INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS II: A SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW

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

Compared with Laumann et al. (1994), other authors report significantly lower prevalence statistics. General Social Surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 showed that a mere 1.5% of married people reported having had a sexual partner other than their spouse in the year before the survey (Smith, 1991), and less than 3% of Choi, Catania, and Dolcini's (1994) sample had engaged in EM sex in the previous 12 months. In a 1993 probability sample that included 1194 married adults, 1.2% had EM sex in the last 30 days, 3.6% had EM sex in the last year, and 6.4% had EM sex in the last 5 years (Leigh, Temple, & Trocki, 1993). These results possibly indicate that the number of EM sexual involvements in any given year is quite low, but that over the lifetime of a relationship this number is notably higher.

In general, based on the above data, we can conclude that over the course of married, heterosexual relationships in the United States, EM sex occurs in less than 25% of committed relationships, and more men than women appear to be engaging in infidelity (Laumann et al., 1994; Wiederman, 1997). Further, these rates are significantly lower in any given year. From studies of other countries, it appears that rates of infidelity are higher or lower in some places and that gender differences vary considerably (e.g., Knodel et al., 1997; Pulerwitz, Izazola-Licea, & Gortmaker, 2001; Solstad & Mucic, 1999).

It is important to note that prevalence data vary greatly in studies with broader definitions and populations of interest. We propose, therefore, that future surveys collect data from large samples of people involved in dating, cohabiting, and marriage relationships, as well as from divorced individuals whose relationships may have dissolved because of infidelity (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000). Further, it is critically important that data are not simply collected in terms of sexual intercourse. Research that limits the definition of infidelity to sexual intercourse minimizes the devastating effects that other types of sexual involvement and emotional connections can have on relationships. Finally, gathering prevalence data from diverse individuals in terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and employment types may yield striking differences between groups.

Types of Infidelity

Both the clinical and self-help literature reference general types of infidelity, including one-night stands, emotional connections, long-term relationships, and philandering (Brown, 2001; Pittman, 1989). However, most of the empirical literature does not delineate these types of infidelity, nor does it offer ideas on how prevalent different types of infidelity are or in what kinds of relationships they exist. Further, the specific behaviors associated with infidelity are under-researched; those studies that have attempted to determine what actually occurs in infidelity in relationships have focused primarily on sexual intercourse (see Appendix in Blow & Hartnett, this issue).

There is evidence that there are emotional-only, sexual-only, and combined sexual and emotional types of infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1985; Thompson, 1984). These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and Glass and Wright (1985) explore infidelity on a continuum of sexual involvement and emotional involvement. Further, within each general category there are different types. For example, emotional infidelity could consist of an internet relationship, a work relationship, or a long-distance phone relationship. Sexual infidelity could consist of visits with sex workers, same-sex encounters, and different types of sexual activities. In short, carefully conducted studies are needed to test accurately the hypotheses related to types of infidelity and to determine their prevalence in the general population and in specific subpopulations.