INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS I: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Apr 2005 by Blow, Adrian J, Hartnett, Kelley

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.