Social Networking Sites and Online Infidelity

Introduction

Modern advancements in technology have brought about major revisions in dayto-

day social interactions within the United States (Ackland, 2009; Giddens, 1992; Jones,

2005; Lewis & West, 2009). World-wide Internet accessibility has become relatively

effortless for a vast majority of the population due to the increase in Internet-compatible

devices (Hatala, Milewski, & Baack, 1999; Ono & Tsai, 2008; Underwood & Findlay,

2004). The devices allow for an ease of accessibility and an exponential increase in online

connectivity. This connectivity has further changed the dynamics of how interpersonal

relationships develop. Online communication may potentially remove stress and anxiety

that affects some people in social situations (McKenna, & Bargh, 2009). With the mask of

a screen, online interaction allows the pressure of first appearances, an urgency of speech,

and worry of every minor detail to be reduced. The simplicity of these connections to

others further aids online relationship development. One can access a social networking

site, search for contacts in a specific city/town, who also share personal interests, are in a

specific career field, who are of a particular gender, age, and/or name. Within seconds, the

population of people germane to the search criteria registered with that social networking

site will load onto the screen. From here, all one must do is request a connection. Through

social networking sites, immediate relationships are made.

Social networking sites are web-based services where an individual can develop a

profile that typically presents personal characteristics and demographics. This profile

allows other users to inspect details about this person, determine mutual interests, and

potentially establish a connection (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Expansion of one’s social

network allows access to potentially beneficial resources that may be available with the

development of new connections (Lin, 1999).

Statistics gathered in 2009 displayed the increasing trend of social networking site

utilization. Within the United States, 47% of adults who were online visited such sites

(Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). For adults alone, this statistic was up from

2005 when only 8% were utilizing social networking sites (Lenhart et al., 2010). This

exponential increase suggests a desire of people to establish and maintain a virtual

presence.

Social networking sites are an avenue of socialization that conveniently enables

the development of relationships (Farrell & Peterson, 2010). Establishing new

connections around the world, or even reconnecting with those from one’s past has

become simplistic, discreet, and exciting (Collins, 1999; Farrell & Peterson, 2010; Hatala

et al., 1999; Underwood & Findlay, 2004). Many benefits in sociocultural expansion can

manifest when creating connections outside of a person’s immediate proximity. These

benefits, alongside the convenience of social networking sites, easily enable relationship

development. When these factors come together, it becomes easier to open up and share

personal details of one’s life. In fact, virtual interaction allows a discreet avenue for the

conveyance of elaborate sexual fantasies (Stone, 1995). This behavior can be performed

anonymously and discreetly by an individual who is either single or in an offline

relationship. Being active within a social networking site does not imply an interest in

sexual behavior or any of the other behaviors expressed herein. Social networking sites

simply provide an opportunity for these behaviors to manifest.

In this research study, I focused on factors that predict the frequency of behaviors

involved in seeking out and establishing online relationships (emotional and/or sexual)

instead of investing in existing offline relationships. This conduct is known as online

infidelity, cyber infidelity, cyber-mediated infidelity, and/or cyberspace betrayal (Cooper

& Griffin-Shelley, 2002). To minimize confusion, I will use the term online infidelity

throughout this study. The criteria for online infidelity focuses on emotional exclusivity,

sexual exclusivity, and secrecy with a person outside of the primary relationship (Glass,

2003; Hertlein & Piercy, 2006; Schneider, 2000; Yarab, Sensibaugh, and Allgeier, 1998).

Mental exclusivity pertains to a nonsexual romantic attraction involving sharing of

fantasies (sexual and/or non-sexual), conversing regularly, and flirting (Yarab et al.,

1998). Sexual exclusivity relates to a sexual attraction with the online partner outside of

the primary offline relationship. Within the online sexual relationship, behaviors of

sharing sexually explicit conversations, photos, and/or videos occur (Yarab et al., 1998).

This behavior is potentially deemed exclusive to the online relationship because of the

withdrawal from the primary offline relationship (Cooper, McLoughlin, & Campbell,

2000; Treas & Giesen, 2004). Secrecy is another important aspect of online infidelity. This

secrecy regards the deletion of transcripts and/or emails, as well as the ability to keep

interaction covert (Glass, 2003; Schneider, 2000).

This chapter will provide a summary of current literature. This overview will

present background information that details a need for evaluation of online infidelity via

social networking site use. The theoretical perspective that I used to evaluated online

infidelity via social networking site use is explained. Research questions, and

methodology are also provided. In this chapter, I will highlight the need for evaluation of

an underrepresented area that seems to be developing into a crucial social problem. The

results obtained from this research could provide information for advancing therapeutic

practices for individuals as well as couples.

Background

Extra-dyadic relationships, even before the prominence of Internet use, were the

principal cause of divorce in 160 cultures (Betzig, 1989). In 1999, once Internet

communication became available, 42% of Internet users had admitted to engaging in an

affair while online (Greenfield, 1999). Online infidelity consists of both emotional and

sexual components (Whitty, 2005). Due to the lack of real-time physical presence, online

infidelity is speculated by some to be less damaging to offline relationships (Margonelli,

2000). To the contrary, another study has indicated that online users may be interested in

real-life partners rather than online interactions only (Wysocki & Childers, 2011). In

2000, 66% of offline couples, whose relationships were affected by online infidelity,

expressed a loss of interest in sex with their spouse and, of the same respondents,

approximately 25% ended up separating or divorcing (Schneider, 2000). In 2012, the

social networking site Facebook was cited in one-third of divorces filed (Lumpkin, 2012).

Thus, the establishment of online romantic relationships, emotional and/or sexual, can

have a significant effect on offline romantic relationships.

The Internet appeals to those looking for sex partners. The topic of sex is easy to

find, whether it be information pertaining to sex, interest groups, live chat/video, and/or

the ability to connect (Barak & King, 2000; Cohen, 2008; Cooper, Mansson, & Danebeck,

2003; Farrell & Peterson, 2010). Testimonials from people who engaged in online

infidelity convey the ease of sharing personal details about themselves (Jones, 2005;

Whitty, 2005; Wysocki, 1998). Internet interaction provides a veil over apprehensions that

commonly arise when dating, such as those related to physical attributes, clothing,

irritating quirks, and/or other common concerns (Cohen, 2008; Jones, 2005; Maheu &

Subotnik, 2001; Whitty, 2005). This less invasive development of communication aids in

determining if one would like to meet another in a real-life environment (Wysocki &

Childers, 2011). Additionally, online communication allows for selection of who to build

a relationship with based on specific characteristics. It resembles an interview process but

for relationship development. There may be a characteristic found in a potential

relationship that is not present in the primary offline relationship which can peak curiosity

and intrigue. However, this establishment of a new online relationship does not guarantee

infidelity. In this study, I focused on variables that could potentially predict the likelihood

of a person engaging in online infidelity. These variables have been chosen based on

current literature.

Subjective relationship dissatisfaction one causal factor related to engaging in

infidelity (Brown, 1991; Shackelford & Buss, 1997; Treas & Giesen, 2000). There is no

research on this matter within the confines of online infidelity. However, studies indicate

that social networking sites make infidelity more efficient with the allure of an immediate

outcome (Wysocki & Childers, 2011). In a moment of sadness, anger, and frustration

during a relationship, an individual may reach out to someone who provides empathy and

support. The Internet makes this more accessible. [A bit more transition and context for

the assessment scale] The Relationship Assessment Scale measures relationship

satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988).

The intensity of Internet use was the chief factor that warranted further research

into problematic Internet behavior (Davis, 2001). Based on Davis’ (2001) model, the

intensity of Internet use increases due to maladaptive cognitions and behaviors involving

the Internet. Davis (2001) describes this as a cycle. There is usually a precipitating factor,

such as stress, that triggers a precipitating dysfunction (diminished impulse control, ease

of distraction, social discomfort, and/or depression/loneliness) in the individual leading to

engagement in activities online. This online activity is then increased while exacerbating

both the stressor and dysfunction (Davis, 2001; Caplan, 2002). A later study on the

intensity of Internet use has shown that increasing interactions online may ease losses in

communication with offline relationships (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). This same study

from Bargh and McKenna (2004) was not directed towards extradyadic relationships.

However, it allows for speculation that a person gaining support and finding more

emotional and/or sexual value within their Internet relationship may increase time spent

online and away from the primary offline relationship.

A prime factor of offline infidelity is the amount of time spent with one’s partner

and another person outside of the relationship (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008). When one begins

spending more time away from the primary relationship and spending more time with

another individual, there is an increased likelihood of engaging in infidelity (Hertlein &

Piercy, 2008). This study conducted by Heartlein and Piercy (2008) does not reflect online

behavior or online infidelity; yet, spending time online and establishing relationships,

romantic or otherwise, is identified as spending time away from the primary relationship.

With the portability of online communication, it may not be considered spending time

away when sitting next to ones’ significant other on the couch while interacting with

people on Facebook through handheld devices. With this ability to communicate

ubiquitously, the physical presence alone does not constitute spending time together

anymore. One can begin to establish a separate virtual life and further exacerbate the

factors that allow for opportunity of infidelity to occur. For my research, Internet use is

identified as social networking site use. My modification of the Problematic Internet

Use Questionnaire Short Form (PIUQ-SF) with questions being restated by the wording

“social networking sites” in place of “online” and “the Internet” reflects this change. The

original Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire [PIUQ] was developed by Demetrovics

and colleagues (2008) and was based on the research of problematic Internet use

completed by Davis (2001). Koronczai et al. (2011) developed a modified version, which

was utilized for this study.

Impulsivity has been well researched for many online and offline behaviors, such

as gambling, drug use, gluttony, and infidelity (Davis, 2001; Madden & Bickel, 2010).

