Personality Traits, Probability of Marital Infidelity and Risk of Divorce

Abstract The theory of investment model of dating infidelity maintains that loyalty is an essential power within romantic relationships. Loyalty signifies both a motivation and psychological attachment to maintain a relationship. This study examined the relationship between the five factors of personality including extraversion, neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness and also considered the probability of marital infidelity and risk of divorce. The participants completed NEO-FFI, INFQ (infidelity questionnaire) and were interviewed by OHI (oral history interview). The results demonstrated that extraversion and agreeableness traits were significant predictors for the probability of infidelity and risk of divorce. In addition, conscientiousness trait could predict the probability of infidelity in couples, while neuroticism just predicted the risk of divorce. Keywords: Five factors personality, Infidelity, Risk of divorce

1. Introduction

Infidelity influences the function of a relationship and stability of a marriage. In addition, infidelity is the main cause of marital termination and displeasure. There are different kinds of infidelity such as sexual, emotional, and on-line infidelity. Some studies have shown that men seem to be more sexually unfaithful and women seem to be more probable to get involved in an emotional infidelity (Sagarin et al., 2012; Schtzwohl, 2005; Schtzwohl & Koch, 2004). Wifely infidelity can cause men show violence against their wives (Stieglitz, Gurven, Kaplan, & Winking, 2012).Surprisingly, infidelity is a common 1

phenomenon around the world, specially, in some middle-east countries like Iran in which 50% of people, in close relationships, have affairs and one has to wonder how many people who do not have affairs simply do not have the opportunity to do so, or else would like to but abstain from consequences, rather than a feeling of loyalty to their partners. Eight out of ten divorces in Iran are because of infidelity (Mehr News, 2008). Divorce is defined as the action of an instance of legally dissolving a marriage. Divorce is an officially authorized dissolution of the marriage agreement by a court or other body having knowledgeable power. Divorce (or the termination of marriage) is the last dissolution of a marriage, cancelling the responsibilities of marriage and permissible duties and disbanding the bonds of matrimony between the partners. In many countries, separation needs authorization of a court or other power in a lawful procedure. The officially authorized procedure for divorce may engage matters of child support, child's safekeeping , the division of debt, distribution of property and spousal support. In the current study, the risk of divorce, as a probability of terminating the permissible responsibilities and duties of marriage and breaking up the bonds of the married state between partners, is measured by Oral History Interview in which partners were asked to mention the story of their relationships from the time they got engaged until the current day. The spouses were also asked about the good and rigid times in their marriage, in addition to their viewpoint about marriage. The question determined the spouse's insights by focusing on the negative or positive values of the relationships that dominated in the telling of the story. Personality may help to explain the possibility of infidelity in a marriage and the risk of divorce. Personality was identified as consistent behavioral differences between individuals over time and across situations(Gosling, 2001; Sih, Bell, & Johnson, 2004). Costa & McCrae (1992)classified personality through the five factor-Model which includes

conscientiousness, neuroticism , extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. The five-factor-Model of personality explains five magnitudes that show important individual differences. These bipolar aspects are agreeableness (cold, suspicious vs. warm, trusting), assurgency (gentleness introversion vs. dominance extraversion), conscientiousness (undependable, disorganized vs. reliable, well-organized), openness /intellect (imperceptive, incurious vs. perceptive, curious) and emotional stability (nervous temperament vs. secure, even-tempered) (Musek, 2007). Previous studies indicate that wifes low conscientiousness is the best spousal personality -trait by which husband can estimate whether his partner was

unfaithful(Shackelford & Buss, 2000). Extraverts are considered as more probable to be unfaithful in their marriage or romantic relationship than introverts (Schmitt, Shackelford, & Buss, 2001). Neuroticism has been related to several types of sexual problems , including marital infidelity and sexual dissatisfaction .Some investigators have shown that couples who achieve high scores in neuroticism are involved in more sexual adventuresome (Schmitt, 2004). Buss & Shackelford (2000) showed that low conscientiousness is the best personalitytrait predictor to estimate wifes infidelity. (Shackelford & Buss, 2000). Perhaps the most important personality trait that associates with infidelity is impulsive sensation-seeking (Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000; Mashegoane, Moalusi, Ngoepe, & Peltzer, 2002). The impulsive sensation seeking , among big five personality traits , is most strongly linked to low conscientiousness and low agreeableness(Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000).Several studies have found a strong relation between conscientiousness ,

