INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS I: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

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

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-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.