Payne (2005) theorized high impulsivityaffects one’s ability to refrain from acting on

impulses and desires (Payne, 2005). These impulses and desires are further compounded

when reward is perceived as immediate (Madden & Bickel, 2010; Payne, 2005). One

study postulated that impulsivity positively correlates with sex drive (Shackelford et al.,

2008). Thus, people who are more impulsive are likely to search for extramarital

encounters and have a higher likelihood of acting on sexual opportunities that arise

(Shackelford et al., 2008). Although there has been literature on impulsivity and offline

infidelity, the existing literature has no evidence of impulsivity as it relates to online

infidelity. Therefore, the results of my study provides new insight into the influence, if

any, that impulsivity has in predicting online infidelity via social networking sites. I used

the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 15, developed by Spinella (2007), which is a short-form

of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11 (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) to measure

impulsivity for this research.

The final dynamic of this research regarding online infidelity is permissive sexual

values. Permissive sexual values are subjective perceptions of premarital sex and

infidelity (Smith, 1994). In addition to beliefs about infidelity, permissive sexual values

relate to sexual inhibition and interest in sex (Treas & Giesen, 2000). A low level of

sexual inhibition is indicated as contributing to sexual infidelity (Mark, Janssen, &

Milhausen, 2009; Smith, 1994). I examined these values on online infidelity via social

networking sites. I used the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich,

2006) to measure permissive sexual values for this study.

Each variable has been previously researched and has some association with

infidelity, offline and/or online. The only exception to this is the intensity of social

networking site use, which has only been examined in relation to improving college

students’ psychological well-being and self-esteem (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfeld, Ellison,

& Lampe, 2008). In this study, I looked at this variable as being a factor that takes time

away from the primary offline relationship, where time away from the primary

relationship is suggestive of motivation for infidelity. There is no current research specific

to the four variables being predicting factors of online infidelity, nor is any literature

available for precipitating factors of online infidelity via social networking sites.

Problem Statement

Increasing occurrences of online extramarital romantic, emotional, and/or sexual

relationships establish a need for further research, especially when the topic of online

infidelity lacks any substantial literature. Online communication is increasing,

whichseems to present an opportunity for behaviors of infidelity. The mention of

Facebook within one-third of divorce documentation is suggestive of this increase in

unfaithful conduct. Online infidelity via social networking site use is a highly neglected

topic of study that, due to implied social consequences on personal relationships with self

and others, warrants research.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to analyze four variables from current literature and

determine how well they predict the frequency of online infidelity via social networking

sites. These four dependent variables are as follows: relationship satisfaction (Brown,

1991; Shackelford & Buss, 1997; Treas & Giesen, 2000), intensity of social networking

site use (Cooper et al., 2000; Hertlein & Piercy, 2008), impulsivity (Madden & Bickel,

2010; Payne, 2005; Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008), and permissive sexual values

(Smith, 1994). The methodology of this study is quantitative.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses outline how I evaluated the four

variables of interest within this study. My goal was to potentially determine how well

relationship satisfaction, intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and/or

permissive sexual values predict the frequency of online infidelity.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ1: Is relationship satisfaction the best predictor of the frequency of engaging in

online infidelity when intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and

permissive sexual values are competing dependent variables?

H01: Relationship satisfaction is not the best predictor of the frequency of

engaging in online infidelity when analyzed against intensity of social networking

site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual values.

Ha1: Relationship satisfaction is the best predictor of the frequency of

engaging in online infidelity when analyzed against intensity of social

networking site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual values.

RQ2: Is there a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking site

use, and/or permissive sexual values?

H02: There is not a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking site

use, and/or permissive sexual values.

Ha2: There is a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking

site use, and/or permissive sexual values.

RQ3: Does impulsivity moderate the relationship between relationship

satisfaction and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity? H03:

Impulsivity does not moderate the relationship between relationship

satisfaction and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. Ha3:

Impulsivity does moderate the relationship between relationship satisfaction

and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. RQ4: Does social

networking site use moderate the relationship between permissive sexual

values and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity? H04: Social

networking site use does not moderate the relationship between permissive

sexual values and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. Ha4: Social

networking site use does moderate the relationship between permissive sexual

values and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. RQ5: Does social

networking site use mediate the relationships between relationship satisfaction

and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity? H05: Social networking

site use does not mediate the relationship between relationship satisfaction and

the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. Ha5: Social networking site use

does mediate the relationship between relationship satisfaction and the

frequency of engaging in online infidelity.

Theoretical Framework

There is no one clear, cohesive theory of online infidelity. Studies only partially

measure the complexity of online infidelity. The majority of current literature evaluates

online infidelity from an evolutionary perspective (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,

1992; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Henline, Lemke, & Howard, 2007; Whitty, 2003;

Whitty, 2005). There has been some debate as to the relevance of evolutionary theory

applying to online infidelity since there is no danger of procreation due to the virtual

environment (Henline et al. 2007). There has been minimal research from the cognitive

behavioral theoretical lens; however, this pertains to problematic Internet use where

online infidelity is only minimally referred to as one small factor of problematic Internet

use (Davis 2001; Caplan, 2002; Caplan, 2003). The ideology of cognitive behavioral

theory and the work of Davis (2001) were the foundations of this research study. Without

a clearly identifiable theory of online infidelity, I used this theoretical framework to

examine four variables from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. The four variables for

this research had no relation to Davis’ (2001) study. Current literature suggests a

relationship between these four variables and infidelity, offline and/or offline, thus I

selected these variables for this research.

Davis’ (2001) multidimensional, theory-driven evaluation of Internet use

elaborated on the idea that the definition of problem Internet use is reliant on the intensity

of use alone. This model was developed to address behaviors of online gambling, online

sex, and engaging in illegal activities online (Davis, 2001). The model of generalized

problematic Internet use includes factors of impulse control, depression/loneliness, social

comfort, and distraction—defined as stress—as influences on problematic Internet use

(Davis, 2001). It is a pivotal theory and was the first based on the cognitive-behavioral

perspective about online “problematic” behaviors. No research since Davis (2001) and

those modeling his theory (Caplan, 2002; Caplan, 2003) has focused on the cognitive

behavioral perspective about online infidelity specifically.

Davis’ (2001) work on problematic Internet use, current research of online

behaviors, and studies concerning offline infidelity have indicated the following four

factors in relation to infidelity: (a) relationship satisfaction (Brown, 1991; Shackelford &

Buss, 1997; Treas & Giesen, 2000), (b) intensity of social networking site use (Cooper et

al., 2000; Hertlein & Piercy, 2008), (c) impulsivity (Madden & Bickel, 2010; Payne,

2005; Shackelford et al., 2008), and (d) permissive sexual values (Smith, 1994). It was my

intent to examine the relationships, if any, between these four variables and online

infidelity via social networking sites. Each of these variables are described in further

depth in Chapter 2. A clearer understanding of online infidelity is sought through the

analysis of multiple variables.

Nature of Study

Previous research on behaviors and perceptions of unfaithful behavior, both online

and offline, influenced the development of this study. The four variables: relationship

satisfaction (Brown, 1991; Shackelford & Buss, 1997; Treas & Giesen,

2000), intensity of social networking site use (Cooper et al., 2000; Hertlein & Piercy,

2008), impulsivity (Madden & Bickel, 2010; Payne, 2005; Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz,

2008), and permissive sexual values (Smith, 1994) have been researched in relation to

infidelity, offline and/or online. I designed this study to identify if any common

characteristics exist amongst the population of United States residents, 21 years of age

and older who have engaged, or are engaging, in online infidelity via social networking

sites. I conducted additional analysis to assess differences among those that have engaged

or are engaging in online infidelity and those that deny any engagement in online

infidelity. Previous research is dated (Glass & Wright, 1977; Petersen, 1983; Prins,

Buunk, & VanYpren, 1993), collected from a population of college students (Ellison et al.,

2007; Steinfeld, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008), and focused mainly on perceptions of online

infidelity rather than precipitating variables of online infidelity (Wysocki & Childers,

2011). Wysocki and Childers (2011) presented research of similar interest to my study

which includes related variables, yet the studies focus was on the behavior of people who

commit online infidelity and how individuals use the Internet to engage in this behavior.

Variables that precipitate engaging in online infidelity via social networking sites have no

known empirical evidence.

I assessed each variable individually by questionnaires that have been utilized in

previous research. I combined the individual questionnaires were combined into a 49item

surveyand presented this cumulative survey by way of a public message on various social

networking sites (Myspace, Facebook, and LinkedIn), as well as Walden Universities

Participant Pool and findparticipants.com research recruitment sites. There was a

hyperlink embedded into the message where, upon clicking, the participants were

transported to a safe external site hosted by PsychData to anonymously complete the

survey.

To accurately evaluate the behavior involved in online infidelity, only respondents

that have had or are having an online affair that commenced online were analyzed. I have

presented a thorough discussion of research design and methodology in

Chapter 3.

Definition of Key Terms

The following is a list of common terms used throughout this research study. Some

terms, at times, can have dual meanings. Therefore, the provided terms and definitions

will directly relate to the interpretation intended for this research study. Connection: “a

relation of personal intimacy (as of family ties),” “a person connected with another

especially by marriage, kinship, or common interest,” and “a political, social,

professional, or commercial relationship (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,

2005).” In this study, connection means a relationship of common interest,

e.g. political views, social interests, professional, commercial, and/or intimate.

Impulsivity: “The behavioral universe thought to reflect impulsivity encompasses

actions that appear poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky, or

inappropriate to the situation and that often result in undesirable consequences” (Daruna

& Barnes, 1993, p. 23). Also, impulsive: relating to or activated by an impulse rather than

controlled by reason or careful deliberation (Steadman’s Medical Dictionary, 1995).

Infidelity: “Violation of norms regulating the level of emotional or physical

intimacy with people outside the relationship” (Drigotas & Barta, 2001); a behavior that

intends to be hidden or deceitful (Fife, Weeks, and Gambescia, 200). In this study, I

examined unfaithfulness to committed romantic relationships, not just marriages alone.

The Intensity of Social Networking Site Use: the invasiveness of social networking

site use in a persons’ life based on psychological effects experienced from not being on,

the frequency of use, how others perceive their use, and loss of productivity in other

aspects of life.

Online Infidelity: the aforementioned definition of “infidelity” applied to the

occurrence of unfaithfulness to one’s significant other by using the online, Internet, or

web-based environment.

