-
ship. Cross-sectional data suggest that risk factors include low
relationship commitment (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999),
& Kayla Knopp declining sexual and relationship satisfaction (Mark, Janssen, &
[email protected]
Milhausen, 2011; Scott et al., 2016), certain personality char-
1
Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 S. Race acteristics (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Dewall et al., 2011; Mark et al.,
St., Denver, CO 80208-3500, USA 2011), permissive attitudes about sex or infidelity (Fincham &
2
Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, May, 2017; Treas & Giesen, 2000), and exposure to approving
Denver, CO, USA social norms (Buunk, Bakker, & Taylor, 1995). Dating

123
 Arch Sex Behav

relationships are also typically thought to have a substantially in a subsequent romantic relationship, nor do they address
higher risk of infidelity than marriages (Blow & Hartnett, the magnitude of the increased risk. This question is important,
2005b;McAnulty&Brineman,2007).Further,someresearch has given that most people in the U.S. have multiple dating rela-
investigated individual differences in motivations for engaging tionships before entering into a marriage or long-term com-
in infidelity. For example, Allen (2001) found that those high in mitment with a partner (Sassler, 2010), and research suggests
avoidant attachment were more likely to report extra-dyadic sex- that individuals’ earlier romantic experiences may have con-
ual involvement (ESI) for reasons related to independence, sequences that can persist into later relationships or marriage.
whereas those higher in attachment anxiety were more likely Forexample,livingwithmorethanonedifferentromanticpartner
to report ESI for reasons related to intimacy and self-esteem. before marriage is associated with reduced marital quality and
Mark et al. (2011) reported that approximately 20% of the vari- stability (Lichter & Qian, 2008), and having more sexual or rela-
ance in infidelity motivation was explained by different pat- tionship partners predicts poorer outcomes in later relationships,
terns of sexual inhibition and excitement. including sexual infidelity (Maddox Shaw, Rhoades, Allen,
In addition to these process variables, associations between Stanley, & Markman, 2013) and lower marital satisfaction
individual demographic characteristics and predispositions (Rhoades & Stanley, 2014). Thus, research regarding risks
toward infidelity have also been widely studied (Allen et al., from prior relationship experiences may have important impli-
2005; Green & Sabini, 2006). The most well-established cations for researchers and clinicians who are interested in
demographic finding has been that men tend to be more likely to helping people develop healthy relationship patterns. An under-
engage in infidelity than women, possibly due to greater social standing of serial infidelity patterns could be clinically useful in
power or evolutionary motivations (e.g., Hughes, Harrison, & therapy and relationship education contexts by helping individ-
Gallup, 2004; Lalasz & Weigel,2011; Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, uals who are at risk of becoming entrenched in unhealthy rela-
Pollmann, & Stapel, 2011). Women and men may also vary in tionship patterns recognize and address risk factors in themselves
their emotional responses to perceived partner ESI; men tend to and their partners (e.g., Rhoades & Stanley, 2009).
report a greater degree of jealousy and distress in response to Building an understanding of serial infidelity risk is a logical
partner infidelity and to be more threatened by sexual rather than extension of existing theories about the factors that put people
emotional infidelity of their female partners, whereas women at risk of engaging in infidelity in general. Although numerous
report more distress in response to emotional infidelity of their motivations for infidelity have been identified in existing the-
male partners (Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, & Sagarin, 2006; ories, the two of most relevance to serial infidelity are (1) the
Frederick & Fales, 2016; Harris & Christenfeld, 1996). How- quality and availability of alternative partners, and (2) attitudes
ever, some research has demonstrated that age and prior expe- about the acceptability of infidelity (Drigotas & Barta, 2001).
riences with partner ESI moderate these findings (Varga, Gee, & First, regarding alternative partners, models of commitment
Munro, 2011), and that gender discrepancies in general may be and social exchange (Rusbult, 1983; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
decreasing in younger cohorts (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, suggest that infidelity is likely to occur when individuals per-
2001; Fincham & May, 2017; Mark et al., 2011). Thus, age may ceive having desirable alternatives to their current relationship
be another key factor in understanding risk for infidelity. Black partner (Drigotas et al., 1999). Individuals who have already had
or African American populations typically report higher rates of emotional affairs or sexual encounters outside of their current
infidelity among men in mixed-gender relationships (e.g., relationship have firsthand knowledge that such alternatives exist,
Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav, 2007), which is likely attributable and may subsequently believe that such alternatives remain avail-
to scarcity of desirable male partners in Black or African Amer- able to them, thus creating a higher risk of engaging in infidelity
ican communities due to incarceration and other social contex- again in future relationships.
tual factors (Pinderhughes, 2002). Some studies have found that Second, regarding attitudes about ESI, models of infidelity
socioeconomic variables related to opportunity for infidelity, risk often incorporate the reciprocal effects of people’s atti-
including more education, higher income, and employment, tend tudes. The theory of reasoned action claims that people tend to
to be positively associated with both engagement in and approval behave in accordance with their attitudes and with widespread
of infidelity (Atkins et al., 2001; Treas & Giesen, 2000), although social norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Consistent with this
this association is inconsistent in the literature (Fincham & May, theory, research has demonstrated that within a social context
2017); socioeconomic risk factors may be further moderated by of widespread disapproval of infidelity, individuals with more
gender (Munsch, 2012) and by relationship history (Atkins et al., approving or permissive personal beliefs regarding infidelity
2001). are more likely to cheat (Hackathorn, Mattingly, Clark, &
Although cross-sectional studies are descriptively useful, Mattingly, 2011; Treas & Giesen, 2000). At the same time, past
they do not necessarily provide information about how risks engagement in infidelity also predicts having more approving
for infidelity can be understood over time. In particular, these attitudes about infidelity, consistent with cognitive dissonance
studies do not address whether a person who engages in infidelity theory (Foster & Misra, 2013; Jackman, 2015; Sharpe, Walters,
in one relationship is likely to engage in infidelity again & Goren, 2013; Solstad & Mucic, 1999; Wiederman, 1997).

