Article Critique

ARTICLE

Love thy neighbour: Personality traits, relationship quality, and attraction to others as predictors of infidelity among

young adults

Kirstian A.V. Gibson,1 Ashley E. Thompson,1 and Lucia F. O’Sullivan1

1 Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB

Infidelity is defined as the violation of a couple’s assumed or stated agreement concerning emotional and/ or sexual exclusivity. The current study examined the utility of personality traits (i.e., the Big Five and SIS/ SES - an individual’s sexual response to sexual desires, arousal, and behaviours are based on the balance between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition; Bancroft & Janssen, 2000) relative to relationship quality and attraction to others in predicting reports of infidelity among a sample of young adults (ages 18– 26 years). A total of 131 men and 164 women from the US who reported being in a romantic relationship were recruited using MTurk2, an online crowdsourcing survey tool. Participants completed a series of measures assessing demographics, relationship quality and investment, sexual experience, sexual attitudes, attraction to others, and personality traits, including the Big Five and SIS/SES. A notable minority (16.6%) of participants reported at least one occasion of past infidelity during their current romantic rela- tionship (yes/no reports); however, reports of infidelity increased significantly when individuals reported actual sexual, romantic, and online infidelity activities (78.6%). Personality traits within the Big Five and SIS/SES models were not significant predictors of infidelity. With each occurrence of emotional attraction to a person other than their current partner, the odds of reporting infidelity increased by 51.6%. The find- ings are discussed in terms of implications for counselling and education regarding infidelity, as well as continued research on risk factors for infidelity among young adults.

KEY WORDS: Infidelity, personality traits, relationship quality, attraction, young adults

INTRODUCTION

Nearly all adults (94%-99%) expect monogamy in both their romantic and sexual relationships (Treas & Giesen, 2000), with most adults believing that infidelity is always wrong (Carr, 2010; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). Infidelity, the ‘‘violation of a couple’s assumed or stated agreement concerning emotional and/or sexual exclusivity’’ (Weeks, Gambescia, & Jenkins, 2003, p. xviii), can create considerable distress and is a leading cause of relationship dissolution between intimate partners (Amato & Previti, 2003; Betzig, 1989; Kitson, Babri, & Roach, 1985), with termination of the relationship being a common outcome (Harris, 2002). Several studies have examined whether specific personality traits are linked to infidelity (Orzeck & Lung, 2005; Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008); however, there is limited research assessing traits in any comprehensive way. Most studies have focused on just one or two traits. The current study examined two broad sets of personality traits in relation to reports of in- fidelity during a committed romantic relationship: the Big

Five (Johnson, 2000) and the Sexual Inhibition/Excitation (Carpenter, Janssen, Graham, Vorst, & Wicherts, 2010) models. In addition, quality of the relationship and attraction to others were examined.

Rates of Infidelity

Despite strong social disapproval, infidelity is relatively common in marriage and dating relationships (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Hall & Fincham, 2009; Schmitt, 2004; Wiederman, 1997). Early reports of infidelity found that 50% of men and 25% of women engaged in extramarital behaviour at some point in their lives (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). More recent findings suggest that reports of infidelity range from 23% to 63% among men and 19% to 45% among women (Mark, Janssen, & Milhausen, 2011; Schmitt, 2004), with rates comparatively high among those in dating and marital relationships.

Recent research has expanded our working definitions of infidelity beyond extradyadic sexual behaviour. Although there is often notable consensus on the behaviours that constitute

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kirstian A.V. Gibson. Email: [email protected]

186 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

sexual infidelity (Hansen, 1985; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988), emotional infidelity is often incorporated at some level into definitions of infidelity. Yet emotional infidelity shows less consensus and greater subjectivity in judgments about whether it constitutes infidelity (Thompson, 1984; Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016a).

Big Five Personality Traits and Infidelity

Unlike attitudes and beliefs that can change with experience, personality traits are relatively stable throughout one’s life (Miller et al., 2004). Examining the personalities of those who report engaging in infidelity may help identify key factors associated with its occurrence in relationships. Studies have addressed infidelity and its links to the Big Five personality traits, five well-standardized broad domains used to assess personality in Western cultures (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). The most closely related trait is Neuroti- cism (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Buss & Shackelford, 1997), which is characterized by a lack of positive psychological adjustment, low emotional stability, and low emotion regulation (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Those high in Neuro- ticism have less impulse control (Trobst, Herbst, Masters, & Costa, 2002), are less happy in their relationships generally (Karney & Bradbury, 1997), and are more insecure (McCrae & John, 1992) than are those who are low in this trait.

Extraversion is related to positive affect, for example happi- ness, and self-esteem (Barta & Kiene, 2005), and is associated with sociability, dominance, and active or energetic traits (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Judge et al., 1999). How- ever, those high in Extraversion tend to have lower rates of relationship exclusivity (Orzeck & Lung, 2005; Schmitt, 2004), and more favourable views toward multiple sexual partners and experimenting with new and/or risky sexual activities (Eysenck, 1976). Those high in Extraversion also may attract potential partners as a result of their socially dominant and assertive traits, making it easier to participate in extradyadic opportunities (Miller et al., 2004).

Openness to experience, the least researched aspect of the comprehensive Big Five model (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008), captures intelligence, creativity, curiosity, perceptual ability, and insightfulness (Judge et al., 1999; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). Those high in Openness tend to expose themselves to novel, unconventional, and challenging thoughts, sensations, and experiences (Barta & Kiene, 2005), and they are generally independent in their judgments and enjoy breaking away from norms (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008). Yet those low in Openness are more likely to report infidelity, lower relation- ship satisfaction, less commitment to their romantic partner (Shaver & Brennan, 1992), and take part in risky sexual be- haviours including infidelity (Schmitt, 2004).

Low Agreeableness and Conscientiousness also are linked to infidelity (Schmitt, 2004), with individuals who engage in extradyadic relationships tending to be disagreeable, generally uncooperative, deceitful, non-empathic, and lacking in trust (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Graziano

& Eisenberg, 1997; Miller et al., 2004; Schmitt, 2004). More- over, those who report infidelity tend to be disorganized and unreliable, or low in Conscientiousness (Hogan & Ones, 1997; Schmitt & Shackelford, 2008; Shackelford et al., 2008). Although there certainly has been valuable work in this area, research is needed that incorporates each of the Big Five traits, not just one or two of them, to compare their predictive utility as well as other traits relevant to romantic relationships and sexuality.