Permissive Sexual Values: subjective beliefs of premarital and extramarital sex,

where being more permissive is associated with more liberal views towards sexual

behaviors (Smith, 1994).

Problematic Internet Use: “an individual’s inability to control their Internet use,

which in turn leads to feelings of distress and functional impairment of daily activities”

(Shapira et al., 2000). Also, the Internet acts as a portal for the expression of paraphilias,

gambling, shopping, online sex, and other potentially harmful behaviors that, if persistent,

can cause significant stress and functional impairment personally, professionally, and

socially (Shapira, et al., 2000). Online infidelity is examined as a problematic Internet use

due to the negative social and personal implications.

Relationship Satisfaction: A definition of marital satisfaction is a reference to “an

attitude of greater or lesser favorability toward one’s own marital relationship” (Roach,

Frazier, and Bowden, 1981).

Social Networking Site: a web-based environment that fosters the development

and maintenance of relationships among people, throughout the world that share a mutual

interest (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). There are many different types of social

networking sites available with varying technological differences. For example, YouTube

is a social networking site with primary interest in video uploading, World of Warcraft is a

social networking environment where game-play takes place amongst users, and

Facebook is a text-based community which relies on primarily text-based communication

and allow for making immediate connections, sharing pictures/videos, and social

interacting through comments, messages, or posting. These are all very different, but they

all satisfy the goal of building a connection or establishing a new “friend” that shares a

mutual interest in some way. Social networking sites, as referenced in this research study,

are identified as those sites similar to the platform of Facebook.

Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, & Delimitations of Study

Assumptions

The first assumption is that participants have experienced intimate, emotional

and/or sexual, online experiences based on their completion of the survey. The second

assumption is that respondents’ answers are accurate and truthful based on their

understanding of the questions. The third assumption is the validity and reliability of the

compiled questionnaire. The final assumption is that all respondents who choose to

participate speak English, live in the United States, and come from diverse residential

backgrounds (i.e., suburban, urban, and rural) based on their responses to the initial

demographic questions.

Limitations

The participants were limited to the physical location of the United States based on

self-reporting of geographical location. The generalization of results is minimized due to

the number of respondents that chose to participate in the study. Further limitation arose

from the need to remove respondents’ data if they had not experienced online infidelity

specific to social networking site use. Moreover, the study only included those

participants 21 years of age and older. A limitation and potential design issue were that

respondents might not fully view some of their behaviors as infidelity. This topic is one

that is not widely researched and may not be fully understood by some.

Scope and Delimitations

The results of this study will identify with those matching similar demographics

and locations to the respondents. Those within different age ranges or from different

geographical locations may have similar experiences, yet, the study only examines those

individuals 21 years of age and older residing in the United States with the experience of

online infidelity.

Significance and Implication for Social Change

In this era when the social-networking population is expanding, an inadvertent

modification has been made to the social dating script (Lenhart et al., 2010). Scripts are

socially accepted guidelines that set forth an expectation of behavior (Bussey & Bandura,

1999; Gagnon & Simon, 1967; Harris & Christenfield, 1996). Family, friends, and media

influence these scripts (Gagnon & Simon, 1967; Sanders, 2008). Original scripts of ideal

romantic relationships involved seeking out partners that shared common interests, lived

nearby, were within a 5-year age range, and held the mutual expectation they would live

happily ever after (Giddens, 1992). With advancements in technology, these scripts are

now altered regarding sexuality and how relationships develop.

These changes in the dynamics of relationships provoke a need for thorough

research and understanding. Due to the social impact online infidelity has, it is important

to be able to identify any variables that contribute to this behavior. This research was

designed to provide insight towards variables that can potentially predict personal

qualities that would increase the likelihood of a person’s instances of engaging in online

infidelity via social networking sites. This research could assist in identifying at-risk

populations, in tailoring concepts of couple-enrichment programs, and provide couples

and/or individuals a more direct and efficient therapeutic plan.

Summary

To better understand the effects of these adjustments in dating standards and

identify any adverse impact social networking site use has on social relationships,

expanding research in online infidelity is vital. What individuals perceive as infidelity,

both online and offline, has been well researched (Gerson, 2011; Whitty, 2003; Whitty &

Quigley, 2008). However, few studies are devoted to identifying individual factors that

predict online infidelity. Additionally, much of the research involving the four variables

within this research has primarily been about offline infidelity. Although current research

has provided many variables that indicate correlations with infidelity, this has left online

infidelity underrepresented.

In Chapter 2, I review pertinent literature indicating this lack of representation. I

discuss current literature on, both, offline and online infidelity and Davis’ (2001) work on

problematic Internet use. I provide a review of current literature involving the four

variables of interest as predictors of online infidelity with an explanation of each variable.

In Chapter 3, I provide a thorough explanation of the population of interest, research

design and methodology, description of measures for data collection, and ethical

considerations. In Chapter 4 I summarize collected data and post-analysis results. In the

final chapter, I provide an interpretation of results followed by a discussion and

recommendations for further research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Infidelity is one of the most troubling events to occur within a romantic

relationship, and one of the most complex problems to treat within couple’s therapy

(Allen et al., 2005; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2005; Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson,

1997). In fact, marital therapists have expressed extramarital affairs as being the second

most devastating event to occur in a marriage, next to domestic violence (Whisman et al.,

1997). American couples (married and cohabitating) express the importance of fidelity

(Allen et al., 2005; Bawin-Legros, 2004; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Greeley, 1991).

A recent study indicated 42.4% of respondents had engaged in some form of

infidelity within their current relationship (Mark et al., 2009). This significant percentage

may indicate why a vast amount of research regarding infidelity is available. Regardless

of the quantity of current research, gaps persist and topics remain in question. Much of the

available research has placed focus on gender differences, demographics (i.e., age,

education, socioeconomic status, and location), consequences, and perceptions of

behaviors of infidelity. These issues are examined through a social and evolutionary

theoretical lens. Moreover, the emphasis has primarily been on offline infidelity.

The advent of online interaction through social networking sites such as MySpace,

Facebook, and LinkedIn have provided a new platform for online infidelity and warrants

thorough examination. In this study, I do not condemn infidelity; rather, my goal was to

provide knowledge of behavior that has seemed to become a problem among couples. The

examination of variables that could predict a person’s likelihood of commencing and

maintaining any communications that could lead to participation in behaviors of infidelity

online via social networking sites are detailed herein.

In this chapter, I will explain the collection process for the review of the current

literature. I have conveyed a description of the theoretical perspective and detailed key

concepts of this research, i.e., online behaviors, social networking sites, and infidelity. I

will also offer an explanation of the current literature surrounding the variables of interest

and their relevance to this research.

Literature Search Strategy

I utilized electronic searches to gather relevant articles. These databases include

PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Google Scholar, SAGE Premier, and Health and

Psychosocial Instruments (HaPI). The search terms used were infidelity, extramarital

relationships, cyber-mediated infidelity, online infidelity, online infidelity and motivation,

online behaviors, online addiction, problematic Internet use, the motivation for infidelity,

social networking site use, social networking site behavior, and perceptions of infidelity.

Hundreds of articles populated in relationship to all of these topics; however, 40 articles

were helpful for this research.

The articles I selected were dated from 1953 to 2013. I used older sources to obtain

an understanding of the background of the studies and concepts. The articles were a

mixture of qualitative, quantitative, and meta-analysis. Themes from the literature were

therapeutic and educational intervention, thus, the literature is reviewed under these

themes.

Davis’ Cognitive Behavioral Model

There is a lack of shared theoretical perspective in regards to online infidelity.

Much of the current research has stressed social theory or evolutionary theory

explanations for infidelity. I focused on cognitive behavioral theory, where cognitive

symptoms precede the conduct in question and once coupled with the behavior will

amplify and/or maintain the response. There are no studies focusing specifically on online

infidelity in relation to cognitive-behavioral theory.

Davis (2001) presented research about generalized problematic Internet use where

multiple behaviors were identified and grouped under this umbrella term. Although online

infidelity is not specifically addressed, engaging in unfaithful conduct online could easily

be recognized as a problematic use of the Internet. Davis (2001) identified a desire to

maintain a social life through the social contact and reinforcement obtained within an

online atmosphere. This finding was made before the expansion of social networking

sites, but it correlates with more recent literature related to social networking sites and the

desire to use them to develop and maintain relationships.

Davis’s (2001) research, based on a diathesis-stress theoretical perspective, i.e.,

where abnormal behavior, defined as problematic Internet use, results from predisposed

vulnerability (diathesis) and life events (stress). Predisposed vulnerability (diathesis) is

identified as underlying depression, social anxiety, and/or active substance dependence

(Davis, 2001). The stress in Davis’ (2001) model is the actual stimuli of an explicit

activity on the Internet (gambling, pornography, chatting, and/or auctions). Thus,

theoretically, underlying psychopathology coupled with the introduction of online stimuli

could elicit problematic Internet use.

This research uses a similar theoretical framework to the one used by Davis

(2001). The diathesis is not an underlying psychopathology specifically; rather, this

vulnerability consists of personality factors and subjective life experiences as follows:

relationship satisfaction, the intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and/or

permissive sexual values. The life event of interest is exclusive to social networking site

use. Just as Davis evaluated the convergence of underlying psychopathology and varying

online stimuli as promoting problematic Internet use, I evaluated the synergy of

personality factors and/or life events with social networking site use as predicting online

infidelity. These four variables: relationship satisfaction, intensity of social networking

site use, impulsivity, and/or permissive sexual values have been suggested to have some

relationship, both directly and indirectly, to infidelity within current literature.

Online Activity, Use, and Behaviors

The Internet has become ubiquitous within the United States. Between 2003 and

2011, households accessing the Internet rose from approximately 55% to 72% (File,

2013). The Internet has a vast breadth of information, educational and otherwise, and

activities that include, but are not limited to: online gaming, stock trading, gambling,

sexual material/services, and social networking.