123
Arch Sex Behav

Engaging in infidelity in a past relationship may therefore 2007). Subjective responses to hypothetical partner infi-
increase the risk of infidelity in future romantic relationships by delity also differ based on whether a person has experienced
increasing one’s acceptance of engaging in infidelity. actual infidelity in their own lives (Confer & Cloud, 2011; Harris,
Despite strong theoretical rationale, few studies have eval- 2002;Ritchie&van Anders, 2015). Although research on this
uated how actual infidelity experiences persist across different topic is quite limited, these studies suggest that perception of
romantic relationships. Studies by Banfield and McCabe (2001) partner infidelity in a current relationship may be more likely if
and Adamopoulou (2013) each demonstrated that a recent his- someone has personally engaged in infidelity previously. There-
tory of engaging in infidelity increased the risk of future infi- fore, we may expect risk of serial infidelity to include cross-
delity, but these studies were ambiguous with regard to whether partner effects as well.
the repeated infidelity occurred within the same relationship or
across different relationships. This distinction is important, given
that some risk factors for infidelity are relationship-specific (e.g., Measurement of Infidelity
commitment), whereas others are linked to individual charac-
teristics that are likely to persist into future relationships as well One widely acknowledged issue in studies of infidelity is ambi-
(e.g., personality). Recent work by Martins et al. (2016) more guity or inconsistency in definitions of infidelity and the termi-
directlyshowedthatinfidelityinapreviousrelationshipincreased nology used to refer to it (Blow & Hartnett, 2005a). Terms such as
risk of infidelity in a later relationship, but was limited by the use infidelity, unfaithfulness, cheating, extra-marital or extra-rela-
of retrospective reports of prior infidelity that did not specify in tional affairs, extra-dyadic involvement, and extra-dyadic sex-
which previous relationship or how long ago the infidelity ual involvement are commonly used in the literature. Although
occurred. Thus, the existing literature does not provide clear each term has particular nuances in connotation or in which
information about whether and to what degree engaging in behaviors are included, they all attempt to assess the same
infidelity in a previous relationship impacts the likelihood that underlying construct, which we refer to as infidelity.
an individual will engage in infidelity in the next relationship. The current study measured infidelity as ESI, i.e., whether
The current study aims to fill that gap. a person in a romantic relationship has had sexual relations
In addition to a person’s own behavior, serial infidelity risk with someone other than their relationship partner. This measure
may include actual or suspected infidelity on the part of an of infidelity has a few distinct limitations. First, it may not capture
individual’s romantic partner. Research taking an interper- all behaviors that a couple may consider to be infidelity, such as
sonal perspective has identified relationship-specific factors, kissing or an emotional affair, and the term‘‘sexual relations’’can
in addition to involved-partner factors, that contribute to risk be ambiguous. Second, not all ESI should be categorized as infi-
of infidelity (Mark et al., 2011). Couple-based approaches are delity, because some couples may agree that ESI is acceptable
careful to avoid blaming an individual for their partner’s under certain conditions, and other people may have more than one
infidelity (Baucom, Snyder, & Gordon, 2011); at the same time, committed relationship partner (i.e., consensually non-monoga-
researchers acknowledge that both partners may play a role in mous or CNM couples). At the final wave of data collection, fewer
creating the relationships characteristics that could potentially than 2% of participants in the current sample reported being‘‘in an
increase the chance that a partner will cheat (Allen et al., 2008). open relationship’’; however, this term may not capture the wide
Thus, individuals with previous partners who have engaged in array of CNM agreements that may exist (e.g., swinging, three-
infidelity may be at increased risk for partnering with indi- somes). Therefore, we believe that the vast majority of behaviors
viduals in later relationships who also engage in infidelity captured by the current ESI measure are probably accurately
because these individuals may be more likely to contribute to labeled as infidelity, but we arenot able to know forcertain whether
relationship contexts associated with higher risk of infidelity participants in our study or their partners considered ESI to be
(Allen et al., 2005). It may also be the case that individuals allowed or not in their relationships.
who have learned about a previous partner’s infidelity have
developed expectations that infidelity is more common and/
or acceptable in subsequent relationships (e.g., Glass & Current Study
Wright, 1992). If this is the case, individuals who have known
about a previous partner’s infidelity may be more likely to tol- Taken together, existing theoretical and empirical research sup-
erate infidelity in a subsequent relationship as well, leading to ports the idea that prior experiences of one’s own or a partner’s
persistent risk of partner infidelity across relationships over relationship infidelity may be associated with increased risk of
time. those same experiences in future relationships. At the same time,
Further, some research indicates that one’s own past engage- research has been limited in empirically evaluating to what extent
ment in infidelity can increase the likelihood of suspecting infidelity in a previous relationship, either on the part of oneself or
infidelity from a relationship partner (Whisman et al., one’s partner, predicts increased risk of infidelity in a subsequent