agreeableness, and infidelity (Hoyle et al., 2000; Mashegoane et al., 2002). For instance, Schmitt (2004) found high levels of unfaithful relationship was related to low agreeableness. Also, higher levels of infidelity were linked to low conscientiousness for both women and

men in all cultures.In addition , the trait of openness to experiences was not constantly related to infidelity cross-culturally (Schmitt, 2004). Furthermore, Orzeck(2005) investigated the difference between the big five personality factors of cheaters and big five personality factors of non-cheaters .The findings exposed significant differences between non-cheaters and cheaters on the big five personality traits. Variations have also been discovered between both groups' observations of themselves and their partners on five factors model(Orzeck & Lung, 2005). Couples less satisfied with the marriage show more tendency towards infidelity. Some studies show that personality traits may help to explain which marriages are probable to contain unfaithfulness and which are likely to stay loyal (Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008). To be unfaithful may have no rival in making trouble in a marriage. Cross-culturally, a womans sexual unfaithfulness, real or suspected, is the leading reason of her battering and killing. In spite of the devastative costs engaged in divorce, many spouses do divorce after finding about their partners infidelity (Weekes-Shackelford & Shackelford, 2004). From an evolutionary psychological perspective (Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003; Wood & Eagly, 2002), infidelity indicates the destruction of significant reproductive supplies, from a fair theoretical perspective (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002), unfaithfulness may indicate serious unfairness in a relationship. From an investment model perspective(Impett, Beals, & Peplau, 2001), infidelity shows lack of dedications to a relationship. It can be discussed for each of these viewpoints that the conclusion to divorce as a result of infidelity depends on costs and advantages investigated by the betrayed partner (Shackelford & Goetz, 2007). This study was conducted to look at factors such as personality traits that would influence an individuals probability of marital infidelity and risk of divorce especially among iranian couples. The reason why this study considered Iranian couples is because of 4

the recent increasing

rate of divorce in Iran.

According to the report of State Birth

Registration Organization, the number of marriage in 1986 was 340342 and divorce 35211, in 1996 the number of marriage was 479263 and divorce was 37817, and in 2002, 650960 cases of marriage and 67256 cases of divorce were reported. However, the accurate datashowing the number of divorces are not avalaiable but according to Mehr News Agency (2009), infidelity is the main reseaon for eight out of ten divorces in Iran. Also, State Birth

Registration Organization reported 51,192 divorces in the first five months of 2009 .Thus, this study would find the relationship between personality traits of Iranian couples and probability of marital infidelity , educational level, and gender. In sum, this study raises two significant questions: (a)do people with particular personality (i.e. those with low agreeableness ) tend to become extramaritaly involved and have high risk to divorce? (b) do people with specific personality (i.e. thosewith high neuroticisim ) tend to get divorce?

2. Method 2.1 Participants A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed among couples but 307 questionnaires were returned. One hundred twenty four males (40% response rate) and one hundred eighty three females (60% response rate) between ages of 20 to 55, married at least for 2 years, completed an approximately 134-item questionnaire and attended in the interview session. A convenient sampling procedure was used in this study. The participants were chosen randomly among the two-year married couples who referred to a consulting centre in Shiraz5

Iran for consulting with a therapist since the last year. Approximately the number of couples who referred to this centre in the last year was 2000 people that 600 people were chosen randomly among them. The participants came from different demographic backgrounds and the only controlling demographic variable was the length of marriage that the samples should get married at least for 2 years.