Sexual Excitation/Inhibition and Infidelity

The Dual Control Model (SES/SIS model) highlights the rela- tionship between sexual activity and sexual excitation and inhibition in the brain (Bancroft, Graham, Janssen, & Sanders, 2009), where an individual’s response to sexual desires, arousal, and behaviours are based on the balance between sexual excita- tion and sexual inhibition (Bancroft & Janssen, 2000; Mark et al., 2011). A second model, SESII-W, was created with two-higher order factors similar to sexual excitation and sexual inhibition (Graham, Sanders, & Milhausen, 2006). These factors include emotional state, partner variables, relationship variables, aspects of sexual interactions, and cultural concerns (Graham et al., 2006). However, researchers demonstrated that both men and women can be assessed using the original SES/SIS model as variability within groups is more substantial than between groups and the majority of influences on sexual arousal are the same between gender (Carpenter, Janssen, Graham, Vorst, & Wicherts, 2008). Those high in sexual exci- tation (SES) have higher levels of sexual responsiveness, sexual desire, sexual compulsivity, and numbers of partners (Bancroft et al., 2009; Janssen & Bancroft, 2007). They also have higher rates of sexual risk taking than do those with high levels of sexual inhibition (Mark et al., 2011). Infidelity is more preva- lent in those characterized as high SES (Mark et al., 2011). The current study advanced previous work by incorporating a broader measure of personality than has been used before, specifically the Big Five personality traits, a gold standard of personality assessment, as well as a SIS/SES dimension to ex- amine young adults’ reports of sexual and romantic infidelity.

Relationship Quality and Attraction to Others

Are personality traits the best characteristics or predisposing features for predicting reports of infidelity? A classic debate in the field of social psychology is the power of context and circumstantial features to predict an individual’s behaviour over and above the power of traits (Mischel, 1968; 1973). The exigencies of a given situation should not be treated simply as error measurement in psychological research, but instead as factors that have the potential to trump the predictive utility of stable personality traits under certain conditions. We argue here that other key factors linked to relational or situational features may be more useful ultimately for understanding reports of infidelity. These factors are relationship quality and attraction to others.

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 187

Risk of infidelity is higher among those in poorer quality relationships (Mattingly, Wilson, Clark, Bequette, & Weidler, 2010), likely because individuals turn to others to meet needs for intimacy or connection that are not being met in their current relationship or perhaps are those who have not fully invested in their relationship from the start. Relationship satisfaction and relationship investment are found to predict relationship commitment (Mattingly et al., 2010) – a factor negatively associated with relationship termination (Rusbult, 1980). High relationship satisfaction, commitment, and invest- ment and low rates of perceived relationship alternatives are found to be associated with infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom & Gentilia, 1999). This suggests that those who are unsatisfied, not committed, and not invested to their current romantic partner are more likely engage in infidelity than are those who are highly satisfied, committed, and invested (Mattingly et al., 2010).

Studies of poaching, which refers to ‘‘stealing’’ a partner known to be in another relationship (Schmitt & Buss, 2001), indicate that a significant minority of new relationships are initiated by infidelity (Davies, Shackelford, & Hass, 2007). In addition, attraction to others is a necessary precursor to infi- delity and some may have a greater propensity toward noticing or soliciting attention from attractive others through flirting or developing close relationships, ultimately increasing opportu- nities for engaging in infidelity. These two features are likely related. Findings suggest that those in satisfying and com- mitted relationships tend to derogate attractive alternative partners, presumably as a strategy to help maintain their rela- tionship and avoid infidelity (Meyer, Berkman, Karremans, & Lieberman, 2011).

The Current Study

We examined reports of infidelity among a sample of young adults, their own expectations about exclusivity, perceptions of their partners’ expectations among exclusivity, as well as the monogamy agreements that they had with a partner (if any).

Research Question: To what extent do young adults report expect-

ing exclusivity and have established a monogamy agreement with

their committed dating partner?

Based on findings from a strong prior literature (e.g., Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Mark et al., 2011), we predicted that those who score high in Extraversion, and Neuroticism, low in Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and those with sexual traits that include being high in excitation (i.e., SES; those more likely act on their feelings of sexual arousal) would be more likely to report having at least one past occasion of infidelity during the course of their current relationship. However, we hypothesized that infidelity could be better understood using reports of relationship quality and attraction to others, with higher rates among those report- ing low relationship quality or high attraction to others.

Hypothesis: Relationship quality and attraction to others are stronger

predictors of infidelity than are personality traits.

Although such factors could be expressions of personality traits, we believe it is important to assess these factors sepa- rately as individuals may experience greater variability of relationship quality and attraction due to unpredictable cir- cumstances. We studied infidelity among a young adult sample (18–26 years) as these ages represent a period when norms relating to relationship development likely become entrenched (Arnett, 2000; 2004; Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2007).

METHOD

Participants

Four hundred and seventy-four (N ¼ 474) participants were recruited from MechanicalTurk (MTurk)2, a crowdsourcing website that allows individuals to complete online tasks of their choosing for monetary compensation (Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). Individuals responded to a recruitment post- ing on MTurk2 that referred to an anonymous survey of intimate relationships, and those who were interested completed a screening form. Eligibility criteria were: (1) US resident; (2) between 18 and 26 years and at least the age of majority (legal age) in their state; and, (3) in a romantic relationship at the time of the study. A total of 112 participants were excluded from an initial sample of 474 participants because of incom- plete data, another 58 for failing to meet study requirements, and nine for completing the survey more than once, resulting in a final sample of 131 male and 164 female participants (N ¼ 295; Mage ¼ 23.24; SD ¼ 2.22). Participants’ ethnic back- grounds were White/Caucasian (89.8%), Black/African American (5.1%), or other (5.1%). Over half (54.5%) were in a dating relationship; 45.5% were married or cohabiting. Average rela- tionship duration was 34.9 months (SD ¼ 29.0). The majority (83.7%) self-identified as heterosexual.

