INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS I: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

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

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.