INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS II: A SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW

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

This article, a follow-up on our methodological review of infidelity studies, provides a substantive review of the research findings on infidelity in committed relationships. The aim of this article is to present the most conclusive findings available to both researcher and practitioner on the subject of infidelity. We highlight attitudes toward infidelity; prevalence data; types of infidelity; gender dynamics and infidelity; issues in the primary relationship and their relationship to infidelity; race, culture, and infidelity; education, income, employment, and infidelity; justifications for infidelity; individual issues and their relationship to infidelity; same-sex couples and infidelity; attachment and infidelity; opportunity and infidelity; the aftermath and recovery process from infidelity; and clinical practices.

Infidelity is a subject that confronts couple therapists regularly in their clinical practices. It can be a confusing and heart-wrenching experience for all involved, including the therapist who may have his or her own personal fears and values related to infidelity. Couple therapists who stay abreast of current research literature may find themselves frustrated when they attempt to assimilate the research findings on infidelity. There are limitations in methodologies, conflicting results, and information that is of little practical value in the therapy room.

This article, the second of two on the subject of infidelity in committed relationships, has one main purpose-to bring readers up to date on what the research says about the subject. In our review of the literature, we found that there are many different opinions, ideas, and points of view related to infidelity. For the purpose of this article, however, we will focus specifically on the available empirical research data and will avoid describing interesting opinions, theoretical ideas, or conjectures that are not rooted in research evidence of some kind. As a result, the data we review in this article come directly from the list of articles we included in article I (this issue), in which we evaluated the methodology of every infidelity-related study we could find published in journals in the fields of couple and family therapy, sex therapy, family studies, and related disciplines (see Blow & Hartnett, this issue, for the list of articles and their specific inclusion criteria).

The data presented in this substantive review must be interpreted in light of the critique of research methodologies we presented in the companion article. The research on infidelity is extremely complex; there are interactional effects among study variables, and, as a result, the phenomenon is not easily understood in a simplistic or linear fashion. Further, practitioners must exercise caution in using this information as they work with couples and individuals, as these research findings are not absolute truths; rather, they are tentative ideas about what might be going on in the lives of clients. It is important to note that even though we review the broad subject of infidelity, studies use the term differently and apply it to diverse types of relationships (see our companion article for an extensive discussion of definitional issues in infidelity research).

Although other literature reviews exist on infidelity (Atkins, Dimidjian, & Jacobson, 2001; Glass & Wright, 1988, 1997; Thompson, 1983), we believe that our appraisal is different in that it describes all of the most recent infidelity research in one comprehensive article. Further, as we explored the infidelity literature, we were particularly mindful of the methodological issues we presented in Blow and Hartnett (this issue). Therefore, we hope that our substantive review presents a balanced look at what researchers have added to our understanding of infidelity to date. Note that we do not list every finding from every study; instead, we summarize major research findings using studies as examples.

SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW

Attitudes Toward Infidelity

Attitudes toward infidelity are important in that some research suggests that individuals with more permissive attitudes toward infidelity in relationships are more likely to engage in infidelity (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In the literature we reviewed, we found that several researchers captured their participants' general views, attitudes, and opinions about infidelity. For example, in their large study using a representative United States sample, Laumann, Gaugnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994) found that 77% of their participants believed that extramarital (EM)1 sex was always wrong. It appears that such disapproval may stem from a general belief that infidelity is immoral (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, 1993).

Weis and Jurich (1985) used stepwise regression analyses to explore several factors that influence individuals' attitudes toward EM sex. In this large-sample study, they found that people who are well educated, who are from large metropolitan areas, who have permissive attitudes about premarital sex, and who are either single or dissatisfied with their marital relationship, are relatively more accepting of EM relationships. Interestingly, they found that size of community was a significant direct predictor of EM attitudes-even more so than marital satisfaction or status. In their analysis, those who frequently attended church were also more likely to disapprove of EM sex. Given some of the difficulties with stepwise regression-such as the fitting of data, decisions as to which variables to include and omit, and interpretations of final p-values-these findings should be interpreted with caution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).