Measures

Descriptive Measures

Background questionnaire. A background questionnaire developed for this study assessed participants’ basic demo- graphic information, including age, sex (self-identifying as male, female, or other), ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Monogamy expectations and relationship exclusivity. This measure consists of nine items developed by the re- searchers (see Appendix A). The items assess respondents’ expectations of monogamy (i.e., exclusivity) in an established relationship. Participants were asked to report the extent to which they expected sexual and/or romantic exclusivity from a partner in their relationships generally (from 1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ absolutely always). Romantic involvement was defined as ‘‘any kind of close affection/intimate connection’’ with another, and sexual involvement was defined as ‘‘any form of physically arousing contact, such as kissing, oral sex, or inter- course.’’ They also were asked whether they expected sexual

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

188 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

and/or romantic exclusivity from their current partner (yes/ no), and whether they believed that their current partner expected sexual and romantic exclusivity from them (yes/no). In addition, participants were asked whether they had an understanding with their partner of some type that they would not be romantically or sexually involved with others, and if so, to explain in detail (using an open-ended format) how that understanding came about. Items were assessed and used independently in the analysis rather than as a scale or inventory.

Outcome Measure

Additional items (using an 8-point checklist) from the measure shown in Appendix A assessed whether the respondent had engaged in some form of infidelity and whether the respon- dent knew or suspected that his or her partner had engaged in infidelity over the course of their relationship. Those who endorsed either the item ‘‘I have been romantically involved with at least one other person (other than my romantic partner) during my relationship with my primary partner’’ and/or ‘‘I have been sexually involved with at least one other person (other than my romantic partner) during my relation- ship with my primary partner’’ were categorized as having engaged in infidelity (no ¼ 0; yes ¼ 1) over the course of their primary relationship. This is the primary outcome variable.

Next, participants completed a checklist of 22 sexual, romantic, and online activities often perceived to comprise infidelity (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016a). For each item, respondents indicated how many times (if at all) they had engaged in the behaviour ‘‘with someone other than your romantic partner’’ over the course of their current relation- ship. Examples of items include ‘‘Exchanging sexually explicit messages by text or email’’ and ‘‘Receiving oral sex.’’ Scores were summed to determine the range and frequency of activities in which respondent had engaged. The Cronbach’s alpha for the checklist in the current study was 0.84.

Predictive Measures

International Personality Item Pool–NEO inventory (IPIP- NEO; Johnson, 2000). A modified 120-item Big Five person- ality assessment tool was used in the current study as the primary assessment of personality. Respondents rated each statement in terms of how much they perceived it to charac- terize their personality on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Scores range from 24 to 120 on each of the five traits, with low scores indicating that the respondent is low in the specific trait. The following Cronbach’s alphas were found in the current study: 0.88 (Neuroticism); 0.83 (Extraversion); 0.70 (Openness); 0.86 (Agreeableness); and 0.89 (Conscientiousness).

Sexual Inhibition/Excitation Scale (SIS/SES; Carpenter et al., 2010). The three personality dimensions of the Dual Control Model were assessed using the 14-item SIS/SES mea- sure. The SIS/SES predicts proneness to sexual response and sexual behaviour (Carpenter et al., 2010). The SIS/SES mea-

sure assesses three components of the sexual response: (1) the tendency to experience sexual excitation in a sexual encounter; (2) the tendency to experience sexual inhibition as a result of a sexual performance failure (i.e., people will inhibit/not act on their sexual arousal due to fear, negative past experience, or failure during sexual interactions); and (3) the tendency to experience sexual inhibition as a result of a performance consequence (i.e., people will inhibit/not act on their sexual arousal due to the negative external threats from the sexual interaction). Unlike the 45-item SIS/SES, the 14-item SIS/SES measure appears to represent the inhibition/ excitation structure equally for both men and women (Carpenter et al., 2010). Representative items include, ‘‘If I realize there is a risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease, I am unlikely to stay sexually aroused’’ (inhibition) and ‘‘When I talk to someone on the telephone who has a sexy voice, I become sexually aroused’’ (excitation). Respondents indicated their level of agreement/disagreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). SES scores range from 6 to 24, and SIS1/SIS2 from 4 to 16. Those high on SES and low on SIS1/SIS2 are classified as high in excita- tion, whereas those high on SIS1/SIS2 and low on SES are classified as high in inhibition. The Cronbach alphas for the current study were 0.79 for SES, 0.73 for SIS1, and 0.69 for SIS2.

Intimate relationship quality and sexual experience. This measure assessed sex of participants’ current partner, rela- tionship duration (in months), feelings of closeness toward current romantic partner, commitment (i.e., desire for rela- tionship to last), and perceived caring by current partner, and romantic satisfaction, each scored from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot) (Appendix B). One item assessed whether partici- pants had a sexual relationship with their partner and, if so, how long they had had a sexual relationship with that partner (in months) and their sexual satisfaction (on a scale from 1 – not at all to 4 – a lot). Closeness, commitment, perceived caring, romantic and sexual satisfaction were combined into a measure of relationship quality that was used in the predic- tive analysis. The Cronbach alpha was 0.78.

Attraction to others. Attraction to women and men out- side of one’s primary relationship was measured using a 5-item modified version of Diamond’s (2010) Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction (AMFA). This measure yields similar results for men and women and for those with opposite-sex or same-sex attraction (Diamond, 2010). Items assessed frequency of physical attraction to someone other than one’s romantic partner (in the past six months), frequency of emo- tional/romantic attraction to another (in the past six months), and frequency of sexual fantasy about another in the past month (each on a scale from 1 ¼ never to 7 ¼ about every day). Respondents also reported the number of people to whom they had been physically attracted, and the intensity of attractions to others in the past six months (from 1 – none to 5 – intense). No score is generated for this measure; each question is analyzed separately across all participants.