123
 Arch Sex Behav

relationship. The current study utilized longitudinal measure- Method

ments of individuals’ and their partners’ infidelity behaviors
across two different romantic relationships in order to provide Participants and Procedure
specific information about the magnitude of increased risk asso-
ciated with previous infidelity. The focus on proximal risk (from Participants in the current study were drawn from a larger
one relationship to the next) may be particularly relevant for iden- longitudinal study of romantic relationship development, which
tifying effective points of intervention, as well as for understand- recruited a nationwide sample representative of English-speak-
ing the aspects of infidelity risk that persist into different relation- ing young adults in the U.S. who were in unmarried romantic
ship contexts. relationshipslasting at least two monthsat baseline(see Rhoades,
Our first research question addressed whether one’s own prior Stanley, & Markman, 2010). Participants across the U.S. were
engagement in infidelity predicted a higher risk of engaging in recruited using a targeted-listed telephone sampling strategy.
infidelity again in the future. We hypothesized that those who Participants who were eligible and interested in enrolling (N =
engaged in ESI in one relationship would be more likely to 1294) completed surveys by mail every four to six months for
engage in ESI again in the next relationship compared to those eleven waves of data collection, spanning approximately 5 years.
who did not engage in ESI in the first relationship. Surveys were estimated to take 75 min to complete, and partic-
Our second research question addressed serial partner infi- ipants earned $40 per completed survey. The sample for the
delity: we asked whether individuals who had previous partners current study (N = 484) consisted of all participants who
who engaged in ESI were more likely to experience partner answered questions about at least two different romantic
infidelity again in a later relationship, and whether this applied relationships over the course of the study (total range = 1–7
to those who felt certain about previous partner ESI as well as relationships, M = 1.6, SD = 0.95). On average, the 484 par-
those who only suspected, but were not certain about, previous ticipants selected for the current study sample completed 10.0
partner ESI. Based on research on dyadic or relational contri- out of the 11 survey waves. All study procedures were approved
butions to infidelity risk, we hypothesized that individuals who by the principal investigator’s university Institutional Review
felt certain that their partners engaged in ESI in one relationship Board.
would be more likely to report known partner ESI again in the The current sample reflected the demographic distribution
next relationship. Similarly, we hypothesized that those who of the larger sample. The current sample included 329 women
suspected their partners of ESI in one relationship would also be (68%) and 155 men. In terms of race, this sample was 0.8%
more likely to report suspected partner ESI again in the next American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2.9% Asian, 15.3% Black
relationship. or African American, 0.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,
Finally, to expand the limited existing literature on percep- and 76.0% White; 4.7% of participants either did not report or
tions of a partner’s infidelity, our third research question eval- reported more than one race. In terms of ethnicity, this sample
uated how personal engagement in ESI predicted subsequent was 7.0% Hispanic or Latino and 93.0% not Hispanic or Latino.
perceptions of partner engagement in ESI. We hypothesized At the time of the first wave of data collection, the sample ranged
that individuals who had engaged in ESI themselves in previous in age from 18 to 35 years old (M = 24.8, SD = 4.73). Seventy-
relationships would be more likely to report either known or six percent of participants were employed at baseline. Partici-
suspected ESI on the part of their next relationship partners. pants had a median income of $10,000–$14,999 per year and a
Because we were interested in the process of serial infidelity, median 14 years of education, both of which were representative
analyses in the current study controlled for a set of demographic of unmarried adults in the sample age range when the study
variables relevant to cross-sectional infidelity risk. Specifically, began in the mid-2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
we controlled for participants’ age, gender, socioeconomic sta-
tus, and race. Measures
Further, we identified two variables that may impact the
processes underlying engagement in infidelity and could there- Own ESI
fore act as moderators of a serial infidelity effect: gender and
marital status. As previously discussed, dating relationships tend Participants’ own engagement in ESI was assessed at each
to involve different kinds of commitment than marital relation- wave with the question,‘‘Have you had sexual relations with
ships and have higher rates of infidelity. Further, women and men someone other than your partner since you began seriously
tend to report different motivations for and differential reactions dating?’’A response of‘‘No,’’was coded as 0, and responses of
to infidelity. Therefore, we explored whether gender or marriage either ‘‘Yes, with one person,’’ or ‘‘Yes, with more than one
moderated the persistence of infidelity from one relationship to person,’’were coded as 1. When respondents completed more
the next. than one survey wave within the same relationship, own ESI