Online gaming involves two or more online users coming together for competition

in either a traditional video game style similar to World of Warcraft and/or

Words with Friends or a more nontraditional style of location tracking (i.e., Foursquare)

and/or exercise monitoring with multiple fitness applications (Yee, Duchenaeut, &

Nelson, 2012). Stock trading is the ability to buy and sell stock online (Klam, 1999).

Online gambling entails the wagering of money on websites for, to list a few: poker,

casino games, sports games, and fantasy sports leagues (Cotte and LaTour, 2009). Sexual

material/services, as referenced here, refers to online pornographic websites that are either

free or fee-for-service (i.e., pornhub.com), and sites available to find others looking for

sexual partners (i.e., justhookup.com). Social networking is the use of online platforms to

directly communicate and interact with other people globally.

These online behaviors of gambling, sexual services, and stock trading have been

collectively researched and identified as online problematic and/or online addiction

behaviors and have been assessed individually on a large scale (Caplan, 2002; Cotte and

LaTour, 2009; Davis, 2001; Yee et al., 2012). The prime behavior of interest for the

current research is the utilization of social networking sites to develop romantic emotional

and/or sexual relationships while in a committed offline relationship.

Online Sexual Behavior

Online sexual behavior has grown in popularity and become one of the most

sought after topics of online interest (Barak & King, 2000; Cohen, 2008; Farrell &

Peterson, 2010; Maheu & Subotnik, 2001; Wysocki, 1998). As of 2006, pornographic

websites alone were accountable for 12% of total online websites (Ropelato, 2007). This

percentage roughly equates to 4.2 million active pornographic websites that were

available. Approximately 40 million United States users were utilizing online access for

visiting these sites on a regular basis (Ropelato, 2007). One study found online users were

spending up to 10 hours per week involved in some form of sexual activity (Cooper,

Delmonico, & Burg, 2000). In 2006, another study reported 30% of its 508 married male

respondents admitted to answering online advertisements seeking sexual partners (Dew,

Brubaker, and Hays, 2006). Dew, Brubaker, and Hays (2006) did not include data about

chat rooms, or other venues where sexual behavior has the potential to develop.

The Internet has become a prevalent medium for finding both virtual only and

real-life sexual partners (Cooper et al., 2000; Couch & Liamputtong, 2008; Wood, 2008).

In fact, many online users have had sexual fantasies fulfilled while others have met their

spouses/partners (Blackstone, 1998; Castaldo, 2009; Epstein, 2009; Jones, 2005; Whitty

& Carr, 2006; Wysocki, 1998). These relationships, while being convenient and private,

have been described as “magical” in quality and rousing of ones’ suppressed self (Gerson,

2011; Tosun & Lajunen, 2009; Wysocki & Childers, 2011). The Internet allows for a

lowering of inhibitions, which may be due to the ability to control messages and prevent

infringement of reality, such asbad hygiene, personality differences, and unkempt

appearance (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001; Tosun & Lajunen, 2009). Thus, anonymity and

variety make the Internet an ideal environment to engage in online sexual behavior and to

find sexual partners.

Social Networking Sites

Social networking sites offer a new venue for exploration, not only for sexual

behavior, but also the establishment of relatively immediate interpersonal connections

(Hatala et al., 1999; Maheu & Subotnik, 2001; Underwood & Findlay, 2004). A social

networking site is a web-based community initially developed to keep in contact with

friends and family, and to make new friends (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Over time,

a wide variety of social networking sites have become available. These sites support an

assortment of interests and differing communication platforms. The key technological

features remain standard from site to site. However, the diverse populaces that each site

attracts differ. Most sites support a varied population, but others exist for members with a

shared ethnic background, race, language, religion, occupation/professional interests,

and/or sexual orientation. Modes of communication also vary from site to site with some

social networking sites boasting mobile connectivity, blogging, and/or photo/video

sharing (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

The main characteristic of a social networking site user is their profile. Upon

development of a social networking site profile, a series of detailed questions are

presented. This personal information typically consists of, but is not limited to, age, sex,

interests, hobbies, organizational affiliations, education, employment, and geographical

location (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Most sites also recommend uploading a profile photo.

Each social networking site may have some unique quality that differentiates it from

another. For example, LinkedIn is a social networking site that targets professional

individuals seeking connections for career development; whereas, MySpace is a social

networking site that has a reputation for musical appreciation and allowing a user to

control the design of their profile from fonts to background design.

Controlling visibility of a social networking site users profile is another aspect that

differs from site to site. Some social networking sites are completely public and have no

ability to limit their privacy (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Some sites can restrict visibility to

those in their immediate ‘network’ while other sites charge a fee to make this privacy

feature available. Another privacy option is the omission of information they do not want

to make public knowledge, i.e., sexual orientation, relationship status, and/or age.

Another component of visibility on social networking sites is public access to a user’s

connections. This visibility allows one user to see their current connections’ list of

“friends.” From here, this user can then navigate to other users’ profiles within their

extended network without an established connection (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). This feature

allows for the expansion of a user’s network and the establishment of new connections

that may not be made in other circumstances.

Connections can be made between complete strangers that may or may not share a

social commonality. However, many connections originate through “latent ties” where a

mutual offline connection/friend is involved (Haythornwaite, 2005). It is more common

for people to expand their extended social network rather than develop connections with

strangers that share no social relation.

Before initiating a connection, a user can message another user. Some social

networking sites allow a restriction to this feature that gives the user an ability to ensure

only current connections can make contact (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Many sites require a

mutual acceptance between two parties before allowing a connection to develop but some

sites allow one user to ‘follow’ another without confirmation (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

Once two people become ‘friends’ or a ‘connection,’ communication can then take place

as posting public messages on the individuals’ profile, commenting on their photos,

sending private messages, real-time chatting, and/or sharing photos/videos (Raacke &

Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Some sites technological features may not allow for photo/video

sharing. The details of variances for the social networking sites in this research are given

in the following sections.

MySpace

MySpace was developed in 2003 as an adult social networking site. The primary

technological difference that set MySpace apart from others was its allowance of users to

fully customize and design their profile by adding HTML into the profiles forms (Boyd &

Ellison, 2007). MySpace then became a strong networking tool for local and well-known

musical artists. This “bands-and-fans” dynamic allowed bands to reach out to their fans

and vice versa. Once this started, MySpace gained attention from the younger generation.

To accommodate for this newly developed social networking demand, MySpace’s

developers changed the user policy to allow minors (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). In 2006,

there were accusations that sexual interactions were taking place between adults and

minors, which prompted concerns of sexual predators (Bahney, 2006). Since 2003,

MySpace has further developed its musical emphasis and has updated its social

networking technologies to remain comparable to other social networking sites that are

available.

A MySpace user can establish connections by typing in a name or traversing

through current contacts’ connections. Contacting another user can involve requesting a

connection and/or sending a private message before establishing a connection. Once a

connection is made, the user can also comment on the other users’ profile, like a photo,

comment on a photo, and/or privately send a photo/or video. MySpace also hosts a mobile

application for smartphones and tablets that allow for convenience of access.

Facebook

Facebook originated in 2004 as a social networking site for limited Universities. By

2005, many colleges, universities, high school students, and some corporations gained

access (Cassidy, 2006). As of today, anyone over the age of 13 can create a Facebook

account. Some jurisdictions may require this age to be higher. An appeal of Facebook is

the use of applications that enhance one’s profile (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). These

applications include but are not limited to games, check-in, travel, birthdays, and gifting.

Game applications allow for friends to play games together. Checking in shows what

facility, store, and/or general location the user is at that moment. Travel gives the user the

ability to place their travels on the world map for other users to see. Birthday notifications

make a user aware of their ‘friends’ birthdays. Gifting gives a user the option to send a

gift card or other object to another ‘friend’ for their birthday, Valentine’s Day, or any other

occasion.

The communication aspects of Facebook are like MySpace. A user can search for a

user by name. Also, a user can view their current contacts other “friends.” Unlike

MySpace, Facebook does not allow its user’s profiles to be completely public (Boyd &

Ellison, 2007). Users can block users, limit their profile content that is shared, and review

profile posts from other users before it is publicly accessible. Additionally, Facebook does

allow a restriction where only current “friends” can “like,” comment, or privately message

a user. As with MySpace, Facebook has a mobile application available for smartphones

and tablets.

LinkedIn, developed in 2003, diverges from MySpace and Facebook in its target

audience. LinkedIn is considered a business-oriented social networking site that allows for

communication and connection to corporate affiliates and information (LinkedIn, 2007).

Users can upload their resume, as well as have all current and previous education,

employment, and organizational affiliations listed. Just as with other social networking

sites, there is a location for hobbies and interests. Additionally, an individual can post a

message accessible to the public. The difference in the posting feature of LinkedIn is

usually the content of the message. With Facebook, an individual may post a very

common topic, i.e., “My car battery is dead again, I hate winter”; whereas, this style of

post would not likely be seen on LinkedIn. The posts can be personal in nature, but more

likely about one’s career, i.e., “Today marks three years I have been with (insert company

name).” As with MySpace and Facebook, there is the ability to “like” and comment on

these posts.

Typically, establishing a connection is targeted towards current or mutual

organizations, corporations, and colleagues of association. Initially, this was referred to as

the “gated-access” dynamic whereby connection to a third party required a pre-existing

connection with a mutual contact of the two individuals (Papacharissi, 2009). However, a

user can choose to have their contacts hidden from public view (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

Since the initial ‘gated-access’ concept was developed, it is now possible to search for

and connect with individuals outside of your immediate professional circle and send

private messages. LinkedIn also hosts a mobile application for smartphone and tablet

connectivity.

Social Impact of Social Networking Sites

The social impact of social networking sites is something that is researched in

respect to content of users’ profiles (Boyd & Heer, 2006; Pierce, 2007), characteristics of

users versus nonusers (Hargittai, 2007; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008), and how the use

of social networking sites affects psychological well-being (Bargh, McKenna, &

Fitzsimmons, 2002; Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007; Valkenburg et al., 2006). It has

been found that the Internet and social networking sites are being utilized to form, not

only, friendships and romances, but also to initiate affairs (Henline & Lamke, 2003;

Hertlein & Piercy, 2006; Lumpkin, 2012; Schonfeld, 2008; Whitty, 2003, 2005). Recent

research has highlighted the impact of social networking site infidelity, as well as its

differences to online infidelity (Cravens & Whiting, 2013; Lumpkin, 2012). Minimal

research is available on how social networking sites have impacted behavior and the

instance of online infidelity.