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 189

Procedure

Participants were recruited through MTurk2 to complete the study. Interested individuals clicked on a link to a secure server. Those eligible to participate completed a consent form before completing the survey. All measures were entered into Checkbox Survey2, a professional survey platform, then linked to MTurk2. The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. After finishing the survey, participants were taken to a webpage where they were thanked for their participation, given a debriefing form, and asked for their MTurk2 worker ID to receive compensation of $1.00 for their time, in line with payment recommendations by MTurk2. All measures and procedures were piloted in full before the study. All com- ponents of the study were approved in full by our institution’s ethics review board.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated to demographic, sexual and dating backgrounds, and rates of infidelity. Intercorrela- tions of key variables were calculated (see Table 1). Multi- collinearity was evaluated among predictor variables. The pre- dictor set met the criteria for low multicollinarity (Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980). The variance inflation factor (VIF) scores were all 1.77 or lower, and bivariate correlations also were far less than .60. Chi-square values were calculated to assess group differences in reports of: romantic versus sexual infidelity; self versus partner reports of infidelity; and the proportions reporting ‘‘yes’’ to infidelity versus endorsing one or more sexual, romantic, and online infidelity activities. A MANOVA assessed gender differences in physical attraction, emotional attraction, and fantasy about non-partner others. Finally, a hierarchical logistic regression with sequential testing of blocks of predictor factors was used to test our study hypothesis regarding the predictive utility of relationship and contextual factors over personality traits. One dependent variable (report of infidelity; no/yes) was examined. This variable combined both romantic and/or sexual infidelity as there were not suffi- cient numbers of cases to examine each independently. The effects of the key personality traits (Openness, Conscientious-

ness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Sexual Excita- tion) were entered in Block 1. Relationship quality was entered in Block 2 then intensity of attraction to (non-partner) others in Block 3. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 23.0.

RESULTS

Relationship Quality and Sexual Histories

Overall, participants reported relatively high quality romantic relationships. When asked how close they felt to their cur- rent romantic partner, they provided mean scores of 2.82 (SD ¼ 0.45) indicating considerable closeness. Most indi- cated a moderately high level of relationship commitment (M ¼ 2.83; SD ¼ 0.46), and perceived their partner as caring for them quite a lot (M ¼ 2.83; SD ¼ 0.46). Mean scores indi- cated a moderate level of romantic satisfaction in their current relationship (M ¼ 2.56; SD ¼ 0.68).

All but one participant indicated that they had a sexual rela- tionship with their current partner. Mean scores indicated moderate to high levels of sexual satisfaction in their current relationship (M ¼ 2.54; SD ¼ 0.74). Over one-half of partici- pants (57.6%) reported engaging in sexual activity several times a week with their current romantic partner, as com- pared to those who reported sexual activity at least once a day (10.8%), 1–2 times a month (8.1%) or less than once a month (5.8%).

Expectations of Monogamy/Exclusivity

With regard to Research Question 1, almost all reported ‘‘always’’ or ‘‘absolutely always’’ expecting romantic (91.8%) and sexual (91.5%) exclusivity from a partner in general, as well as in their current relationship (96.9% and 94.6%, respec- tively). They also perceived their partners as expecting roman- tic (95.9%) and sexual (93.9%) exclusivity from them. There were no differences in proportions. Most (83.7%) reported having an agreement about exclusivity with their partner. Interestingly, when asked to elaborate on the nature of this agreement in an open-ended response, 116 of the 295

Table 1. Intercorrelations of Control, Predictor and Outcome Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 >6 7 8 9 10

1. Gendera – 2. Relationship quality .021 – 3. Intensity of attraction to other �.212** �.148* – 4. Openness .214** .044 �.013 – 5. Conscientiousness .127 .177** �.137* .214** – 6. Agreeableness .204** .176** �.140* .432** .500** – 7. Extraversion .001 .103 .094 .214** .265** .014 – 8. Neuroticism .212** �.121* .055 .019 �.466** �.216** �.425** – 9. Sexual Excitation (SES) �.229** �.120* .288** .208** �.146* .034 .062 .070 – 10. Infidelity .014 �.138* .149* .106 �.029 �.020 .112 .078 .148* –

Note: N ¼ 295. aMale ¼ 0; female ¼ 1. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

190 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

participants (39.3%) reported having a mutual discussion that directly addressed an agreement about exclusivity, whereas 73 (24.7%) referred to an ‘‘unspoken’’ agreement in some form or ‘‘mutual understanding,’’ but no direct conversation about this topic. Another six (2.0%) reported a one-way com- munication by just one partner, but no real exchange, another 9 (3.1%) reported an indirect conversation (e.g., saying how horrible it was that someone else had been unfaithful), and 19 (6.4%) made indirect reference to other matters (e.g., being married) but not to an explicit conversation about exclusivity. Finally, 13 (4.4%) reported having conversations about having an open-relationship or including someone else in their sexual lives.

Infidelity Experience while in Current Relationship

Participants were asked if they had ever engaged in romantic or sexual infidelity while in their current relationship. Across all participants, 49 reported ‘‘yes’’ (16.6%; 16% of men and 17.1% of women) to some type of infidelity. Of these, 25 (8.5%) reported romantic infidelity whereas 39 (13.2%) re- ported sexual infidelity. Men (7.6%) and women (9.1%) did not differ significantly in the proportions reporting some type of romantic infidelity, X 2(1) ¼ .215, p ¼ .643, nor did they differ in proportions reporting sexual infidelity (13.7% and 12.8%, respectively), X 2(1) ¼ .056, p ¼ .814. Thus, a sub- stantial minority of participants reported having engaged in some type of infidelity while in their current relationship.

Table 2 presents the percentages and mean frequencies of the behaviours they had engaged in from the checklist of

sexual, romantic, and online behaviours that are commonly judged to constitute infidelity. The most common activities reported by participants were flirting (54.1%), receiving emo- tional support from an opposite sex friend (53.7%), and viewing pornography and masturbating (38.5%). The least frequent activities reported by participants were the more explicit forms: engaging in sexual chat and masturbation over webcam (7.8%), engaging in penile-anal intercourse (7.1%), engaging in sexually explicit conversation by telephone without masturbating (6.8%), and engaging in sexually explicit conver- sation by telephone while masturbating (5.4%). A significant difference was found between the proportion of participants who reported ‘‘yes’’ when asked directly if they had engaged in infidelity over the course of their current relationship (16.9%) and the proportion endorsing one or more sexual, romantic, and online activities (78.6%), X 2(1) ¼ 15.71, p < .001. Although this finding highlights an interesting disparity, it is important to note that some participants might not have considered the behaviours that they checked to comprise infidelity.