123
Arch Sex Behav

was coded as a 1 for the relationship if respondents ever test our first two research questions about whether a particular
reported engaging in ESI during the relationship. Forty-four infidelity experience in the first relationship (own ESI, known
percent of the sample reported their own involvement in ESI partner ESI, or suspected partner ESI) predicted a greater
at some point over the course of the study. Of note, this question likelihood of having the same infidelity experience again in
did not assess whether the ESI was considered to be allowed or the second relationship. Specifically, we tested whether those
consensual in the relationship. who reported their own ESI in their first relationships were
more likely to report their own ESI again in their second
Known or Suspected Partner ESI relationships compared to those with no reported own ESI in
their first relationships (first research question). Similarly, we
Perceived partner involvement in ESI was assessed at each tested whether those reporting known partner ESI in first
wave with the question, ‘‘Has your partner had sexual rela- relationships were more likely to report known partner ESI in
tions with someone other than you since you began seriously second relationships, and whether those reporting suspected
dating?’’Responses of‘‘No,’’and‘‘Probably not,’’were coded partner ESI in first relationships were more likely to report
as 0. A response of ‘‘Yes, I think so,’’ was coded as 1 for the suspected partner ESI in second relationships (second research
suspected partner ESI variable, and a response of ‘‘Yes, I question). All models controlled for a set of demographic con-
know for sure’’ was coded as 1 for the known partner ESI trol variables relevant to infidelity risk, including age, gender,
variable. Thirty percent of participants reported known partner race, education, employment status, and income.
ESI during the study, and 18% reported suspected partner ESI. Next, we evaluated our third research question, which asked
Suspected partner ESI and known partner ESI were mutually whether one’s own previous engagement in ESI changed the
exclusive categories within time points; that is, participants likelihood of knowing about or suspecting partner ESI in the next
could report either suspected or known ESI, but not both, at relationship. In separate analyses, we tested whether those report-
each survey wave. Therefore, analyses on known partner ESI ing their own ESI in their first relationships were more likely to
excluded participants who reported suspected partner ESI in report either known or suspected partner ESI in their second rela-
that relationship, and vice versa. When respondents completed tionships compared to those who did not report their own ESI.
more than one survey wave within the same relationship, known Again, all models controlled for relevant demographic variables.
partner ESI was coded as a 1 for the relationship if respondents Finally, we conducted follow-up analyses to determine
ever reported known partner ESI within that relationship, at any whether gender or marriage moderated the persistence of infi-
time point. We coded suspected partner ESI as a 1 for the rela- delity across relationships. We tested whether the interaction of
tionship if respondents ever reported suspected partner ESI at these variables with first-relationship ESI behaviors predicted
any time point within the relationship, but never reported known second-relationship ESI behaviors in each model described
partner ESI within the relationship. previously.

Demographics
Results
A set of demographic control variables were used in the current
study. At the baseline survey, participants reported their age, Basic relationship characteristics indicated that participants
their gender, whether they were employed,their annual income, tended to have been in their first relationships longer than
and the number of years of education they had completed. Self- their second relationships: first relationships lasted an aver-
identified race and ethnicity were also measured at baseline; age of 38.8 months before they ended, and second relation-
consistent with priorresearch showing increased riskforinfidelity ships had lasted an average of 29.6 months by the conclusion
among Black or African American populations, a race dummy of the study. There were also differences in likelihood of living
variable coded each participant as Black/African American (1) or together. Sixty-five percent of participants reported living toge-
not (0). All participants began the study in unmarried relation- ther with their first-relationship partners at some point, whereas
ships, but one-third of the sample got married during the course of only 19% of participants reported living with their second-rela-
the study. In order to model marriage as a potential moderator of tionship partners.
serial infidelity, we included a variable coding whether partici- Table 1 shows correlations between demographic control
pants married during the study (1) or not (0). variables and whether participants reported their own ESI,
known partner ESI, or suspected partner ESI during either
Data Analytic Plan relationship over the course of the study. Black or African
American participants were more likely to report own ESI as
Data were utilized from the first two relationships that par- well as both known and suspected partner ESI than non-Black
ticipants in our sample reported over the course of data col- participants. More educated participants in this sample were
lection. A series of separate models used logistic regression to less likely to report their own ESI and known or suspected

123
 Arch Sex Behav

Table 1 Associations between demographic variables and ESI during Hypotheses regarding our third research question were not
either relationship supported. We found no evidence that engagement in ESI in
Own ESI Known Suspected first relationships predicted any differences in the likelihood
partner ESI partner ESI of reporting one’s partner’s known or suspected ESI in the
second relationship.
Agea .06 .04 .13**
Finally, in follow-up analyses, neither gender nor mar-
Genderb .01 .08 -.02
riage significantly moderated the link between ESI in first
Raceb .10* .22* .26**
relationships and ESI in second relationships for any model.
Years of educationa -.13** -.20** -.16**
Thus, we found no evidence that the persistence of ESI from
Employmentb -.07 -.06 -.15**
one relationship to the next differed for women versus men or
Incomea .04 -.02 .06
for couples who married compared to those who did not.
* p\.05; ** p\.01
a
Point-biserial correlations between continuous demographic vari-
ables and dichotomous ESI variables
b
Phi coefficients for associations between dichotomous demographic Discussion
variables and dichotomous ESI variables
The current study addressed an important gap in the literature
partner ESI. Reporting suspicion of partner ESI was more likely on infidelity in romantic relationships by examining persis-
for older participants and those who were not employed. Finally, tent or serial risk of infidelity across subsequent romantic
neither gender nor income was associated with ESI. relationships over time. Results from this study indicated that
Primary results from logistic regression models are pre- people who engaged in infidelity themselves, knew about a
sented in Table 2. Participants who reported their own ESI in partner’s infidelity, or suspected a partner of infidelity had a
the first relationship were significantly more likely to report higher risk of having those same infidelity experiences again
their own ESI in the second relationship, by 3.4 times com- in their next romantic relationships. These findings controlled
pared to those who did not report engaging in ESI in the first for many demographic variables that are predictive of engaging
relationship. Specifically, of the participants who reported in infidelity, and they did not vary based on gender or marital
engaging in ESI in the first relationship, 45% also reported status.
engaging in ESI in the second relationship, whereas only 18%
of the participants who did not report engaging in ESI in the General Infidelity Characteristics
first relationship reported engaging in ESI in the second rela-
tionship. Thus, the hypothesis forour first research question was Overall rates of infidelity in this sample were toward the high
supported. end of the range of previous estimates, with 44% of partici-
Partners’ known or suspected ESI behavior was also signifi- pants reporting engaging in infidelity themselves during the
cantly associated across relationships, supporting the hypotheses relationships captured by this study, 30% reporting having at
for our second research question. When compared to those who least one partner who they knew engaged in infidelity, and
reported no partner ESI in the first relationship, participants who 18% reporting that they suspected a partner of engaging in
reported known partner ESI in the first relationship were 2.4 infidelity. These higher rates are expected, given that this was
times more likely to report known partner ESI in the second an unmarried sample at baseline, and unmarried samples tend
relationship (22% compared to 9%). Further, participants who to have higher rates of infidelity than married samples (Treas
reported suspected partner ESI in the first relationship were 4.3 & Giesen, 2000). Two notable departures from the prior lit-
times more likely to suspect their second-relationship partners erature were that there was no difference in the prevalence of
of ESI (37% compared to 6%). reporting one’s own or a partner’s infidelity for women and