In contrast to online activity, social networking interactions can be kept private

due to password protection and increasingly simple access via computers and portable

hand-held devices at both work and home without attracting much suspicion (Cravens &

Whiting, 2013; Lumpkin, 2012). Which suggest common behaviors of online infidelity

are now brought to a portable domain where discretion is more readily available.

Defining Infidelity

Infidelity has become a popular subject of attraction studies, evolutionary theory,

and social theory. With different research parameters, differing views on what causes

infidelity, inconclusive reasons for its occurrence, and variability on its definition, it

remains a difficult topic to research (Blow & Hartnett, 2007). Throughout time, there have

been changes within social dynamics that require amendments to previous work regarding

what behaviors define infidelity.

For the first time, in 1948, social theorists identified infidelity as having two

primary components: sexual and emotional (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953).

The research emphasis was on extra-marital sex, or ‘coitus,’ but the development of an

emotional relationship during infidelity was recognized. Many years later, infidelity was

identified by three categories: emotional involvement, sexual involvement, and

“combined type” (Glass, 1981). Glass (1981) explained the “combined type” as the

presence of both sexual and emotional involvement.

Sexual infidelity is defined as participating in sexual behaviors with someone

other than the primary partner (Buss et al., 1992; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988;

Shackelford & Buss, 1996; Yarab et al., 1998). These behaviors include, but are not

limited to sexual attraction, sexual fantasies, flirting, petting, passionate kissing, sexual

intercourse (Roscoe et al., 1988; Yarab et al., 1998). Humphrey (1987) postulated sexual

infidelities as brief and lacking trust or self-disclosure between the two parties.

Emotional infidelity identifies as non-physical intimacy, or emotional bonding,

and potentially falling in love with someone other than the primary partner (Buss et al.,

1992; Neuman, 2001). Some of these behaviors may present as withholding information

from one’s primary partner, lying to the primary partner, and/or having non-sexual

fantasies of falling in love with another individual (Buunk, 1980; Roscoe et al., 1988;

Yarab et al., 1998). Spending time with another person of the opposite sex outside of the

primary relationship is another indication of emotional infidelity with behaviors, such as:

studying, going to movies/events, having lunch/dinner, and/or spending large amounts of

time communicating (Roscoe et al., 1988; Yarab et al., 1998). In contrast to sexual

infidelity, emotional infidelity can endure for many years and is considered to have

significant levels of interpersonal trust and self-disclosure (Humphrey, 1987).

When a partner engages in behavior that elicits a breach in a romantic relationship

contract, whether it is sexual or emotional, infidelity has occurred (Jones & Hertlein,

2012). Some have argued emotional infidelity not to be as damaging as sexual infidelity

(Shackelford & Buss 1997). Gender differences suggest women rate emotional infidelity

as more distressing than sexual; whereas men rate perceived sexual infidelity as more

distressing than emotional (Buss et al., 1992). However, one study suggests that men

believe women are probably in love with another man when they have sex with him

(Harris, 2004) which suggests, when rating emotional versus sexual infidelity, men

automatically assume an emotional connection is already established once sex occurs.

Further research may be beneficial into men’s perception and evaluation of emotional

infidelity.

Online communication behavior of people who have an offline partner

Research of online infidelity has suggested that online interactions have a harsher

impact on relationships than viewing pornographic material (Yarab et al., 1998). The

Internet allows for the development of romantic emotional and/or sexual relationships

with the possible continuance of this relationship offline; whereas, with pornographic

websites, the object of interest is not a ‘real-life’ threat (Yarab et al., 1998).

The anonymity and variety available online make the Internet an ideal location to

explore sexual behavior (Barak & King, 2000, Bargh et al., 2002; Cooper &

GriffithShelley, 2002). In fact, Barak and Fisher (1999) predicted cybersex alone would

be a primary contributing factor of relationship distress. This prediction was made well

before the possible emotional connection of online relationships was identified as being

more significantly damaging than a sexual connection (Henline et al., 2007). The

increases in online dating and infidelity both (Cooper, 2003; Hertlein & Piercy, 2006;

Whitty 2005) suggest there is no longer only a threat of real-life extradyadic emotional

and/or sexual encounters. Private emotionally and/or sexually intimate ‘meetings’ can

occur unsuspectingly in the privacy of home, next to the primary offline partner, and

potentially advance into a real-life rendezvous.’ Thus, online activity appears to make

infidelity a potential double threat to maintaining a monogamous relationship and has

necessitated changes in defining infidelity.

Online intimacy, both emotional and sexual, was not initially perceived by

researchers to constitute infidelity due to the lack of physical contact (Argyle & Shields,

1996; Collins, 1999). Meeting online provides an atmosphere where reciprocal

selfdisclosure can manifest and promote an intense emotional bond that potentially

undermines the primary offline relationship (Merkle & Richardson 2000). Whitty (2003)

presented the first study to show there is, in fact, a real and authentic threat with online

infidelity and that the imagery and perception of the online user are apparently enough to

make it a reality. There is an assurance of secrecy the Internet seems to provide, where

those participating in communications and/or cybersex have found an ease in telling

private things, having sexual experiences, and ‘cheating’ with another individual online

(Cohen, 2008; Jones, 2005; Treas & Giesen, 2000; Whitty 2005; Wysocki, 1998). Without

being able to observe a person’s private online activity directly, the parameters of online

infidelity were initially difficult to define.

Whitty (2005) suggested online infidelity as having three components: sexual

infidelity, emotional infidelity, and the use of pornography (viewing of sexually explicit

images and/or videos). Regarding online sexual infidelity, one will engage in private

discussion of sexual fantasies, sexual chatting, and potentially exchange photographs to

one another (Henline, & Harris, 2006; Yarab et al., 1998). Another primary characteristic

of online sexual infidelity is masturbation and the achievement of sexual gratification

(Durkin & Bryant, 1995; Henline & Harris, 2006; Yarab et al., 1998). Emotional online

infidelity is designated as conversations of self-disclosure, personal issues, flirting, saying

‘I love you, and planning to meet offline (Henline & Harris, 2006; Yarab et al., 1998).

Emotional and/or sexual relationships commenced online are believed to be

maintained predominantly online (Yarab et al., 1998). Wysocki & Childers (2011) found

respondents to have more interest in furthering an initial online encounter into a real-life

partnership rather than remaining strictly online. Other studies have presented similar

findings with a large proportion of online encounters resulting in offline meetings (Parks

& Floyd, 1996; Parks & Roberts 1998; Whitty, 2003). An even higher majority of

respondents had expressed their engagement in real-life sexual encounters with those they

met online as a result of meeting offline (Wysocki & Childers, 2011). These above

mentioned behaviors have been researched from online communication in general; none

of the research has focused on social networking sites specifically.

Regarding online infidelity and social networking sites, the combination of the

above online communication behaviors and social networking site specific behaviors

identify as breaching offline fidelity. When an individual develops a social networking

profile, omitting a relationship is a potential indication of infidelity (Cravens et al., 2013).

Establishing friends or connections with an ex-partner or spouse, attractive members,

and/or not allowing their current partner to be a friend/connection is a perceived

indication of infidelity (Cravens et al., 2013). Referencing social networking behavior,

sending private messages to a member of the opposite sex or attractive user and/or

commenting on an attractive user’s profile are new behaviors associated of online

infidelity (Cravens et al., 2013). Of course, there is an argument for the criterion of

defining attractiveness. What is considered attractive by one person will likely vary from

what another individual would define as attractive. The perception of attractiveness is

subjective and may need further evaluation. Cravens and colleagues (2013) evaluated

respondents directly involved, as the victim, in online infidelity. It may be beneficial to

further research how prominently others that have not been directly harmed by this

behavior perceive social networking behavior and if these views change once a

relationship indiscretion has occurred.

Hesper and Whitty (2010) found that married couples agreed significantly with the

criterion for online infidelity as initially distinguished by Whitty (2003). However, there

seems to be a lack of communication between couples regarding these behaviors. There

appears to be no dialogue between couples that establishes what online behaviors each

partner expects and/or views as inappropriate. The assumption persists that the offline

partner shares these same expectations within the relationship agreement without verbal

confirmation (Hesper & Whitty, 2010). It seems to be common for this assumption to

occur in a relationship. One partner may view omitting a relationship status as a privacy

concern, whereas their partner may perceive this as a way of feigning relationship

availability for other users. Thus, just as parents must discuss with their children about

Internet boundaries, it seems to be a wise practice for partners to detail online relationship

etiquette. As long as one partner in the relationship recognizes the behavior as a violation

of their romantic relationship, a significant trauma has occurred (Argyle & Shields, 1996;

Whitty, 2003). Violating vows, expectations, and agreements concerning exclusivity to the

primary offline romantic relationship agreement due to an online emotional and/or sexual

relationship can cause extensive and long-lasting consequences to the primary offline

romantic relationship.

Consequences of Infidelity

Some consequences of online infidelity may present before admission of its

occurrence. Again, studies have found emotional and sexual online infidelities were

equally significant and harmful to the offline romantic relationship (Whitty, 2003; Whitty,

2005). When a party engages in either form of online infidelity, they typically begin to

neglect the primary offline relationship. The individual may begin changing their sleep

patterns, demanding privacy, avoiding responsibilities within the offline relationship,

lying, developing changes in personality, losing interest in sex, and/or having a general

decline in time and effort spent in nurturing the offline relationship (Schneider, 2000;

Young et al., 2000). A later study found the partner engaging in online infidelity would

begin to share less time with, lose trust in, and lose esteem towards their offline partner

(Whitty, 2005). Whitty’s (2005) study suggests that the frequency of social networking

site use would place more attention and energy into the online relationship which would

then potentially result in withdrawing from and neglecting the primary offline

relationship.