Attraction to Others While in a Committed Relationship

As the questions regarding attraction to others pertained only to the prior six months, the current analysis includes only participants who reported that they were currently in a committed relationship of six months duration or longer (n ¼ 266; 117 males and 149 females) to ensure appropriate overlap in timeframes. A minority (17.1%) reported never being physically attracted to anyone but their partner. Most

Table 2. Percentages and Mean (SD) Frequency of Sexual, Romantic, and Online Activities

Behaviour % Mean (SD)a

Engaging in sexually explicit conversation by telephone while masturbating 5.4 9.31 (14.69) Engaging in sexually explicit conversation by telephone (w/out masturbating) 6.8 11.15 (17.85) Engaging in penile-anal intercourse 7.1 10.67 (19.49) Engaging in sexual chat and masturbation over webcam 7.8 9.26 (10.97) Giving oral sex 11.1 5.79 (5.61) Having penile-vaginal intercourse 12.5 9.24 (16.59) Receiving oral sex 12.8 8.32 (15.86) Having an intimate dinner with someone of the opposite sex 12.8 4.84 (7.70) Sending the person a sexually explicit photo by text or e-mail 13.2 8.05 (11.28) Touching someone’s genitals 15.2 5.58 (9.11) Browsing a singles dating website 16.6 6.82 (10.96) Sending sexually explicit messages by text or e-mail 17.6 10.65 (16.64) Watching a movie alone with someone of the opposite sex at their home 18.9 5.04 (7.24) Holding hands with someone 19.3 3.42 (4.61) Kissing someone intensely 19.8 5.29 (11.94) Receiving explicit photos by text message or e-mail 21.3 6.59 (11.02) Dancing closely (e.g., grinding, dirty dancing) 21.3 6.90 (11.61) Receiving sexually explicit messages by text or e-mail 21.6 7.83 (10.77) Viewing pornography (without masturbating) 30.4 11.22 (15.24) Viewing pornography and masturbating 38.5 18.69 (20.72) Receiving emotional support from an opposite sex friend 53.7 5.72 (10.55) Flirting 54.1 9.46 (12.37)

Note. N ¼ 131 men and 164 women. aOnly those reporting engaging in the behaviour at least once are included in the analysis of means (SDs).

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 191

participants (58.9%) reported ‘‘almost never’’ to ‘‘once or twice a week.’’ They reported being physically attracted to an average of 17.9 people (SD ¼ 89.0) in the prior six months. Average reports for the number of times participants experienced emo- tional attraction to someone other than their current romantic partner in the prior six months was 1.88 times (SD ¼ 9.25). Over half (52.0%) reported that they were never emotionally attracted to extradyadic others, but 34.0% indicated ‘‘almost never’’ to ‘‘less than once a month.’’ Relatively few (13.9%) reported more frequent emotional attraction (i.e., 1–2 times a week or more). One-quarter (25.9%) reported never having sexual fantasies about someone other than their current romantic partner; the remainder reported almost never (19.0%), less than once a month (15.0%), once or twice a month (15.4%) to at least weekly (24.7%). A MANOVA was conducted to explore differences in reports of physical attraction, emotional attraction and fantasy about others, F(3, 257) ¼ 14.39, p < .001. Men reported more frequent physical attraction (Ms ¼ 3.02 and 1.74, respectively) to others than did women, F(1, 261) ¼�37.81, p < .001, and more frequent sexual fantasy (Ms ¼ 2.78 and 1.58, respectively), F(1, 261) ¼ 29.71, p < .001, but were not different in terms of frequency of emotional attraction to someone other than one’s partner, F(1, 261) ¼ 2.59, p > .05.

Predicting Reports of Infidelity

A logistic analysis was conducted to examine the statistical associations between relationship quality, attraction to others, personality variables and reports of infidelity. Male and female participants were combined given the lack of gender differ- ences in their reports. The final model was significant, X 2(8) ¼ 19.95, p ¼ .01 (see Table 3). The first step in which the personality variables were added was not significant: X 2(6) ¼ 11.20, p > .05. Adding relationship quality at the second step, X 2(1) ¼ 4.69, p < .05, and intensity of attraction at the third step, X 2(1) ¼ 4.06, p < .05, were significant. Intensity of attraction to others was a significant predictor for this sample of young adults. For every one unit increase in rated intensity, the expected change in log odds was .38 for having engaged in infidelity during their current relation- ship (OR ¼ 1.38). Relationship quality decreased odds of reporting infidelity 14% (OR ¼ .863). Once all variables were included in the analyses, extraversion was the only personality trait that contributed to the prediction of infidelity, but fairly minimally: Every additional increase in extraversion score in- creased odds by less than 4% (OR ¼ 1.038). Contrary to what others have found, none of the other personality variables added to the prediction of infidelity. Thus, attraction to

Table 3. Hierarchical Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Infidelity Predictors of Reports of Infidelity

Variables Nagelkerke R2 b SE Wald p Exp(b) 95% CI

Intercept �1.614 .156 106.38 .000 0.199 Step 1a .063 Openness .024 .020 1.400 .237 1.024 .984–1.066 Agreeableness �.005 .017 .097 .756 .995 .961–1.029 Conscientiousness �.005 .015 .121 .728 .995 .966–1.024 Extraversion .038 .017 4.929 .026 1.039 1.004–1.074 Neuroticism .025 .014 3.047 .081 1.025 .997–1.054 SIS/SES �.004 .063 .003 .953 .996 .881–1.126

Step 2b .088 Openness .025 .020 1.475 .225 1.025 .985–1.067 Agreeableness �.003 .018 .028 .868 .997 .963–1.032 Conscientiousness �.002 .015 .025 .876 .998 .968–1.028 Extraversion .034 .017 3.846 .050 1.034 1.000–1.070 Neuroticism .024 .014 2.802 .094 1.024 .996–1.054 SIS/SES �.008 .063 .017 .895 .992 .877–1.122 Intensity of physical attraction .323 .149 4.698 .030 1.381 1.031–1.849

Step 3c .110 Openness .021 .021 1.027 .311 1.021 .981–1.063 Agreeableness .003 .018 .002 .881 1.003 .968–1.038 Conscientiousness �.001 .015 .003 .958 .999 .969–1.030 Extraversion .037 .017 4.604 .032 1.038 1.003–1.074 Neuroticism .025 .015 2.935 .087 1.025 .996–1.055 SIS/SES �.003 .064 .002 .962 .997 .879–1.113 Intensity of physical attraction .289 .152 3.604 .050 1.335 .991–1.799 Relationship quality �.148 .072 4.198 .040 .863 .749–.994

Note: N ¼ 295. Infidelity was scored as no ¼ 0 and yes ¼ 1. aX2(6) ¼ 11.20, p > .05; bX2(1) ¼ 4.690, p < .05; cX2(1) ¼ 4.06, p < .05.