Table 2 Logistic regression results predicting ESI across relationships

ESI in relationship 1 ESI in relationship 2 N b SE Wald p OR [95% CI]

Own Own 467 1.21 0.23 28.6 \.001 3.35 [2.15 5.22]
Known partner Known partner 389 0.86 0.35 5.90 .015 2.36 [1.18 4.72]
Suspect. partner Suspect. partner 329 1.45 0.49 8.69 .003 4.27 [1.63 11.22]
Own Known partner 419 0.10 0.33 0.09 .770 1.10 [0.58 2.08]
Own Suspect. partner 414 0.40 0.35 1.27 .260 1.49 [0.75 2.96]
All analyses control for participant age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status

123
Arch Sex Behav

men in this sample, and that participants with more years of strengthened the effects found in our analyses. The only cir-
education were less likely to report infidelity. These findings cumstance that would threaten the validity of our primary con-
suggest that the existing understanding of gender and edu- clusions about serial infidelity risk would be if participants
cation differences in infidelity is nuanced; it likely reflects a without first-relationship infidelity were to‘‘catch up’’to those
complex interplay of social forces (e.g., power, privilege, and with first-relationship infidelity by reporting a greater rate of
opportunity) that is not easily captured by simple demographic infidelity later on in second relationships, and we do not know
characteristics and that may be changing rapidly along with of any reason to expect that to be the case.
larger societal changes. Previous descriptions of demographic
risk factors for infidelity do not necessarily accurately charac-
terize the younger, unmarried population represented in the Influences on Partner Infidelity
current study.
We found no evidence that reported suspected or known
Magnitude of Serial Infidelity Risk partners’ infidelity was related to a person’s own past history
of engaging in infidelity. These null results belie the common
Our results indicated a threefold increase in the likelihood wisdom that those who are suspicious of their partners’ fidelity
that a person will engage in infidelity if they already have a have likely engaged in infidelity themselves, at least within the
history of engaging in ESI, and a two- to fourfold increase in context of the two subsequent young adult romantic relation-
the likelihood of having an partner engage in ESI if a person ships captured in the present study. On the other hand, our results
knew about or suspected infidelity from a past relationship did indicate that even when they left one relationship and began
partner. Thus, effects in the current study were generally med- another, people who suspected previous partner ESI were much
ium in size. These findings suggests that previous engagement in more likely to be suspicious of their new relationship partners as
infidelity is an important risk factor predicting engagement in well. Individual differences in trait suspiciousness or jealousy,
infidelity in a subsequent relationship, even after accounting for independent of relationship context, may play a role in sus-
key demographic risk factors. At the same time, it is important to pecting a relationship partner of infidelity; for example, parent
interpret these effects in the context of their base rates, which relationship models (e.g., Rhoades, Stanley, Markman, & Ragan,
suggest that most people who reported either their own or their 2012) and stable relationship attachment styles (e.g., Dewall
partner’s infidelity during their first relationship in this study did et al., 2011) may impact persistent attitudes or beliefs about
not report having that same experience again in their second fidelity. Further, little is known about the accuracy of suspicions
relationship during the study timeframe. That is, although a of infidelity. Future research investigating how frequently
history of infidelity may be an important risk factor of which to individuals are correct when suspecting partner infidelity could
be aware, it is not necessarily true that someone who is‘‘once a shed light on the rationale people may have for being suspicious
cheater’’ is ‘‘always a cheater.’’ Understanding what distin- of their partners.
guishes those who experience repeated infidelity from those Perhaps most intriguing, we found that participants who
who do not remain an important next step, both for under- said they were certain that their previous relationship partners
standing the development of infidelity risk and for designing engaged in ESI were more than twice as likely to go on to
effective interventions for individuals who would like to stop report feeling certain that their current partner had engaged in
negative relationship behaviors and experiences from carry- ESI in their next relationship. We cannot make assertions
ing over into their future relationships. about causality using data from the current study. It may be
One important consideration is that first relationships and that some individuals have persistent relationship styles that
second relationships were somewhat different in the current tend to create a relationship context in which a partner’s
study. First relationships were longer and more likely to involve infidelity is likely (Allen et al., 2005). Alternatively, some
living together. This makes sense in our sample, given that first people may learn that these types of behaviors are more accept-
relationships began before the study timeframe, whereas second able or expected after experiencing them once (e.g., Glass &
relationships were newer simply by virtue of our data collection Wright, 1992; Simon et al., 2001), and thus may become more
procedure. First relationships also necessarily ended during the tolerant of signs of infidelity in future relationship partners. This
study, but not all second relationships did. These differences explanation is consistent with theories that posit a bidirectional
likely explain the differences in rates of infidelity in first and link between infidelity experiences and attitudes. It may also be
second relationships. However, we do not believe these differ- the case that socioeconomic constraints, cultural values, or lim-
ences alter the conclusions reached from the current analyses. It ited partner pools make certain individuals more likely to select
may be the case that even more participants with infidelity in first or tolerate infidelity in partners again and again. For exam-
relationships would have gone on to report infidelity again in the ple, scholars of race and relationships posit that social fac-
second relationships that were still ongoing, which would have tors causing an unequal gender ratio in Black communities