2.2 Material The NEO five factors Inventory (NEO-FFI): All participants received 60statements from NEO-PI-R Personality test to explain marital interactions as the interface between spouses. The test is the result of nearly half a century research study of personality factor analysis in Europe and the US. Unlike the popular personality test in the area of clinical psychology that insists on personality pathology, the NEO package handles the healthy aspects of personality and its major purpose may be used for personal inclination towards psychological pathology. A NEO personality test examines the five aspects, or in other words, five major areas of personality and their specifications. The NEO-FFI is the 60-statement version of the NEO-PI-R which has been for short and fast evaluation of the five major factors Extraversion (E), Neuroticism(N), Openness to experience (O) ,Agreeableness(A) and Conscientiousness(C) the responses to the statements are arranged on a 5-point Liker scale which ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ): For measuring the probability of infidelity, each spouse completed an instrument entitled Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ). As the original questionnaire is in English, back translation approach was utilized to translate it to Persian.

The original questionnaire was translated by an experienced translator whose mother tongue was Persian from English to Persian for the use of Iranian participants whose mother tongue was Persian. The translator aimed at the conceptual equivalents of words or phrases rather than a word for word translation. Then, a bilingual expert confirmed the translation to identify and resolve the inadequate expressions and concepts of the translation. In the next step, INFQ was translated back to English by a freelance translator, whose mother tongue was English and who had no knowledge of the questionnaire. Then, the translation was sent to the author for review and approval. Finally, problematic words or phrases could not fully capture the concept addressed by the author were omitted. In the last step, the questionnaire was distributed among 20 couples to pre-test the instrument. Pre-test respondents were asked about any words they did not understand as well as any words or expressions that they found unacceptable or offensive. The structure of the Infidelity Questionnaire comprised diverse reasons for infidelity , under six factors which are sensation seeking, social background, sexuality, seduction, normalization and legitimacy. Oral History Interview (OHI): Oral History Interview was used to measure spouse's risk of divorce. In OHI, spouses are requested to tell the story of their relationship from the time they met until the present day. Couples are also requested to talk about the hard and good times in their marriage as well as their philosophy about marriage. Buehlman et al. (1992) used the Oral History Interview (Krokoff, 1984) to measure spouses' universal insights about their marriage and their mutual relationship. Buehlman et al. (1992) were able to forecast divorce with 94% accuracy. They argued those couple's observed marital connection was linked with marital stability couples in which partners were more significant of their spouses, disappointed about the marriage, and considered the disputes of the marriage were exterior their personal control were more probable to have split by the 3-year record. 7

Therefore, the way that couples told the story of their relationship could forecast their probability of divorced or marital stability. The Oral History Interview is a semi-structured interview performed by both the wife and husband .The interview discovers the history of the couple's relationship, the spouse's viewpoints about marriage, and the evaluation of their parents' marriages with their own marriage.

2.3 Procedures The participants information sheet and questionnaire packets were given to the couples who referred to the consulting centre. Both the introduction and questionnaire were in a Microsoft word format on a CD. The participants were asked to download and complete the questionnaires and then return them back to the researcher in a Microsoft word attachment. The participants were permitted to change their answers any time during the questionnaire organization process. Conversely, once the questionnaire was returned to the researcher, the answers were unchangeable. The participants were given a two-month to return the questionnaire to the researcher. The completed questionnaire was allowed to return to the researcher at any given time during the two month period after its distribution. Then, the participants received a memento e-mail and phone call every week from the researcher to remind them to complete and return the questionnaire to the researcher on time.

3. Results Figure 1 indicates the structural model of NEO-FFI,INFQ (infidelity questionnaire), and OHI (Oral History Interview) with estimated standardized parameters. The model 8