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

192 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

others (notably, the intensity of that attraction) and relation- ship quality best predict reports of infidelity over and above a range of key personality traits.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated how well personality traits, specifically the widely-adopted Big Five and the well-standardized dimen- sions of the SIS/SES model, as well as relationship character- istics and attraction to others, predicted reports of infidelity among young adults (ages 18–26 years). This is the first study to examine reports of infidelity using the Big Five and a SIS/ SES dimension together, as the majority of research has ex- plored predictions of infidelity using a restricted set of per- sonality traits. Comparing the predictive utility of personality traits relative to relationship quality and attraction to others helps generate insights into the occurrence of infidelity in close relationships.

Overall, a minority of participants (17%) reported having engaged in infidelity in their current relationship when asked directly. Yet, when given a series of sexual, romantic, and online activities, this percentage increased (78.6%). However, participants’ definitions of infidelity may not have included the wide range of acts captured by the checklist measure. That is, participants may view infidelity solely as comprising acts of sexual intercourse, whereas the checklist assessed emo- tional/affectionate, online, and sexual activities other than penile-vaginal and penile-anal intercourse – an issue that may arise between partners if they have notable discrepancies in their views about which activities constitute infidelity (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016a). These rates overall may be low as individuals tend to dismiss incidents of past behaviour or even misrepresent the truth when reminded of their actions that may not fit socially desirable norms, particularly for sensi- tive behaviours such as infidelity (Smith & Davis, 2013). The wording of the current study’s direct item may have appeared more threatening to participants’ self-concept than the check- list format, or else this sample may engage in far more extra- dyadic interactions than they truly perceive as comprising infidelity. Researchers have found that extradyadic activities are more likely to be judged as infidelity if engaged in by one’s partner than by oneself (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016b), emphasizing further the biases we hold in relation to admitting to infidelity.

A primary finding of the study was that the predictive utility of personality traits was weak. As in past research (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Schmitt & Shackelford, 2008), we did not find that those high in extraversion, the personality trait that is characterized by sociability, had somewhat increased odds of reporting infidelity, but no connections were found for neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, perhaps due to the reduced power of the sample size or our method of assessing infidelity. Unlike Mark et al. (2011), high sexual excitation was not a significant predictor of re- ports of infidelity, as we expected. The non-significance found for high extraversion and infidelity may be a result of highly

extraverted individuals attempting to keep a positive image within their social circle. In addition, sexually excitable indi- viduals (those high in SES) may be sexually aroused by others (physically and/or emotionally) but act on such arousal with their committed partner.

Unlike past research, neuroticism and openness were not found to predict reports of infidelity. This discrepancy in past neuroticism and infidelity findings could be related to the lower likelihood of neurotic people attracting extradyadic partners, given the negative personality profile of neurotic individuals. Although openness is associated with curiosity and openness to new experiences, the discrepancy between the current study’s findings and past research may be related to the characteristics of insight and intelligence. Those high in openness may have determined the potential consequences associated with infidelity and determined the negative conse- quences do not outweigh the immediate positive benefits of infidelity.

The strongest significant predictor of reports of infidelity was found to be the contextual factors: relationship quality and attraction to someone other than the current partner. The two likely work in tandem, as the analyses suggest. Attrac- tion to another individual likely represents the emotional ‘‘exit’’ from a poor primary romantic relationship during the transi- tion from one relationship to the next. Research on poaching finds a high proportion of ongoing relationships were initiated while one or both individuals were in a former relationship (Schmitt & International Sexuality Description Project, 2004), suggesting that for some people infidelity might capture a pro- cess of partner turn-over or possibly the initial experimentation with an alternative partner before formally leaving their pri- mary relationship. Intense attraction to a person other than one’s primary partner might develop accidentally, such as in cases of a close working relationship or friendship, but requires more substantial work to disengage than does a more super- ficial recognition of another person’s physical attractiveness. A feeling of intimacy creates a bond between people that may last longer than sexual attraction. Future research could explore further the range of emotional attachments that those in committed relationships develop with others, both same and other-sex, including crushes, post-dissolution relationships (Schneider & Kenny, 2000), and intimate friendships along with the ways in which intimate connections with others are managed.

There are several limitations to the current study. Similar to previous research, this study also relied on self-reports, which are subject to reporting and recall biases. The definition of infidelity may account for some discrepancy between the yes/no reports of infidelity and reports of activities generated by our checklist of common infidelity behaviours. Com- parable to other infidelity research (Mark et al., 2011; Pealer, Weiler, Pigg, Miller, & Dorman, 2001), social desirability factors likely influenced participants willingness to report in- fidelity. Although all participants were told that the answers provided in the study were anonymous, participants still might have actively maintained a positive self-image by dismiss- ing (or not acknowledging or recalling) some past behaviours

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 193

or experiences with extradyadic others when responding to the survey.

In addition, participants were required to answer infidelity questions in relation to their current romantic relationship. However, relationships varied in duration and, thus, the poten- tial for multiple infidelity partners among those in longer relationships were likely higher. Participants were asked to report past infidelity in only their current relationship, as compared to infidelity during a previous relationship, to im- prove accuracy of recall. However, by requiring the partici- pant to discuss only current relationship infidelity, past expe- riences of infidelity were not accounted for in the current analysis and this might explain the low variance accounted for. (Of note: We controlled for relationship duration in addi- tional analyses, but few changes were noted in the findings perhaps due to the relatively restricted variance in duration). In addition, this study assessed past infidelity in the current relationship that did not result in relationship termination. Thus, occasions whereby participants broke up as a result of infidelity may be very different from the infidelity reported here. This restriction may have compromised the predictive utility of our analysis.

Although the study has limitations, there also are several strengths that should be acknowledged. First, the study incor- porated a more comprehensive assessment of personality as predictors of reports of infidelity than has been used in the past. Previous studies have concentrated on a limited number of traits (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Mark et al., 2011). Second, participants were asked to report infidelity in two forms: yes/no and frequency of past (poten- tial) infidelity activities capturing sexual, emotional, and online infidelity activities. The yes/no measure was our primary out- come, however, as it captures a person’s most basic assess- ment or working model of their past infidelity.