123
 Arch Sex Behav

create a context in which male infidelity is ignored, tolerated, or Limitations

even considered normative (Bowleg, Lucas, & Tschann, 2004;
Pinderhughes, 2002). Finally, because we did not assess how or The current study has limitations that are important to con-
why participants knew about their partners’ infidelity, we must sider. First, the sample is not likely to represent all people in
consider the possibility that even participants who reported being the U.S. equally well. The ages of eligible participants at the
‘‘certain’’ about their partners’ infidelity could be reporting time of initial recruitment were restricted to between 18 and
subjective perceptions related to their own suspicion, jealousy, 35 years old; the effects of serial infidelity may be different
or other personality traits. These individuals may be more likely among younger adolescents or older adults, particularly con-
to repeatedly report certain knowledge of partner infidelity sidering the different relationship structures and expectations
despite lacking definitive evidence. that exist throughout the lifespan. Although the sample from the
current study was a subset of a larger group of participants that
was representative of the U.S. in terms of geographic location,
Clinical Implications race, and ethnicity, the smaller sample used here is not likely to
reliably represent all racial and ethnic minorities, because non-
In addition to filling an important gap in our understanding of White participants comprise a small number of the sample
serial infidelity, results from this study may be relevant for participants. In addition, inclusion criteria for participants in
clinical interventions as well. Prevention efforts such as rela- this study involved being in a relationship with‘‘someone of the
tionship education may help individuals interrupt the tendency opposite sex’’at the time of recruitment. Thus, findings may not
to repeatedly engage in ESI in different relationships. Other generalize to people who have same-gender relationships.
researchers have identified a need for infidelity prevention to As previously discussed, the measurement of infidelity in
identify the people who are most at risk, and to address the the current study has some limitations. Although most research
contextual and situational risks that may then lead to infidelity on infidelity to date, including the current study, has defined
(Markman, 2005). This study demonstrated that past infidelity is infidelity as ESI (cf. Allen et al., 2005; Blow & Hartnett, 2005a),
an important indicator to identify those who are at continued risk ESI is an imperfect proxy for infidelity. In particular, it is unclear
of engaging in infidelity, over and above common demographic in this study whether the ESI was considered to be allowed in the
risk factors. Moreover, this study points to an opportunity for relationship (e.g., as in consensually non-monogamous rela-
clinicians to help individuals identify the circumstances that led tionships). Our data indicate that at the end of the study, 2% of our
to past infidelity in order to avoid repeating similar patterns sample reported being in an ‘‘open relationship,’’ but we do not
again in future relationships. know this information about the majority of the relationships
The findings regarding serial partner similarities may indi- included in the current analysis; further, the term ‘‘open rela-
cate an important additional target for preventative relationship tionship’’may not capture all different forms of consensual ESI.
education aimed at helping individuals make better decisions in Future research could define infidelity in more precise ways to
their romantic lives. Relationship interventions can encourage distinguish it from consensual non-monogamy and could also
participants to make informed choices about selecting potential measure different facets of infidelity (e.g., Luo, Cartun, & Snider,
partners based on those partners’ romantic histories. Interven- 2010).
tions can also teach skills appropriate for mitigating the par- Finally, all data in the current study are self-reported and
ticular risks that may accompany having a relationship with are therefore subject to reporting bias and shared method
someone who has engaged in infidelity during a previous rela- variance. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that infidelity is
tionship. For example, professionals have noted that couples’ a sensitive topic that is subject to social desirability effects in
abilities to discuss the individual and relationship factors that research (e.g., Whisman & Snyder, 2007). Thus, these results
led up to infidelity is a strong indicator of successful relation- may be partially explained by consistency in willingness to
ship recovery (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004), and there is report infidelity: individuals who are unwilling to report their
a growing body of research in support of explicit conversations own (or a partner’s) infidelity in one relationship are probably
aimed at defining relationships as they undergo transitions also not willing to report infidelity at any point in the future.
(Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006). Preliminary research The current study’s procedure—collecting surveys by mail
suggests that such conversations may be particularly impor- rather than in person—may have helped to ameliorate this issue,
tant with regard to managing infidelity (Knopp, Vandenberg, but future research could try alternative methods of collecting
Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2016). It may be that con- data about infidelity.
versations aimed at reaching a mutual definition of relation-
ship fidelity and anticipating potential barriers to maintaining Conclusions
fidelity could be beneficial for couples who are at risk due to
past experiences or other risk factors, though this intervention The current study provides novel contributions to established
remains to be empirically evaluated. notions of infidelity across serial relationships, including that