Once infidelity is confirmed, there will be new potential consequences for the

primary offline relationship. In 2000, approximately 25% of offline couples, where online

infidelity occurred, ended up separating or divorcing (Schneider, 2000). By 2011,

Facebook alone was cited in 33% of divorce cases (Lumpkin, 2012). Identifying variables

that predict online infidelity can assist in recognizing this behavior and potentially

avoiding deterioration of a relationship.

Motivation for infidelity

Most studies regarding motivation for infidelity are germane to offline infidelity.

Common themes of offline infidelity in current research are the significance of effect of

an individual’s permissive sexual values (Buss & Shackelford, 1997), marital

dissatisfaction (Glass & Wright, 1985), and personality traits (Buss & Shackelford, 1997;

Buunk & van Driel, 1989; Schmidt & Buss, 2001) on the likelihood of engaging in

infidelity. Glass and Wright (1988) questioned participants’ motivation for engaging in

infidelity in a hypothetical situation. The most common examined predictor is

marital/relationship satisfaction.

In respect to online infidelity, theorists have directed attention to online sexual

behavior. Cooper (1998) identified the ‘Triple A’ theory of online sexuality. Essentially,

the online environment provides accessibility to sexual activities, such as, pornography,

cybersex, and meeting others to hook-up, on millions of sites 24 hours a day. Cooper

(1998) presented this theory before the presence of social networking sites. Accessibility

is suggested as reaching beyond a person’s immediate physical environment. There are

more opportunities available to encounter individuals that one would likely ever encounter

in real-life via social networking. Additionally, online activity is now ubiquitous with

access at home, work, libraries, coffee shops, and with hand-held devices. Another factor

Cooper (2000) identifies, the affordability of online sexual activity, relates to pornography

and the ability to access sexually-explicit videos, pictures, and live chat/video with others

for free (Cooper, 1998). Regarding social networking sites, many sites are free and allow

for relationship development with people internationally. The final component of the

‘Triple A’ theory is anonymity (Cooper,

1998) and is probably the most alluring aspect of online sexuality and general activity.

The identity of an individual can remain virtually anonymous if the individual so

chooses. Even in the social networking realm, a person can create an identity separate

from their real-life identity.

The ‘ACE’ model of Internet compulsions was presented around the same time as

the ‘Triple A’ theory (Young, 1998). Young (1998) highlighted the anonymity and

convenience of online activity; their descriptions align with Cooper’s (1998) anonymity

and accessibility variables, respectively. The component of the ‘ACE’ model that varied

from the ‘Triple A’ theory was the ‘Escape’ of online activity (Young, 1998). ‘Escape’

emphasized an individual’s use of online activity to escape from reality (Young, 1998).

Research has since found people use online communication and relationships to provide

an “escape” from a dissatisfactory and/or unfulfilling relationship (Hertlein & Stevenson,

2010).

Since these fundamental theories of online activity, minimal studies have been

carried out to explore predictors of online infidelity. Furthermore, there have been no

studies or theories developed around predicting variables of online infidelity via social

networking sites which leave this topic under-researched. This research evaluated four

variables that are indicated in current literature as having some relationship to infidelity,

offline and/or online.

Review of Variables

Relationship Satisfaction

Marital satisfaction has been the most commonly examined predictor of infidelity.

Glass and Wright (1977) were the first to identify marital satisfactions association with

infidelity when men reported more dissatisfaction early in the marital relationship and

women reported more dissatisfaction later. It was later indicated that women’s sexual

dissatisfaction was related to infidelity but men’s infidelity was unrelated to marital sex

(Petersen, 1983). Another study found men’s dissatisfaction with marital sex is, in fact,

associated with infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1977). Aside from this inconsistency, a review

of 10 studies on infidelity found only one study that failed to show an association between

infidelity and marital satisfaction (Thompson, 1984) which led Thompson (1984) to

propose the ‘deficit’ model to explain infidelity. The ‘deficit’ model suggested that a

sexual and/or emotional deficiency in the primary romantic relationship played a cardinal

role in infidelities origin and maintenance (Thompson, 1984).

Since this review of the literature, studies have seemed to validate the ‘deficit’

model and widely suggest marital and relationship conflict will increase ones’ desire to

engage in infidelity (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Prins, Buunk, & VanYpren, 1993).

Respondents have even indicated a belief that their partners’ low relationship satisfaction

will lead to an affair (Weiderman & Allgeier, 1996). It is shown that infidelity is predicted

by greater marital dissatisfaction (Treas & Giesen, 2000; Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav,

2007). Participants of one study that rated their relationship satisfaction as ‘not too happy’

were more likely to report extramarital sex (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001). Another

17-year study found infidelity to be, both a cause and consequence of marital

dissatisfaction, which supports Thompson’s (1984) findings (Previti & Amato, 2004).

Review of current literature in the area suggests abundant empirical evidence of

marital/relationship dissatisfaction relating to infidelity. However, there have been studies

that have found no association (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Spanier & Margolis, 1983).

Additionally, some couple’s therapists have proclaimed infidelity does not automatically

imply a deficit in the primary relationship (Elbaum, 1981; Finzi, 1989).

It is likely that relationship satisfaction is not the only variable to influence infidelity.

Other factors likely interact with relationship satisfaction and exert their effects on

moderating the relationship between marital satisfaction and infidelity. Hence, this

research aimed to evaluate the additional variables: intensity of social networking site use,

impulsivity, and permissive sexual values, separately, and as moderators of relationship

satisfaction.

Although the current literature has related to offline infidelity, the empirical

evidence of the association between marital/relationship satisfaction warrants evaluation

from the domain of online infidelity. Where there is a greater opportunity to be unfaithful,

people are more likely to do so (Treas & Giesen, 2000). The atmosphere of perceived

secrecy provided by social networking sites provides such an opportunity, especially for

those seeking attention and acceptance from others when their marriage/relationship is in

an unsatisfactory place (Whisman et al., 2007; Wysocki & Childers, 2011). Social

networking sites have been suggested as an escape and distraction from a relationship

where one feels confined and/or restricted in some way (Cravens, 2013; Hertlein &

Stevenson, 2010). Thus, this research intended to address this gap in the literature and

determine a relationship, if any, between relationship satisfaction and the occurrence of

online infidelity via social networking sites.

Intensity of Social Networking Site Use

Another speculated factor related to infidelity is the amount of time spent with

ones’ spouse and the person outside of the marriage (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). When an

individual begins to live a separate life, away from their significant other, the likelihood

of cheating is suggested to increase (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). This variable, like

relationship satisfaction, has been primarily studied from an offline perspective.

However, when an individual becomes increasingly active online, their offline activities

and relationships receive less attention, both, emotionally and physically (Hertlein &

Piercy, 2006; Widyanto & Griffiths, 2006). In fact, one study found that 42% of

compulsive Internet users were engaging in online infidelity (Greenfield, 1999).

The secrecy within extramarital relationships contributes to the likelihood that it

will become a preoccupation and thus more time may be devoted to its continuance

(Wegner, Laneu, & Demitri, 1994). Moreover, the convenience allotted to carrying out

these online extramarital relationships makes the time spent engaging in them relatively

undetectable. Physically, the individual may be in the same household with their partner

or even sitting right next to them watching television; mentally and emotionally, they can

be on a computer, tablet, and/or handheld device that provide them a life outside of that

primary relationship.

The role of the frequency of Internet use on online infidelity is not researched. It is

speculated that the Internet is a host of potentially addictive and problematic online

behaviors, such as auctions, stock trading, gambling, infidelity, and other sexual

materials/services (Davis, 2001; Young, 1998). The online environment affords

anonymity, control over self-presentation, intimate self-disclosure, and the perception of

diminished social risk (Turkle, 1995; Walther, 1996). These perceived advantages are

more appealing than some users’ reality. If there is distress in their offline life, some

people are more likely to use the Internet to express themselves rather than with those

they know offline (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002; Wallace, 1999). People tend to

invest in social relations where they are expected to acquire personal gains (Lin, 1999).

The ‘gains’ referenced here relate to the online users’ self-esteem, social support, and

satisfaction of life (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Shaw & Gant, 2002; Valkenburg et al.,

2006). The social contact and reinforcement achieved online strengthen the desire to

sustain a virtual presence which will result in spending more time online (Davis, 2001).

Thus, increasing the time online will allay any potential loss or alienation of offline

relationships (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Kraut et al., 1998). None of this research has

been specific to social networking site use or romantic relationships thereof. The current

literature surrounding the frequency of Facebook use among college-aged participants

implies that a person’s self-esteem and satisfaction of life is positively correlated with the

frequency of Facebook use (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfeld, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008).

Current research regarding the frequency of online activity, and social networking,

specifically, suggests online encounters can entice a user to maintain a virtual presence

due to potential psychological benefits. Moreover, in times of distress, an individual may

turn to online activity to mitigate the distress experienced in real-life. This does not imply

the user must be in distress to engage in more frequent social networking activity; nor

does a person experiencing personal distress signify they will use social networking sites

to alleviate this stress. The frequency of social networking site use is evaluated as a

moderator of relationship satisfaction. Again, the current literature lacks the context of

infidelity alone and does not evaluate the domain of social networking infidelity. The

establishment of ties and establishing an online relationship of selfdisclosure could be

interpreted as emotional infidelity if the online user is in a committed relationship.

Impulsivity

Impulsivity, as it relates to infidelity, has not been evaluated independently from

other personality traits and characteristics. Upon determining low conscientiousness and

low agreeableness as a predictor of infidelity, Buss and Shackelford (1997) found these

two personality traits shared the inability to delay gratification, a key component of

impulsivity. Impulsivity is further defined as the failure to deliberate, and refrain from

acting on, seemingly, automatic responses (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, & Witzki, 2000).

The deliberation referenced here is between the short-term ‘reward’ and the longterm

effect. Davis (2001) has linked a lack of impulse control as a primary symptom of

problematic Internet use. As stated, one facet of problematic Internet use is infidelity and

sexual behavior online. Davis (2001) suggests engaging in problematic online behaviors,

such as infidelity, will weaken ones’ ability to inhibit potentially damaging desires. It is

possible that, inversely, someone high on impulsivity would be more inclined to pursue

problematic online behaviors.