Another strength of the study was the diversity of the par- ticipants. Past research has generally included only university students (Feldman, & Cauffman, 1999; Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008; Orzeck & Lung, 2005). The current study used a crowd- sourcing method of recruitment that allowed for a wider range of young adult demographics. Although the majority of participants included in the study were Caucasian/White, there was a wide range of income levels, education levels, and employment backgrounds. The range of demographics allows for better generalization of findings to young adults more broadly. A last strength of the study is the anonymity provided through our online survey method. This feature decreases demand effects as participants were provided a safe and anonymous environment to complete the survey.

Future studies should examine infidelity behaviours in relationships other than a current romantic relationship; persons who have experienced relationship dissolution due to infidelity; personality factors related to infidelity in other cultures and larger, even more diverse samples; and reports of infidelity with a more comprehensive definition of infidelity. The current study concentrated on infidelity behaviours in the current romantic relationship; however, not all participants

may have taken part in infidelity in the current relationship (but may have in earlier relationships). Future studies should explore both recent and lifetime infidelity rates. The Big Five is primarily a Western personality trait assessment, with addi- tional traits added for other cultures. Other personality mea- sures should be explored across cultures.

The findings from this study have implications for rela- tionship counselling and education. Knowing the potential risk factors for infidelity may help individuals understand their susceptibility to engaging in extradyadic emotional, sexual, or online activities. Specifically, this knowledge may help those working with attractive colleagues or spending time alone with attractive friends to avoid threatening, stimu- lating, or risky situations, as they will be more aware of their potential consequences of proceeding further. The associa- tions between emotional attractions with infidelity indicate that those in romantic relationships need to understand the importance of positive feelings and investing in their relation- ships. This information may also help partners focus on areas within the relationship that need attention, the signs that they may be vulnerable to developing an extradyadic relationship, or understanding when a relationship is coming to an end. The low numbers who had actively discussed a monogamy agreement with their partner attests to the need to be more explicit in formulating and communicating expectations.

In conclusion, the study provides key insights into per- sonality factors related to reports of infidelity among young adults. Personality did not emerge as a useful predictor, nor did relationship quality, but attraction to others did prove useful, a factor that suggests that investing in one’s emotional connectedness with a partner and making efforts to avoid connecting with attractive others may be key strategies to maintaining exclusivity within intimate relationships.

REFERENCES

Amato, P., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 602–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0192513X03024005002

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 Medline:10842426

Arnett, J.J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the later teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bancroft, J., Graham, C.A., Janssen, E., & Sanders, S.A. (2009). The dual control model: current status and future directions. Journal of Sex Research, 46(2-3), 121–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00224490902747222 Medline:19308839

Bancroft, J., & Janssen, E. (2000). The dual control model of male sexual response: a theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(5), 571–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00024- 5 Medline:10880822

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

194 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

Barta, W.D., & Kiene, S.M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407505052440

Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R.E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley-Interscience. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471725153

Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30(5), 654–676. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/203798

Botwin, M.D., Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107–136. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x Medline:9143146

Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 193–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2175

Carpenter, D., Janssen, E., Graham, C., Vorst, H., & Wicherts, J. (2008). Women’s scores on the sexual inhibition/sexual excitation scales (SIS/SES): gender similarities and differences. Journal of Sex Research, 45(1), 36–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00224490701808076 Medline:18321029

Carpenter, D., Janssen, E., Graham, C.A., Vorst, H., & Wicherts, J.M. (2010). The Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales – short form (SIS/SES-SF). In T.D. Fisher, C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, & S.L. Davis (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 236–239). New York: Routledge.

Carr, D. (2010). Cheating hearts. Contexts, 9(3), 58–60. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2010.9.3.58

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. G. (2007). When a ‘‘poach’’ is not a poach: Re-defining human mate poaching and re-estimating its frequency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 702– 716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9158-8

Diamond, L. (2010). Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men. In T.D. Fisher, C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, & S.L. Davis (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 81–84). New York: Routledge.

Drigotas, S., Safstrom, C., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.77.3.509

Eysenck, H.J. (1976). Sex and personality. London: Open Books.

Feldman, S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin’ heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(3), 227–252. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0903_1

Graham, C.A., Sanders, S.A., & Milhausen, R.R. (2006). The sexual excitation/sexual inhibition inventory for women: psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(4), 397–409. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9041-7 Medline:16900415

Graziano, W.G., & Eisenberg, N.H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795–824). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978- 012134645-4/50031-7

Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E.M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25(1), 26–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 07370010701836385 Medline:18444064

Hall, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (2009). Psychological distress: precursor or consequence of dating infidelity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 143–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167208327189 Medline:19060221

Hansen, G.L. (1985). Perceived threats and marital jealousy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 262–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 3033686

Harris, C.R. (2002, Jan). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13(1), 7–12. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00402 Medline:11892782

Hogan, J., & Ones, D.S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50033-0

Janssen, E., & Bancroft, J. (2007). The dual control model: The role of sexual inhibition and excitation in sexual arousal and behavior. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The Psychophysiology of Sex (pp. 197–222). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Johnson, J.A. (2000). Developing a short form of the IPIP-NEO: A report to HGW consulting. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, DuBois, PA.

Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x

Karney, B.R., & Bradbury, T.N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075–1092. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075 Medline:9150586

Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Kitson, G.C., Babri, K.B., & Roach, M.J. (1985). Who divorces and why: a review. Journal of Family Issues, 6(3), 255–293. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251385006003002 Medline:12313803

Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mark, K.P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R.R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 971–982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10508-011-9771-z Medline:21667234

Mattingly, B.A., Wilson, K., Clark, E.M., Bequette, A.M., & Weidler, D.J. (2010). Foggy faithfulness: Relationship quality, religiosity, and the perceptions of dating infidelity scale in an adult sample. Journal of Family Issues, 31(11), 1465–1480. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0192513X10362348

McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the five- factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x Medline:1635039

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 195

Meyer, M.L., Berkman, E.T., Karremans, J.C., & Lieberman, M.D. (2011). Incidental regulation of attraction: the neural basis of the derogation of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships. Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 490–505. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02699931.2010.527494 Medline:21432689