123
Arch Sex Behav

personal engagement in ESI and perceptions of partner engage- sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
ment in ESI predict increased risk of serial infidelity in subsequent 22(3), 339–360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440.
Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., & Gordon, K. C. (2011). Helping couples get
relationships. Infidelity can harm individuals and relationships, past the affair: A clinician’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
and these results can inform prevention or intervention efforts by Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005a). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A
targeting risk factors based on previous relationship patterns in methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2),
addition to the various individual, relational, and contextual fac- 183–216. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01555.x.
Blow,A.J., &Hartnett,K. (2005b). InfidelityincommittedrelationshipsII: A
tors demonstrated to predict infidelity in previous work. Although substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2),
intervention research will be necessary to explore which risk fac- 217–233. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01556.x.
tors are most useful to address and through what mechanisms, our Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004).‘‘The ball was always in his
findings clearly demonstrate the need for researchers and clini- court’’: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and
condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women
cians to take into account previous infidelity patterns while devel- Quarterly, 28(1), 70–82. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x.
oping an understanding of how to predict and intervene with Buunk, B. P., Bakker, A. B., & Taylor, P. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of
regard to risk for serial infidelity. descriptive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 313–
318. doi:10.1080/00224499509551804.
Acknowledgements Research reported in this publication was supported Cano, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major
by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and depressiveepisodesandsymptomsofnonspecificdepressionandanxiety.
Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [Award Number Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 774–781. doi:10.
R01HD047564]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and 1037/0022-006X.68.5.774.
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Confer,J.C.,&Cloud,M.D.(2011).Sexdifferencesinresponsetoimagining
Health. a partner’s heterosexual or homosexual affair. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 50(2), 129–134. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.007.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer
Compliance with Ethical Standards
the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monog-
amous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Pol-
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of icy, 13(1), 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
interest with respect to authorship or the publication of this article. Dewall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T.,
Finkel, E. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one’s partner,
Ethical Approval All study procedures were approved by the University yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in
of Denver Institutional Review Board. alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 101(6), 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497.
Drigotas, S. M., & Barta, W. (2001). The cheating heart: Scientific explo-
rationsofinfidelity.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,10(5),
References 177–180. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00143.
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model
Adamopoulou, E. (2013). New facts on infidelity. Economics Letters, prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
121(3), 458–462. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.025. chology, 77(3), 509–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509.
Allen, E. S. (2001). Attachment styles and their relation to patterns of Edlund, J., Heider, J., Scherer, C., Farc, M., & Sagarin, B. (2006). Sex dif-
extradyadic and extramarital involvement. Unpublished doctoral ferencesinjealousyinresponsetoactualinfidelity.EvolutionaryPsychol-
dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. ogy, 4, 462–470. doi:10.1037/a0019378.
Allen, E. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2012). The association of divorce and Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships.
extramarital sex in a representative U.S. sample. Journal of Family Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–74. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.
Issues, 33(11), 1477–1493. doi:10.1177/0192513X12439692. 03.008.
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Foster, J. D., & Misra, T. A. (2013). It did not mean anything (about me):
Psychology: Science and Practice, 12(2), 101–130. doi:10.1093/clipsy. Cognitive dissonance theory and the cognitive and affective con-
bpi014. sequences of romantic infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Williams, tionships, 30(7), 835–857. doi:10.1177/0265407512472324.
T., Melton, J., & Clements, M. L. (2008). Premarital precursors of Frederick, D. A., & Fales, M. R. (2016). Upset over sexual versus emotional
marital infidelity. Family Process, 47(2), 243–259. doi:10.1111/j. infidelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Archives
1545-5300.2008.00251.x. of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 175–191. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0409-9.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital rela-
social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, tionships: The association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender.
24(5), 602–626. doi:10.1177/0192513X03254507. Journal of Sex Research, 29(3), 361–387. doi:10.1080/00224499209
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding 551654.
infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative inter-
Psychology, 15(4), 735–749. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.735. ventionforpromotingrecoveryfromextramaritalaffairs.JournalofMar-
Banfield, S.,& McCabe,M. P. (2001). Extra relationship involvement among ital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–231. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.
women: Are they different from men? Archives of Sexual Behavior, tb01235.x.
30(2), 119–142. doi:10.1023/A:1002773100507. Green, M. C., & Sabini, J. (2006). Gender, socioeconomic status, age, and
Barta,W.D.,&Kiene,S.M.(2005).Motivationsforinfidelityinheterosexual jealousy: Emotional responses to infidelity in a national sample. Emo-
dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and tion, 6(2), 330–334. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.330.

