Reasons for (Non)engagement in Infidelity |
| |
| Authors: | Tara M Emmers-Sommer Kathleen Warber Jeff Halford |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Communication Studies , University of Nevada, Las Vegas , Las Vegas, Nevada, USA tara.emmerssommer@unlv.edu;3. Department of Communication , Wittenberg University , Springfield, Ohio, USA;4. Department of Communication , Keene State College , Keene, New Hampshire, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | This investigation examined reasons for (un)faithfulness. Driven by interdependence theory, data from 220 undergraduates at a southwestern U.S. university indicate that men have more relational alternatives than women and individuals’ relational investments tied to relational stage as well as length of relationship. Significant predictors of infidelity among men and women are quality of alternatives, believing that sex occurs early in a relationship, and having been cheated on (applied to men only). Quality of alternatives predicted cheating among seriously dating individuals, whereas marrieds reported the strongest predictor of cheating as being cheated on. Fear of sanctions related to cheating but not to commitment. Legal sanctions motivated monogamy for men but not women. Participants reported over 500 reasons to remain faithful and over 1,000 reasons to cheat. |
| |
| Keywords: | infidelity relational commitment sanctions sex differences |
|
|