Miller, J.D., Lynam, D., Zimmerman, R.S., Logan, T.K., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (2004). The utility of the five factor model in understanding risky sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1611–1626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2003.06.009

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035002 Medline:4721473

Mosher, C., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2007). College students’ life priorities: The influence of gender and gender-linked personality traits. Gender Issues, 24(2), 21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12147-007-9002-z

Orzeck, T., & Lung, E. (2005). Big-Five personality differences of cheaters and non-cheaters. Current Psychology, 24(4), 274–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-005-1028-3

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P.G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L.R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 552–567. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552 Medline:2778639

Pealer, L.N., Weiler, R.M., Pigg, R.M., Jr., Miller, D., & Dorman, S.M. (2001). The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Education & Behavior, 28(5), 547–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 109019810102800503 Medline:11575685

Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L.E., & Kennedy, D.R. (1988). Dating infidelity: behaviors, reasons and consequences. Adolescence, 23(89), 35–43. Medline:3381685

Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Schmitt, D.P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 301–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.520

Schmitt, D.P., & Buss, D.M. (2001). Human mate poaching: tactics and tempations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894 Medline:11414373

Schmitt, D. P., & International Sexuality Description Project (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 560–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.86.4.560

Schmitt, D.P., & Shackelford, T.K. (2008). Big Five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 246–282. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600204

Schneider, C.S., & Kenny, D.A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: Are they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451–466. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407500173007

Shackelford, T.K., Besser, A., & Goetz, A.T. (2008). Personality, marital satisfaction, and probability of marital infidelity. Individual Differences Research, 6, 13–25.

Shaver, P.R., & Brennan, K.A. (1992). Attachment styles and the ‘Big Five’ personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167292185003

Smith, R.A., & Davis, S.F. (2013). The psychologist as detective: An introduction to conducting research in psychology. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Thompson, A.E., & O’Sullivan, L.F. (2016a). Drawing the line: The development of a comprehensive assessment of infidelity judgments. Journal of Sex Research, 53(8), 910–926. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1062840 Medline:26580975

Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016b). I can but you can’t: Inconsistencies in judgments of and experiences with infidelity. Journal of Relationships Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jrr.2016.1

Thompson, A.P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 35–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351861

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 48–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x

Trobst, K.K., Herbst, J.H., Masters, H.L., III, & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe sex: Personality, condom use and HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(2), 117–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2334

Weeks, G.R., Gambescia, N., & Jenkins, R.E. (2003). Treating infidelity. New York, NY: Norton.

Wiederman, M.W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 167–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551881

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

196 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

APPENDIX A. MONOGAMY EXPECTATIONS AND RELATIONSHIP EXCLUSIVITY

The following questions refer to ‘‘romantic exclusivity,’’ which means romantic involvement with each other only, and ‘‘sexual exclusivity,’’ which mean sexual involvement with each other only.

Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) Absolutely Always (5) 1. Overall, to what extent do you expect romantic

exclusivity from a romantic partner? k k k k k

2. Overall, to what extent do you expect sexual exclusivity from a romantic partner?

k k k k k

Yes No 3. In your current relationship do you expect sexual

exclusivity from your romantic partner? k k

4. In your current relationship do you expect romantic exclusivity from your romantic partner?

k k

5. In your current relationship, do you think your partner expects sexual exclusivity (sexual or romantic) from you?

k k

6. In your current relationship, do you think your partner expects romantic exclusivity from you?

k k

7. In your current relationship, do you and your primary partner have an understanding with (even if you have never talked about it openly) that neither of you will be romantically or sexually involved with others during your relationship? By ‘romantic’ we mean any kind of close affection/intimate connection, and by ‘sexual’ we mean any form of physically arousing contact, such as kissing, oral sex, or intercourse. k Yes k No k Not sure

8. If you do have an agreement, please explain how this understanding came about – that is, please describe in as much detail as possible all the things that you and your partner said and/or did to come to this understanding.

9. Despite having some type of agreement or understanding with their partner, many people develop some type of sexual or romantic involvement at some level (ranging from a brief one-time encounter to a long-term relationship) with another person. Which is true for you and your partner?

Check all that apply: k I have been romantically involved with at least one other person (other than my romantic partner) during my relationship

with my primary partner. k I have been sexually involved with at least one other person (other than my romantic partner) during my relationship with

my primary partner. k My partner has been romantically involved with at least one other person (other than myself ) during our relationship. k My partner has been sexually involved with at least one other person (other than myself) during our relationship. k I believe (but do not know for sure) that my partner has been romantically involved with at least one other person during

our relationship. k I believe (but do not know for sure) that my partner has been sexually involved with at least one other person during our

relationship. k Neither I nor my partner has been romantically involved with at least one other person during our relationship. k Neither I nor my partner has been sexually involved with at least one other person during our relationship.

Love thy neighbour: Predictors of infidelity

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2 197

APPENDIX B. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND SEXUAL EXPERIENCES

Please answer the following questions regarding how you currently feel toward your primary relationship. (By ‘‘primary relationship,’’ we mean your main or most important relationship). 1. Is your current romantic partner a man or woman? k woman k man k other 2. For how long have you been in your current relationship? ______ months

Not at all (1) A little bit (2) Somewhat (3) A lot (4) 3. How close do you feel toward your current romantic partner? k k k k 4. How much do you want your current relationship to last? k k k k 5. How much do you think he or she cares about you? k k k k

6a. Are you currently in a sexual relationship with your current romantic partner? (By ‘‘sexual relationship,’’ we mean a relation- ship in which you engage in some type of sexual activity at least on occasion.’’) k Yes k No

6b. If yes, for how long have you been a sexual relationship with this partner? ____ months

Not at all (1) A little bit (2) Somewhat (3) A lot (4) 7. How sexually satisfied are you in your current relationship? k k k k 8. How romantically satisfied are you in your current relationship? k k k k 9. How often have you engaged in any sexual activity with this partner (includes all types of sexual activity; not necessarily

intercourse) in the past 3 months? k Never k Once a month or less k Several times a month k Once or twice a month k Several times a week k At least once a day

10. With how many sexual partners in total have you ever had oral sex, penile-vaginal intercourse, or anal sex? _______

Kirstian A.V. Gibson et al.

198 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 25(3), 2016, pp. 186–198; doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-A2

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.