consists of five latent exogenous variables that the first of them, neuroticism, measured self report neuroticism. The second to the fifth exogenous latent variables measured self report extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and consciousness alternatively. The endogenous latent variable infidelity measured the probability of infidelity. The three observed variables serving as indicators for this factor are: sensation seeking, social background, and sexuality. The endogenous latent variable risk of divorce measured the probability of getting divorce. The five observed variables serving as indicators for this factor are: We-ness, Expansiveness, Fondness/Affection, Negative and Glorifying a Struggle. All mentioned variables were scaled to have unit variance via standardizing. Considering the standardized path coefficients revealed that each variable was a sensible indicator of neuroticism, with all paths (loadings) equal to or exceeding .72., with set to .001, all paths were remarkably distinguished from zero. Extraversion, as the second variable, measured self report extraversion and introversion trail of personality that was measured by six observed variables. Each of the indicators appeared to be a good indicator with standardized paths (loading) from extraversion more than .44, with set to .001; all paths were remarkably distinguished from zero. The third variable was openness that measured self report openness to experience. The eighth observed variables served as indicators for openness. Again, each of the suggested indicators tended to be a good one of the latent variable, with standardized paths (loadings) more than .61. With set to .001; all paths were notably distinguished from zero. Agreeableness, as the fourth variable, measured self-report agreeableness. The forth observed variables serving as indicators for this latent factor appeared to be a good indicator with the standardized paths (loading) more than .73. With set to .001; all paths were considerably distinguished from zero.

The last latent variable was consciousness that measured self report consciousness. Again, each suggested indicator appeared to be a good indicator of the latent variable consciousness, with four of five paths (loadings) more than .51. With set to .001; all paths were remarkably distinguished from zero. Considering the correlation among the latent exogenous variables reveals that no important correlation between neuroticism and extraversion (r=.07) and also shows no linear relationship between the neuroticism of people and their extraversion. In addition, the correlation between neuroticism and openness (r=.04) observed no linear relationship between neuroticism and openness to experience trait in personality. The correlation between neuroticism and agreeableness is not important (r=.09), and it reveals no linear relationship between neuroticism trait and agreeableness in personality. Correlation between neuroticism and conscientiousness(r=-.07) shows no linear relationship between the neuroticism of a person and his/her conscientiousness. Considering extraversion trait reveals an important correlation between extraversion and openness (r= .18) that suggests extravert persons tend also to be open to experience, with set to .01 that is notably distinguished from zero. High correlation of extraversion to agreeableness (r=.80) reveals that an extravert person tends to be agreeable, with set to .001 that is remarkably distingushed from zero. In addition, extraversion correlated positively with conscientiousness (r=.44) suggets that extravert a person tends to be conscience, with set to .001 that is significantly different from zero. The latent variable openness correlated significantly to agreeableness (r= .19) reveals that a person who is open to experience tends to be agreeable, with set to .01 that is significantly different from zero. But, openness that is not significantly correlated with conscientiousness (r=.04) shows no linear relationship between openness to experience trait and conscientiousness trait in personality. Also, an insignificant correlation between neuroticism and conscientiousness conscientiousness (r=-.09) discloses that there is no linear relationship 10

between neuroticism trait and conscientiousness trait in personality. Finally, a significant correlation between agreeableness and conscientiousness (r= .34) suggests that an agreeable person tends to be conscience, with set to .001 that is remarkably distinguished t from zero. The latent endogenous variable is hypothesized infidelity the respondents report of the probability of that he or she will become infidel. Three indicators are proposed for infidelity: sensation, social, and sexuality that measure sensation seeking, social background and sexuality. To scale infidelity, it was set the path from infidelity to sensation that is 1.0. The standardized path for every indicator, (loading) exceeding .57, reveals that all three measures are good indicators of the latent factor infidelity. The latent endogenous variable is hypothesized risk of divorce the respondents report of the probability of that he or she will get divorce. Three indicators are proposed for risk of divorce: We-ness, Expansiveness, Fondness/Affection, and Negative and Glorifying a Struggle. To scale the risk of divorce, it was set the path from the risk of divorce to fondness equal to 1.0. The standardized path to each indicator (loading) exceeding .82, reveals that all five measures are good indicators of the latent factor risk of divorce. This study considered two important questions: (a)do people with particular personality trait (e.g. those withlow agreeableness ) tend to become extramaritaly involved? (b) do people with particular personality trait (e.g. those with high neuroticisim ) tend to get divorce? For exploring these types of questions a Structural Equestion Modeling (SEM) strategy was employed. This strategy allows for a stimulative evalutaion of two hypothesized effects , while evaluating faults in the dependent and independent variables(Hoyle & Smith, 1994). According to Fig 1, extraversion trait might cause the respondent to be more unfaithful. To test this hypotheses , it was estimated the path from extraversion to infidelity.