A cognitive process that involves impulsivity as a construct among many cognitive

abilities is executive control. Executive control, as it relates to impulsivity, has three

primary cognitive functions: inhibition, task switching, and updating (Miyake et al.,

2000). Inhibition is the suppression of dominant responses that can result in inappropriate

behaviors; task switching refers to the ability to shift between tasks; updating is the active

organization of present information and using that information for task performance

(Miyake et al., 2000). Briefly, these three functions work together to control and structure

self-regulatory behavior in a goal-directed fashion which includes the discretion towards

‘undesired’ impulses (Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Hofmann, Gschwender, Friese, Wiers,

& Schmitt, 2008; Payne, 2005). This lack of self-regulating conduct was initially

evaluated by presenting M & M chocolate candies to individuals that were dieting

(Hofmann et al., 2008). Those with stronger executive control were found to not eat the M

& M chocolate candies instead of their dietary goal (Hofmann et al., 2008). It was then

postulated that individuals in a committed romantic relationship should be able to inhibit

the urge to pursue a potential alternative partner with similar cognitive goal-direction

towards maintaining a stable relationship (Pronk et al., 2011) which was confirmed when

studies demonstrated the depletion of executive control and self-regulation being an

influence on participants’ responses and behavior towards attractive alternative partners

(Pronk et al., 2011; Ritter, Karremans, VanSchie, 2010). Although the link to impulsivity

through executive control is weak, the component of acting on short-term desires despite

of potential long-term effects reflects a principal characteristic of impulsivity.

A definite link between impulsivity and infidelity is inconclusive and

underresearched, and has not been evaluated about online infidelity specifically. However,

current literature above suggests a committed individual that scores higher on impulsivity

would be more likely to recognize an opportunity for an online, emotional and/or sexual,

encounter with a prospective alternative partner. This same impulsive characteristic

further challenges the cognitive appraisal of this opportunity. Where a person that has low

impulsivity would evaluate this opportunity as being inappropriate and either avoid it or

end the behavior, the highly impulsive person would likely continue to advance the

relationship. Individual impulsivity and instance of online infidelity warrants further

analysis. Thus, this research evaluated the role impulsivity has on online infidelity via

social networking sites.

Permissive Sexual Values

Permissive sexual values are a group of beliefs and behaviors relating to a person’s

premarital and extramarital sexual behavior. When a person has stronger permissive

sexual values, they likely have very lax views on premarital sexual activity and

extramarital sex, also known as promiscuity (Treas & Giesen, 2000). Having permissive

sexual values and/or displaying premarital permissive sexual behavior have been

associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in infidelity (Feldman &

Cauffman, 1999; Reiss, Anderson, & Sponaugle, 1980; Smith, 1994; Treas & Giesen,

2000). Trait theorists have identified psychoticism, which is low agreeableness and low

conscientiousness, as involving permissive sexual attitudes and behaviors (Eysenck &

Eysenck, 1971; Pinkerton & Abramson, 1996). Agreeableness is a personality trait

characterized by the distinction of being methodical, deliberate, and purposeful or

disorganized, hasty, and lazy (McCrae, 2004). Conscientiousness is defined as a contrast

between people who are kind, cooperative, polite, trustworthy, unselfish, flexible, and

polite and those who are skeptical, uncooperative, unfriendly, and more self-involved

(Sheese & Graziano, 2004). Buss and Shackelford (1997) presented research to show

individuals possessing low agreeableness and low conscientiousness were more likely to

engage in affairs within the first four years of marriage. It is further suggested that the

characteristics of an individual with permissive sexual values allow them to more readily

perceive alternative partners (Johnson, 1970; Maykovich, 1976). Thus, one’s’ past sexual

activity and experience allows for recognition of potential opportunities where emotional

and/or sexual alternative relationships can develop.

Current literature is dated and lacks literature about online infidelity. However,

social networking sites are identified as a viable opportunity for individuals to establish

emotional and/or sexual alternative relationships. Thus, there is a potential correlation in

which this research intended to identify if having permissive sexual values is significant

to online infidelity via social networking sites. Additionally, there was an interest in

identifying if permissive sexual values would enhance levels of impulsivity, which shares

components of low conscientiousness and low agreeableness (Buss & Shackelford, 1997).

This research examined if permissive sexual values exacerbate impulsivity, or vice versa,

which would then impact the experience of online infidelity.

Summary

The online environment has become an essential networking tool within the

United States which has seemed to increase the interest in online sexuality and infidelity

among online users and researchers alike. Current literature has focused primarily on

general online sexual activity, demographics of users, and consequences of online sexual

behavior on social relationships. Empirical evidence of online infidelity details what

behaviors represent online infidelity and the demographics of those that choose to utilize

the online medium for infidelity. Research of social networking site infidelity has focused

on the social impact experienced by the primary offline partner and the consequences on

the relationship. The current research, although beneficial, has left predicting variables of

online infidelity, generally, and social networking site infidelity, specifically,

underrepresented. Moreover, there is a lack of research about cognitions of individuals

that engage in online infidelity, as well as, how these cognitions influence and maintain

the behavior of online infidelity. Research has been abundant regarding attitudes and

others’ perceptions of online infidelity but needs more insight into the characteristics of

those that have engaged in online infidelity directly.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

This chapter includes the purpose of the study, the research design, and

methodology. The design of this study included research questions and hypotheses along

with a description of the statistical approach for determining their outcome. Participants,

population sampling, and the method of data collection is discussed along with the

instruments of measure. The Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), Shortform

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (Spinella, 2007), Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

(Hendrick et al., 2006), and Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire Short Form

(Koronczai et al., 2011) are introduced as questionnaires for data collection. Statistical

analyses conducted with the collected data are described to establish a structure for

answering the research questions and hypotheses. Ethical considerations for conducting

this study are then addressed.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine factors that predict the frequency of an

individual engaging in online infidelity. I intended to identify characteristics, if any,

amongst the population of individuals that have engaged or are engaging in online

infidelity. Previous research is dated and lacks the role of the online environment on

infidelity, collected from a population of college students, and focused mainly on

perceptions of online infidelity. Wysocki and Childers (2011) presented research similar to

this present study. Some of the variables Wysocki and Childers (2011) studied, and those

of this study, have similar qualities as they are both concerned with online infidelity

specifically. However, Wysocki and Childers focused on the overt behavior of online

infidelity and how the Internet is used to engage in online infidelity. My goal was to

investigate the variables that predict online infidelity and to contribute to the current field

of infidelity research and promote social change in marital, couples, and individual

counseling. The results could possibly allow for therapists and social network users alike

to recognize and avoid the potentially damaging behavior. Furthermore, a couples’

awareness of behaviors may allow them to seek assistance and work together for a

resolution.

Research Design and Approach

The research design was a cross-sectional online survey analyzed with multiple

regression analysis. The purpose of this survey was to determine if a person’s frequency

of engagement in online infidelity is predictable by four variables: relationship

satisfaction, the intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual

values. I computed correlation tables to identify any relationships among the same four

variables followed by multiple regression analysis to indicate the strength of the

predictability, if any, that exists between the four variables. Moderating and mediating

effects were evaluated using PROCESS regression analysis. PROCESS, developed by

Hayes (2013), is an SPSS add-on statistical tool designed specifically for mediation,

moderation, and conditional process analyses. Following these analyses, the separated

data set of respondents that have not engaged in online infidelity was reintroduced for

correlation and multiple regression analysis against those that endorse online infidelity.

I designed this study to satisfy the purpose of answering the research questions

stated herein. I collected data using with pre-existing questionnaires that developers

intended for use in the behavioral sciences. They all have demonstrated both reliability

and validity (Graham, Diebels, & Barnow, 2011; Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick et al., 2006;

Koronczai et al., 2011; Patton et al., 1995; Spinella, 2007). An online platform was used

to present the measures.

I assessed behaviors of online users; therefore, all participants were online users.

The only concern regarding the research design was the length of the cross-sectional

survey. Although the questions did not require critical thinking, the number of questions

may have deterred respondents. Upon collection of responses, I assessed demographic

information and removed those results that were not within the target population. The

primary emphasis of this research study was to evaluate the four dependent variables in

relation to people that have engaged in online infidelity. For initial analysis, I removed the

surveys for those respondents that denied online infidelity. However, those results were

re-introduced later to compare how the four dependent variables differ between those that

endorsed online infidelity and those that have not engaged in online infidelity via social

networking site use.

Methodology

Participants

Participants consisted of a convenience sample of male and female adults that

have online access. Participants were included in data analysis based on the following

inclusion criteria: (a) they currently are or have been in a relationship where they are/were

cohabitating or married, (b) they are > 21 years of age, and (c) they are or have been a

member of a social networking site. The age restriction allowed for sufficient experience

in a committed, or multiple committed, romantic relationships. This justification is due to

findings that estimate the average age of marriage being over 21 years of age (Schoen &

Standish, 2001). Participation in the survey was voluntary, and no incentives of any kind

were provided or implied as being offered for participation.

Sample Size

With the method of data collection being self-selection, a precise number of

participants were unavailable for accurate representation. Numbers derived from social

networking site statistics estimate users to be in the millions (Schonfeld, 2008). Only the

respondents that had engaged in online infidelity via social networking sites were the

primary analysis. Cohen’s statistical power was used to determine sample size (Cohen,

1988). The test for the multiple regression/correlation analysis is tested at α = .01, a

medium Effect Size which is f² = .15, and Power of .80 (Cohen, 1988). Four dependent

variables were identified, which indicated a required sample size of N = 118 (Cohen,

1988). This projection is obtainable due to high response volumes that Internet surveys

have yielded (Cooper et al., 2000; Whitty, 2003; Wysocki & Childers, 2011).

Research Setting

I conducted this study online with the use of a cross-sectional survey. Thus, the

participants were in the comfort of their homes, office, library, or personal environment

when they participated. The use of online research has been shown to alleviate social

pressures (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). The participants had the ability to exit the survey at

any time, as well as there were no time constraints on completing the survey which further

minimized the pressure associated with survey completion.

