Cheating
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Contents |
Cheating (In Romantic Relationships)
Due to the fact that infidelity can have many negative effects on both partners in a relationship, the root of cheating has been a topic of interest to many psychologists. The act of cheating and characteristics of those who cheat are subjects that have been studied in depth from different outlooks of psychology.
Definition:
Infidelity, in the terms of a dyadic romantic relationship generally represents any violation of a partner’s trust through physical (sexual) or emotional means of cheating (Brand). Empirical research of the dynamics of infidelity really began in the mid to late 1970’s. At that time, studies were focused upon the phenomenon on cheating because it was becoming more visible in life as family dynamics began to change and vary Drigotas.Infidelity can cause depression, anxiety, humiliation, and is the leading cause of spousal abuse and murder (Brand).
Characteristics of a “Cheater”
Men tend to engage in acts of infidelity more often than women across cultures (Brand). In fact, men are more likely to cheat in terms of prevalence and incidence (Brand). However, many studies have demonstrated that women are more likely to emotionally “cheat” (or develop feelings for someone outside the relationship) (Orzeck). Usually, individuals cheat in order to fulfill the needs that are not met in their relationship. In addition, some psychologists suggest that personality traits play a large role in determining who will cheat. According to Orzeck and Lung (2005), Goldberg’s “Big Five Personality Factors” (neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) can help predict which people are more likely to cheat (Orzeck). People whose personalities agree with the Big Five Factors are more likely to find satisfaction in a relationship, and thus are less likely to cheat (the opposite is also true) (Orzeck).
Different Approaches to Study Cheating:
The Normative Approach: According to this theory, cheating behaviors can be attributed in the societal norms surrounding the cheater. For example, someone is more likely the cheat if they know or are associated with someone that has cheated before (Drigotas).
The Investment-Model Approach: This theory holds that the most important determining factor in cheating is the commitment level involved in the relationship. If a person is less committed (i.e., less satisfied, seeking alternative quality and so on) he/she is more likely to cheat (Drigotas).
The Evolutionary Approach: In terms of evolutionary psychology, cheating is seen as means of ‘trading up’ if evolutionary benefits in the dyad are not as good as benefits elsewhere (such as a better partner for children) (Drigotas). This theory assumes a man will be more likely to cheat to trade up in terms of reproductive success (RS), however women will also cheat to find a superior mate. It was this theory that proved that men are more likely to take part in sexual infidelity, not emotional (Drigotas). The parental investment theory, or time obligated to nurture children, can also play a role in infidelity and is being widely researched (Brand).
Noteworthy Experiments:
Orzeck and Lung (2005): participants between the ages of 18-25 involved in serious dating relationships and all participants took surveys about cheating and personality tests. It was found that Goldberg’s “Big Five Personality Factors” can help predict which people are more likely to cheat (Orzeck). According to their findings, it seems as though all five factors are very important because they all give insight into which type of people are more dissatisfied in a relationship. These dissatisfied people were those predicted more likely to cheat (Orzeck).
Feldman and Cauffman (1999): Concluded, through survey, that although there is widespread disapproval, sexual betrayal occurs often in marriage (Blow). For the purpose of this study, sexual betrayal was related to sexual intercourse with someone outside of the marriage (Blow). However, this is an interesting aspect of the study because each and every study on cheating defines sexual betrayal in its own way.
Brand, Markey, Mills, and Hodges (2007): Through questioning a large sample of men and women it was found that men were more likely to cheat (in terms of incidence and prevalence) (Brand). This has been predicted by many social psychologists in the past, and results of this study seem to confirm what literature and other studies had been predicting.
Caveats:
Often times, studies on cheating involve self-reported data and therefore can sometimes be skewed. For example, it is hard for scientists to trust data is 100% accurate when people are telling them about their sexual histories. Furthermore, sometimes through no fault of the participants, incidents or details are forgotten or left out that could actually change the results of an experiment (Blow). In addition, although many experiments on cheating exist there are few literature reviews of this phenomenon. Furthermore, usually, research on infidelity is done in a retrospective and self-reflective fashion and thus eliminates the possibility of gaining information of the psychological state at the time of the act of cheating (Blow). Lastly most research that exists explores infidelity in the terms of marriage and divorce rates. For this reason, it is harder to find literature about younger couples cheating or trends in dating (Brand).
Works Cited:
Drigotas, Stephen M. and Barta, William (2001). The Cheating Heart: Scientific Explorations of Infedelity. Current Directions in Psychological Science: Volume 10, Number 5. October, 2001.
Brand, Markey, Mills, and Hodges (2007). Sex Differences in Self-Reported Infidelity and its Correlates. Published online 24 May 2007. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2007.
Orzeck, Tricia and Lung, Esther (2005). Big Five Personality Differences of Cheaters and Non-cheaters. Current Psychology. Winter 2005.
Blow, Adrian J. and Hartnett, Kelley. Infidelity in Committed Relationships I: A Methodological Review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. April 2005. Volume 31, No. 2, 183-216.