11

The estimated path is .49. with set to .01. that is remarkably distinguished from zero. Therefore , extravert respondent is more probabale to get involved extramaritally. Agreeableness trait may similarly lead the respondent to be more unfaithful. The estimated path from agreeableness to infidelity is -.34 , confirming the hypothesized relationship. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the respondents agreeableness will lead them to report lower estimate of the probability that they will become unfiathful. The insignificant estimated path from neuroticisim to infidelity suggets that neuroticisim trait might not predict the probability of infidelity in respondents. In addition, the insignificant estimated path from consciuosness to infidelity reveals that consciousness trait might not be a good predictor for the probability of extramaritaly involved. Finally, the estimated path from opennes to infidelity is insignificant to show that openess to experience trait of personality might not predict the probability of infidelity. Extraversion trait might cause the respondents to have a low risk of divorce. To test this hypotheses,the path from extraversion to risk of divorce was estimated. The estimated path is -.35. with set to .001 that is remarkably distinguished from zero. Thus , extravert respondents are less probabale to divorce. Agreeableness trait may similarly lead the respondent to have high risk of divorce. The estimated path from agreeableness to risk of divorce that is -.34confirms the hypothesized relationship. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the respondents agreeableness will lead them to report lower estimate of the probability that they will get divorce . The estimated path from neuroticisim to risk of divorce that is significant with set to .001(.19) suggeststhat neuroticisim trait might predict the probability of getting divorce in the respondents. In addition, the insignificant estimated path from conscientiousness to risk of divorce reveals that conscientiousness trait might not be a good predictor for the risk of divorce. Finally, the estimated path from opennes to risk of divorce is not significant to show that openess to experience trait of personality might not predict the risk of divorce in couples.

12

Chi-square (2), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), , and Root Mean Square Error Approximation Index (RMSEA) were employed as fit indexes . CMIN (minimum discrepancy) or Chi-square,CMIN/ DF < 5.0 according to Marsh & Hocevar (1985), Bentler (1990) index examined the difference between the sample covariance matrix and the confined covariance matrix, with the presupposition that the residual difference between them is zero. In this index, p > .05 shows a good fit. Considering the overall fit of the model to the observed data, revealed that chi-square with 799 df is 1332.299, a value remarkably distinguished from zero that suggests good model fit. Also, considering the chi-square/df with ratio 1.67 suggested a good fit of the model to the data. The adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) as well as the unadjusted model of this index approached .90.. An additional measure of overall model fit was the root mean square residual (RMR) that wasa measure of the average fitted residuals. The RMR for the hypothesized model was .047, representing a good fit of the estimated model to the observed data. Byrne (2001) observed that RMSEA valuesless than .05 show good fit (Bentler & Yuan, 1999) suggested < .06 as good fit), between .05 and .08 represent reasonable fit, between .08 and .10 indicate medium fit, and if the values are more than .10 show poor fit. Another indication of the good fit of this model to the data is CFI (Comparative Fit Index) that is .94. Moreover, TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) is.936, proposing a sensible fit of the suggested model to the observed data. The value of CFI ranges from 0 to 1.00. However, the proposed value for CFI, representative of good fit, was between .95 and 1.00. Totally, the value of CFI represented consistency with the values of NFI (Normed Fit Index) and IFI (Incremental Fit Index) (Byrne, 2001). This goodness of fit indices will obviously reject insufficient or poorly specified models, while the hypothesized model of the present research meet real-world criteria for sensible fit for the presentation of the data.