Data Collections Procedures

Respondent recruitment was satisfied by (a) enlisting volunteers through Walden

University’s research participant recruitment; (b) posting on FindParticipants.com, an

academic research recruitment site; and (c) posting a public message on designated social

networking sites of interest: MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn, where permission for

each social networking sites administrator was obtained prior to commencement. The act

of communication is technologically similar on all of these specific social networking

sites. I typed the content into a message or comment. Once posted, it was visible to all site

users within their newsfeed. The message, or invitation, that I shared on all recruitment

platforms and MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn to participate in the survey contained a

brief explanation alongside the hyperlink to access the survey as follows: Voluntary adult

respondents are needed for psychological research pertaining to social networking site

use and the development of social networking site relationships. Participation involves a

brief multiple choice survey. There will be no self-identifying information disclosed to

ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

This invitation to participate is available for review in Appendix A. Upon entry into the

survey host site; there was a brief consent to participate. By acknowledgment of consent

to participate in the research study, a 49-item survey began.

Access to complete the survey was available to anyone. However, only those

participants that admitted online infidelity were included in final analysis. Initially,

respondents were asked eight questions regarding gender, age, sexual orientation,

relationship status, geographical location, and three questions related specifically to social

networking site behavior. The full item list is available in Appendix B. I included these

questions to ensure only respondents’ data that were relevant to this study were included

in the final data analysis. Then, the participants were administered a series of reliable and

valid questionnaires: Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988),

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale – 15 (Spinella, 2007), Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (Hendrick

et al., 2006), Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire – Short Form (Koronczai et al.,

2011). With the use of PsychData, I transferred the data directly from the survey to SPSS

for final analysis. Previous research (Wysocki & Childers, 2011) has utilized similar

methodology with a successful outcome.

Instrumental Descriptions

Demographics

The initial portion of the survey contained questions about demographic

information. There were five questions with a multiple-choice answer selection to

determine gender, age, sexual orientation, relationship status, and country of residence.

The list of items is available in Appendix B.

Social Networking Site Behavior

I used three questions about social networking site behavior in this research. The

questions were: “How many times have you engaged in a romantic emotional and/or

sexual relationship with someone on a social networking site while you were in a

committed romantic offline relationship (cohabitating or married)?” “Which of the

following social networking sites have you used to meet the online partner(s)?” and “How

many times have you attempted to engage in a romantic emotional and/or sexual

relationship with someone on a social networking site while you were in a committed

romantic offline relationship (cohabitating or married)?” The first question had multiple

choice responses. The second question allowed respondents to select multiple answers.

The final question had answers similar to a Likert-type scale. The questions and possible

answers to these questions are presented in Appendix B.

Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). The RAS is a 7-item scale developed by

Hendrick (1988) that measures general relationship satisfaction. For this study, there was

a note at the start of this questionnaire stating the following: “The following seven

questions concern the satisfaction of your offline relationship. When completing these

questions, if you have engaged in online infidelity, please answer the questions as your

satisfaction with the offline relationship at the time of your experience with online

infidelity.” Once the participant began the questionnaire, the questions addressed marriage

and other types of romantic relationships. Examples of items include, “How good is your

relationship compared to most?” For a full list of items, refer to Appendix B.

The seven items are keyed on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “Low

Satisfaction” to 5 = “High Satisfaction” (Hendrick, 1988). Scores from the Relationship

Assessment Scale range from 7-35. Items 4 and 7 are to be reverse-scored. The item

score is based on an average (total score is divided by the number of scale items), where a

higher average indicates greater satisfaction experienced in the participants’ relationship.

The Relationship Assessment Scale has yielded strong reliability scores averaging at .87

across studies (Graham et al., 2011). Although the assessment was originally designed for

younger couples, it seems to be more reliable with scores of older couples (Graham et al.,

2011).

Intensity of Social Networking Site Use

Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire Short Form (PIUQ-SF). The PIUQ-SF is a

9-item questionnaire that measures cognitions and behaviors related to Internet use and

the effect it has on psychosocial health as defined by obsession, neglect, and control

disorder. For this study, a previously developed short-form was used. The short-form is a

9-item self-assessment that measures the three components listed above by selecting the

three highest loading questions from each (Koronczai et al., 2011). Furthermore, for this

research, questions were modified to evaluate levels of problematic social networking site

use among participants by replacing the word “Internet” or “online” with the words

“social networking sites.” One example of this is as follows: “How often do you try to

conceal your time spent on social networking sites?” All items, with modification, are

available for review in Appendix B.

Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “Never” to 5 =

“Always” (Demotrovics, Szeredi, & Rozsa, 2008). Final scores ranged from 9-45 with

scores greater than or equal to 22 indicating a greater degree of intensity of social

networking site use (Koronczai et al., 2011). The developers of the short form did not

evaluate the correlation of this measurement to its full version. The PIUQ-SF does have a

significant internal consistency which is designated by Cronbach’s alpha of .84 in adults

(Koronczai et al., 2011). For future research, evaluation of the PIUQ-SF’s psychometric

properties may be beneficial.

Impulsivity

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 15 (BIS-15). The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) is

a widely used 30-item self-assessment that measures impulsivity based on three

components: non-planning, motor impulsivity, and attention impulsivity. For this study, I

used a previously developed short-form of the BIS. This short-form is referred to as the

BIS-15. The BIS-15 is a 15-item self-assessment that also measures the three components

listed above by selecting the five highest loading questions from each (Spinella, 2007).

Some of the items include: “I plan for the future” (non-planning – reversed scoring), “I do

things without thinking” (motor), and “I don’t pay attention” (attention). All items are

available for review in Appendix B.

Items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “Rarely/Never” to

4 = “Almost Always” (Spinella, 2007). Six of the items have reversed scoring as they

indicate lower impulsivity. Again, the scores were reversed before calculating. The final

scores ranged from 15-75, where a higher score indicates the participant has a higher

likelihood of displaying impulsivity as a character trait. Reliability testing of the BIS-15

yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and scores from the BIS-15 correlated with the scores

of the full-item BIS (r = .94, p < .001) (Spinella, 2007).

Permissive Sexual Values

Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS). The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale was

originally a 49-item questionnaire. Hendrick and Hendrick (1987) chose to evaluate four

variables: sexual permissiveness (casual, open attitude towards sex), sexual practices

(responsibility and tolerant sexual attitudes), communion (evaluating sex as an ideal

experience), and sexual instrumentality (sex being a biologically natural aspect of life).

The scale is acceptable for all levels of committed romantic partners that are sexually

active (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987). For this study, the Permissiveness 10-item subscale

of the 23-item BSAS was utilized. This removal of the subscale from the full-scale

version does not compromise the scoring. Both, the original scale and BSAS use the mean

scores from each of the four subscales individually with no overall score (Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1987; Henrick et al., 2006) which is due to the independent nature of each

subscale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987). An example of items includes: “Casual sex is

acceptable.” The full item list is presented in Appendix B.

The ten items are rated on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 =

“Strongly Agree” to 5 = “Strongly Disagree” (Hendrick et al., 2006). The item score is

averaged (total score is divided by the number of scale items), where a lower average

indicates a greater endorsement of permissiveness (Hendrick et al., 2006). The Goodness

of Fit Index showed .95 for permissiveness subscale. The test-retest correlation for

permissiveness was .92. Permission is granted by the developer to use this scale (Fisher,

Davis, Yarber, & Davis, 2011).

Data Analyses

The instrumental measurements were available online for voluntary completion for

four months. Following this time, the measures were appraised to guarantee all

measurements had been fulfilled in their entirety. Some participants may have lost online

connection or chose to leave the survey prematurely. Thus, any incomplete surveys were

removed from the final analysis. Once incomplete or invalid surveys were eliminated, and

appropriate data was collected, all data was transferred into software utilized for social

science research known as Statistical Product and Service Solutions, more commonly

referred to as SPSS, for further statistical analyses.

After transferring data into SPSS, there was an elimination of responses from

participants that do not represent the intended population. For example, if individuals

outside of the United States or those younger than 21 years of age are identified, these

responses and data sets were eliminated to avoid skewing final analysis. A subsequent

elimination then took place to remove those respondents that have not engaged in online

infidelity. The data that remained following this process was then statistically evaluated

using the SPSS software.

Correlation tables were computed to identify any relationships among the

following four variables: relationship satisfaction, the intensity of social networking site

use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual values. Multiple regression analysis was then

conducted to indicate the strength of the predictability, if any, that exists between the

above mentioned four variables. The purpose of this survey was to indicate if a person’s

engagement in online infidelity can be predicted by four variables: relationship

satisfaction, the intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual

values. With the utilization of PROCESS, regression analysis was then executed to

evaluate moderating and mediating effects. After completion of these analyses, the

previously removed data set of respondents that denied online infidelity was reintroduced

for multiple regression and correlation analysis against those endorsing online infidelity.

The specific research questions and hypotheses that were assessed are as follows:

RQ1: Is relationship satisfaction the best predictor of the frequency of engaging in

online infidelity when intensity of social networking site use, impulsivity, and

permissive sexual values are competing dependent variables?

H01: Relationship satisfaction is not the best predictor of the frequency of

engaging in online infidelity when analyzed against intensity of social networking

site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual values.

Ha1: Relationship satisfaction is the best predictor of the frequency of

engaging in online infidelity when analyzed against intensity of social

networking site use, impulsivity, and permissive sexual values.

RQ2: Is there a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking site

use, and/or permissive sexual values?

H02: There is not a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking site

use, and/or permissive sexual values.

Ha2: There is a difference between those who have engaged in online infidelity

and those who have not engaged in online infidelity based on the following

variables: relationship satisfaction, impulsivity, intensity of social networking

site use, and/or permissive sexual values.

RQ3: Does impulsivity moderate the relationship between relationship

satisfaction and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity? H03:

Impulsivity does not moderate the relationship between relationship

satisfaction and the frequency of engaging in online infidelity. Ha3:

Impulsivity does moderate the relationship between relationship satisfaction