123
 Arch Sex Behav

Hackathorn, J., Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., & Mattingly, M. J. B. (2011). academics and service deliverers in the United States and Europe (pp.
Practicing what you preach: Infidelity attitudes as a predictor of fidelity. 45–54). Doha: Doha International Institute for Family Studies and
CurrentPsychology,30(4),299–311.doi:10.1007/s12144-011-9119-9. Development.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homo- Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before‘‘I do’’: What do premarital
sexual adults. Psychological Science, 13(1), 7–12. doi:10.1111/1467- experiences have to do with marital quality among today’s young
9280.00402. adults? National Marriage Project, University of Virginia. Retrieved
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psy- from http://before-i-do.org
chological Science, 7(6), 364–366. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Should I stay or
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Sex differences in should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of
mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity and multiple concurrent sex commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 543–550. doi:10.
partners.Psychology,Evolution&Gender,6(1),3–13.doi:10.1080/146 1037/a0021008.
16660410001733588. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Ragan, E. P. (2012).
Jackman, M. (2015). Understanding the cheating heart: What determines Parents’ marital status, conflict, and role modeling: Links with adult
infidelity intentions? Sexuality and Culture, 19(1), 72–84. doi:10.1007/ romantic relationship quality. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(5),
s12119-014-9248-z. 348–367. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.675838.
Johnson, C. A., Stanley, S. M., Glenn, N. D., Amato, P. R., Nock, S. L., Ritchie, L. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). There’s jealousy…and then
Markman, H. J., & Dion, M. R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: there’s jealousy: Differential effects of jealousy on testosterone. Adap-
2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and Divorce (S02096 tive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(2), 231–246. doi:10.1007/
OKDHS). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Human s40750-015-0023-7.
Services. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The devel-
Knopp, K., Vandenberg, P., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, opment (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in hetero-
H. J. (2016).‘‘DTR’’or‘‘WTF’’: The role of infidelity in defining the sexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
relationship. Poster presented at the meeting of the American 45(1), 101–117.
Psychological Association, Denver, CO. Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships,
Lalasz, C.B., &Weigel,D.J. (2011). Understanding the relationshipbetween and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 557–575.
gender and extradyadic relations: The mediating role of sensation seek- doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x.
ing on intentions to engage in sexual infidelity. Personality and Indi- Scott, S. B., Parsons, A., Post, K. M., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., &
vidual Differences, 50(7), 1079–1083. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.029. Rhoades, G. K. (2016). Changes in the sexual relationship and rela-
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). tionship adjustment precede extradyadic sexual involvement. Archives
Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 395–406. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0797-0.
Science, 22(9), 1191–1197. doi:10.1177/0956797611416252. Scott, S. B., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., & Markman, H. J.
Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life (2013). Reasons for divorce and recollections of premarital interven-
course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 861–878. doi:10.1111/j. tion: Implications for improving relationship education. Couple &
1741-3737.2008.00532.x. Family Psychology, 2(2), 131–145. doi:10.1037/a0032025.
Luo, S., Cartun, M. A., & Snider, A. G. (2010). Assessing extradyadic Sharpe, D. I., Walters, A. S., & Goren, M. J. (2013). Effect of cheating expe-
behavior: A review, a new measure, and two new models. Person- rience on attitudes toward infidelity. Sexuality and Culture, 17(4), 643–
ality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 155–163. doi:10.1016/j. 658. doi:10.1007/s12119-013-9169-2.
paid.2010.03.033. Simon, T. R., Anderson, M., Thompson, M. P., Crosby, A. E., Shelley, G., &
Maddox Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Sacks, J. J. (2001). Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence
Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in among U.S. adults. Violence and Victims, 16(2), 115–126.
unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), Solstad, K., & Mucic, D. (1999). Extramarital sexual relationships of middle-
598–610. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816. aged Danish men: Attitudes and behavior. Maturitas, 32(1), 51–59.
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual doi:10.1016/S0378-5122(99)00012-2.
couples: Demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predic- Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus
tors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 971–982. deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Rela-
doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z. tions, 55, 499–509. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x.
Markman, H. J. (2005). The prevention of extramarital involvement: Steps Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New
toward ‘‘affair proofing’’ marriage. Clinical Psychology: Science and Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Practice, 12(2), 134–138. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bpi016. Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohab-
Martins, A., Pereira, M., Andrade, R., Dattilio, F. M., Narciso, I., & itingAmericans.Journalof Marriage and Family,61(1),48–60.doi:10.
Canavarro, M. C. (2016). Infidelity in dating relationships: Gender- 1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x.
specific correlates of face-to-face and online extradyadic involvement. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table A1: Marital status of people 15 years
ArchivesofSexualBehavior,45(1),193–205.doi:10.1007/s10508-015- and over, by age, sex, personal earnings, race, and Hispanic origin.
0576-3. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/population/www/socde
McAnulty, R., & Brineman, J. (2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. An- mo/hh-fam/cps2010.html
nual Review of Sex Research, 18(1), 94–114. doi:10.1080/10532528. Varga, C. M., Gee, C. B., & Munro, G. (2011). The effects of sample char-
2007.10559848. acteristics and experience with infidelity on romantic jealousy. Sex Roles,
Munsch, C. L. (2012). The science of two-timing: The state of infidelity 65(11–12), 854–866. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0048-8.
research. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 46–59. doi:10.1111/j.1751- Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ per-
9020.2011.00434.x. spectives of couple problems and treatment issues in couple therapy.
Pinderhughes, E. B. (2002). African American marriage in the 20th century. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3), 361–366. doi:10.1037/0893-
Family Process, 41(2), 269–282. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41 3200.11.3.361.
206.x. Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Predicting sexual
Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2009). Relationship education for indi- infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. Journal
viduals: The benefits and challenges of intervening early. In H. Benson of Family Psychology, 21(2), 320–324. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.
& S. Callan (Eds.), What works in relationship education: Lessons from 320.

123
Arch Sex Behav

Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during
survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 265–274.
a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, doi:10.1177/0265407599162008.
21(2), 147–154. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147.
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a
national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 167–174. doi:10.1080/
00224499709551881.

123