13

4. Discussion This study attempted to investigate the relationship between personality traits and probability of marital infidelity and risk of divorce. The current study considered variables that influenced probability of infidelity and risk of divorce. Some variables, such as extraversion and agreeableness traits were found to influence the probability of marital infidelity as well as the risk of divorce. Extraversion trait has a higher standardized regression weight to determine the probability of marital infidelity and risk of divorce. This study supported this hypothesis that extraversion as a personality trait is a significant predictor for probability of marital infidelity. This study also agreed with Schmitt (2004) who showed that the association between extraversion and relationship infidelity was positive across cultures. Orzeck & Lung (2005) found cheaters rates are considerably higher than non-cheaters selfratings in extraversion aspect. Thus, the result of this study that individuals who have high score in extraversion trait are more probable to be unfaithful in their marriage can be justified. Extraversion measures the degree to which a person gets involved in the external world and other people in society. Those who score high on extraversion often are described as energetic and talkative; they are more socialized and more contacted with others, so they are more probable to get engaged in marital infidelity. The literature provides support for relations between extraversion trait and the likelihood of involving in infidelity. For example, Shaye (2010) observed that extraversion can positively attribute to infidelity. In other words, extravert individuals show more extramarital infidelity in comparison with introvert people. Also, Egan & Angus (2004) found that personality trait can be an influential predictor of infidelity. Their finding that unfaithful males were highly extraverted was in-line with the finding of the present research. Regarding risk of divorce and extraversion trait, this study supports the hypothesis that individuals with high extraversion experience more risk for their marriage. Some studies 14

suggest that extraversion appears to be absolutely related to the probability of marital dissolution, mainly in men (White et al., 2004). Jockin et al. (1996) concluded that extraversion was a predictive of marital termination in both women and men (Johnson, McGue, Krueger, & Bouchard Jr, 2004). Similarly, Lynn (2004) showed that divorce rate may be associated with individuals scores on extraversion. Furthermore, Lester (2000) suggested that national levels of extraversion can be evaluated via employing particular certain national indicators like divorce rate. Also, Lajunen (2004) concluded that divorce as well as crime rate can be known as indicators of extraversion .Totally, the finding of the present research about extraversion as a significant predictor of divorce can be supported by some previous studies which were reviewed. A negative relationship was found between agreeableness trait and the probability of infidelity. Also, a significant relationship was seen betweenconscientiousness trait and the probability of marital infidelity. Fernandz & Castro(2003) , Markey & Tinsley(2003)

Wiggins et al. (2000),Egan & Angus (2004) observed a direct relation among conscientiousness ,agreeableness and infidelity. They showed that individuals who scored lower on conscientiousness and agreeableness were more probable to get engaged in marital infidelity. Also, Buss & Shackelford (2002) concluded that those who have low conscientiousness and agreeableness are more probable to have issues in the first four years of marriages. Schmitt (2004) observed that lower scores on agreeableness are associated with more relationship infidelity and lower scores on both agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to general unfaithfulness in a relationship. Furthermore, Barta & Kiene (2005), and Schmitt & Buss (2001) concluded that people with more cheating in their past are more probable to show lower scores on conscientiousness and agreeableness. In addition, Shackelford et al. (2008) used the five factor model to examine personality as a predictor of 15

infidelity. Their findings showed that individuals with particularly disagreeable and unreliable spouses were more likely to get engaged in marital infidelity. They also found that people with low agreeableness and conscientiousness show a higher probability of extramarital involvement. Additionally, it was found that agreeableness trait would be a predictor for terminating a marriage as there was a significant negative relation between agreeableness and risk of divorce. The results of the previous studies consistently confirmed the finding of the current study (Bekkers, Aken, & Denissen, 2006; Boertien, 2012; Boertien, Scheve, & Park, 2012; Kalmijn, 2005; Kinnunen & Pulkkinen, 2003; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro Iii, & Ruscio, 1998). This study demonstrates that couples who were high in neuroticism were more probable to get divorce in the future. This finding is consistent with Kelly & Conley (1987) who showed neuroticism was related to subsequent divorce (White et al., 2004). Kurdek (1993) replicated the finding in a 5-year longitudinal study. Also, Jocklin et al (1996) did a genetic analysis of the factors affecting divorce risk (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). Neuroticism can be defined as propensity to experience negative emotions, and individuals with high neuroticism get easily angry.and are often moody and worried

Individuals with score high on neuroticism are less pleased with romantic relationship, and when they are married they are more probable to get divorce. High degrees of neuroticism are more strongly related to negative marital outcomes than any other personality traits (McNulty & Russell, 2010). Based on earlier studies which were reviewed, the result of the present study is well supported: neuroticism has a positive correlation with risk of divorce, and neuroticism can help predict the risk of divorce in those who are highly educated.

16

The result of the current study showed an insignificant relation between neuroticism and the probability of infidelity in couples. This finding is mostly consistent with FernaNdez & Castro (2003); Schmitt (2004); Nasrollahi et al. (2011) who have established that couples who achieve high scores in neuroticism are likely to be more unfaithful .Orzeck & Lung (2005) found non-cheaters insight of their spouse was higher on neuroticism scale, representing greater constancy as evaluated to the cheaters insight of their monogamous spouse. Neuroticism measures a person tendency towards experiencing negative feelings and people with high neuroticism can be seen as emotionally unstable, worried, and moody. According to Barta & Kiene (2005) and Schmitt & Buss (2001), people with more cheating in their past are more likely to have higher rates on neuroticism. But, how neuroticism leads to probable of marital infidelity is ambiguous. It can be that people who have more emotional distress look for immoral sexuality as a way for managing (Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000). ALso, it can be said that neurotics are less able to refuse to go along with their cravings and urges than stable individuals (Trobst et al., 2002) .

In general, this study showed that, between five factors of personality (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness) extraversion trait was able to determine the probability of marital infidelity and risk of divorce more than other traits.

References

17

Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339-360. Bekkers, R., Aken, M. A. G., & Denissen, J. (2006). Social structure and personality assortment among married couples. Dag van de Sociologie, Tilburg University, the Netherlands, June, 8. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238. Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K. H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(2), 181-197. Boertien, D. (2012). Jackpot? Gender Differences in the Effects of Lottery Wins on Separation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1038-1053. Boertien, D., Scheve, C., & Park, M. (2012). Education, personality and separation: The distribution of relationship skills across society. Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors in Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of personality, 65(1), 107-136. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campuscommunity partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3-4), 295.

18

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 125-150. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86. Carrere, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 42. Cooper, M. L., Agocha, V. B., & Sheldon, M. S. (2000). A motivational perspective on risky behaviors: The role of personality and affect regulatory processes. Journal of personality, 68(6), 1059-1088. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 5. Dupre, M. E., Beck, A. N., & Meadows, S. O. (2009). Marital trajectories and mortality among US adults. American journal of epidemiology, 170(5), 546-555. Egan, V., & Angus, S. (2004). Is social dominance a sex-specific strategy for infidelity? Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 575-586. FernaNdez, M. L., & Castro, Y. R. G. (2003). The Big Five and sexual attitudes in Spanish students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 31(4), 357-362.

19

Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological bulletin, 127(1), 45. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737745. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system: Clarendon press Oxford. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: a critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 574. Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of personality, 68(6), 1203-1231. Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: a conceptual overview. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 62(3), 429. Impett, E. A., Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2001). Testing the investment model of relationship commitment and stability in a longitudinal study of married couples. Current Psychology, 20(4), 312-326. Jocklin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality and divorce: a genetic analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 288. Johnson, W., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2004). Marriage and personality: a genetic analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 285.

20

Kalmijn, M. (2005). The effects of divorce on mens employment and social security histories. European Journal of Population/Revue europenne de Dmographie, 21(4), 347-366. Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological review, 110(1), 3. Kiernan, K. (2004). Cohabitation and divorce across nations and generations. Human development across lives and generations, 139-170. Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Childhood Socio-Emotional Characteristics as Antecedents of Marital Stability and Quality. European Psychologist; European Psychologist, 8(4), 223. Krokoff, L. J. (1984). The anatomy of blue-collar marriages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lajunen, T. (2004). Social indicators as indexes of neuroticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1543-1550. Lester, D. (2000). National differences in neuroticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(1), 35-39. Lynn F. Cherkas, E. C. O., Y. T. Mak, Anna Valdes, and Tim D. Specto. (2004). Genetic Influences on Female Infidelity and Number of Sexual Partners in Humans: A Linkage and Association Study of the Role of the Vasopressin Receptor Gene (AVPR1A). Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology Unit, St Thomas Hospital, Londo, 7, 6.

21

Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Tinsley, B. J. (2003). Personality, puberty, and preadolescent girls' risky behaviors: Examining the predictive value of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(5), 405-419. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological bulletin, 97(3), 562. Mashegoane, S., Moalusi, K. P., Ngoepe, M. A., & Peltzer, K. (2002). Sexual sensation seeking and risky sexual behavior among South African university students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 30(5), 475-483. McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When negative behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(4), 587. Michalski, R. L., Shackelford, T. K., & Salmon, C. A. (2007). Upset in response to a siblings partners infidelities. Human Nature, 18(1), 74-84. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Zimmerman, R. S., Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (2004). The utility of the Five Factor Model in understanding risky sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1611-1626. Mudar, P., Leonard, K. E., & Soltysinski, K. (2001). Discrepant substance use and marital functioning in newlywed couples. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 69(1), 130. Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1213-1233.

22

Orzeck, T., & Lung, E. (2005). Big-five personality differences of cheaters and noncheaters. Current Psychology, 24(4), 274-287. Roberts, S. B., & Kendler, K. S. (1999). Neuroticism and self-esteem as indices of the vulnerability to major depression in women. Psychological medicine, 29(5), 1101-1109. Rogge, R. D., Bradbury, T. N., Hahlweg, K., Engl, J., & Thurmaier, F. (2006). Predicting marital distress and dissolution: Refining the two-factor hypothesis. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 156. Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: a meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior. Schtzwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 288-299. Schtzwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 249-257. Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European journal of personality, 18(4), 301-319. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894.

23

Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more'oriented'toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3(3), 211-239. Shackelford, T. K., Besser, A., & Goetz, A. T. (2008). Personality, marital satisfaction, and probability of marital infidelity. Individual Differences Research, 6(1), 1325. Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Marital satisfaction and spousal costinfliction. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 917-928. Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner's infidelity. Cognition & Emotion, 16(2), 299-307. Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 47-50. Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition & Emotion, 14(5), 643-659. Sih, A., Bell, A., & Johnson, J. C. (2004). Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(7), 372-378. Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Pedersen, N., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hansson, K., Cederblad, M., & Reiss, D. (2005). Personality and marital satisfaction: A behavioural genetic analysis. European journal of personality, 19(3), 205-227. Stieglitz, J., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H., & Winking, J. (2012). Infidelity, jealousy, and wife abuse among Tsimane foragerfarmers: testing evolutionary hypotheses of marital conflict. Evolution and Human Behavior.

24

Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography, 39(2), 331-351. Testa, M., & Leonard, K. E. (2001). The impact of marital aggression on women's psychological and marital functioning in a newlywed sample. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 115-130. Tiwari, T., Singh, A. L., & Singh, I. L. (2009). The short-form revised Eysenck personality questionnaire: A Hindi edition (EPQRS-H). Industrial psychiatry journal, 18(1), 27. Towers, H., Spotts, E. L., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2003). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Parenting and Marital Relationships. Marriage & family review, 33(1), 11-29. Trobst, K. K., Herbst, J. H., Masters, H. L., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe sex: personality, condom use, and HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(2), 117-133. Trobst, K. K., Wiggins, J. S., Costa Jr, P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Masters Iii, H. L. (2000). Personality Psychology and Problem Behaviors: HIV Risk and the FiveFactor Model. Journal of personality, 68(6), 1233-1252. Tucker, J. S., Kressin, N. R., Spiro Iii, A., & Ruscio, J. (1998). Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 211-225. Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2004). Methods of filicide: Stepparents and genetic parents kill differently. Violence and victims, 19(1), 75-81.

25

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519-1530. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological bulletin, 128(5), 699. Zietsch, B. P., Verweij, K. J. H., Bailey, J. M., Wright, M. J., & Martin, N. G. (2010). Genetic and environmental influences on risky sexual behaviour and its relationship with personality. Behavior genetics, 40(1), 12-21. Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and RiskTaking: Common Bisocial Factors. Journal of personality, 68(6), 999-1029.

26

Figure 1: Structure Model of Sample

27