The American Journal of Family Therapy

ISSN: 0192-6187 (Print) 1521-0383 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

Understanding Infidelity: How Perceptions of

Infidelity Behaviors Vary by Sex and One's Own
Infidelity Experiences

Nathaly Moreno & Emily Pearl Kahumoku-Fessler

To cite this article: Nathaly Moreno & Emily Pearl Kahumoku-Fessler (2018): Understanding
Infidelity: How Perceptions of Infidelity Behaviors Vary by Sex and One's Own Infidelity
Experiences, The American Journal of Family Therapy, DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2018.1441760

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1441760

Published online: 18 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaft20
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1441760

Understanding Infidelity: How Perceptions of Infidelity

Behaviors Vary by Sex and One’s Own Infidelity Experiences
Nathaly Moreno and Emily Pearl Kahumoku-Fessler
University of Houston Clear Lake, Clinical and Applied Health Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines (1) how previous history with infidelity Received 27 November 2017
influences perceptions of cheating behaviors, and (2) sex’s Revised 6 February 2018
impact on ratings of cheating behaviors. A total of 83 Accepted 6 February 2018
undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses
volunteered to participate through an anonymous online
survey. Participants rated sexual and emotional behaviors on a
scale that ranged from “always” to “never,” indicating if the
behavior was perceived as cheating. Individuals that had
previous experience with infidelity either as the involved or
non-involved partner rated sexual behaviors higher than those
with no experience with infidelity, while non-involved partners
rated emotional behaviors higher than the rest. Overall,
females rated sexual and emotional behaviors higher than
males. Non-involved males rated sexual behaviors higher than
non-involved female partners. However, males who have not
committed an infidelity rated sexual behaviors lower than any
other group. The results provide further evidence that
perceptions of cheating behaviors are influenced by gender
and one’s own history of infidelity, including both involved
and non-involved roles.

Infidelity is commonly defined as committing sexual acts with someone other than
one’s current partner (Wilson, Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, & Bequette, 2011).
Recent scholarship has expanded the definition of infidelity (also called: “unfaith-
fulness” and “cheating”) by recognizing the impact of emotional behaviors as well
(Kruger et al., 2013; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988; Wilson et al., 2011;
Yarab, Sensibaugh, & Allgeier, 1998). Emotional infidelity entails an intimate emo-
tional connection with an individual other than one’s current partner (Wilson
et al., 2011). A modern and more comprehensive definition for infidelity is any
sexual and/or emotional relationship with someone other than the primary partner
kept a secret because of the implied betrayal (Berman & Frazier, 2005). Therefore,
new literature is distinguishing between sexual/physical infidelity from emotional
infidelity, while exploring factors that lead to it and its consequences.

CONTACT Emily Pearl Kahumoku-Fessler fessler@uhcl.edu University of Houston Clear Lake, Clinical and
Applied Health Sciences, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, 77058.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

Most individuals across all age groups report infidelity to be unacceptable,

regardless of its type (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Sheppard, Nelso, & Andreoli-
Mathie, 1995; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981). It appears that there is an unofficial rank-
ing system of infidelity, in which betrayals that are both sexual and emotional
are the least acceptable of all, followed by those with a sexual relationship over
time but no emotional connection, one-night stand sexual involvements, and emo-
tional infidelity with no sexual encounter (Thompson, 1984; Sheppard, Nelso, &
Andreoli-Mathie, 1995). Overall, non-sexual relationships are more frequently
deemed as a lower offense when compared to sexual involvements. In fact, mem-
bers of a couple often interpret daily interactions with someone other than one’s
partner as acceptable if the possibility of sexual acts is low or absent (Weis & Slos-
nerick, 1981). As behaviors become more physical, acceptability decreases, since
many believe that sustained physical interaction is a precursor to sexual behaviors
(Johnson, 1970; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981).
Level of commitment and the status of the relationship at the occurrence of infi-
delity influence how damaging participants perceive the behavior to be to the exist-
ing romantic relationship. Overall, people are more accepting if the unfaithful acts
happened while the participant was in a dating relationship versus in a marital
relationship (Sheppard, Nelso, & Andreoli-Mathie, 1995). Males tend to be more
accepting of betrayal than females, regardless of the relationship status (Feldman
& Cauffman, 1999; Sheppard, Nelso, & Andreoli-Mathie, 1995). Betrayal is seen as
more acceptable if the relationship was deteriorating (i.e., individual was not sexu-
ally satisfied by the regular partner) and least acceptable if the unfaithfulness was
planned out or done as a form of revenge (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Roscoe,
Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988). Approximately 50% of individuals terminate rela-
tionship with an unfaithful partner, while only a small percentage of people would
forgive their partner and choose to remain in the relationship (Roscoe, Cavanaugh,
& Kennedy, 1988).
Research findings indicate that attitudes toward infidelity can be dependent on
which specific behaviors translate into betrayal (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Weis
& Slosnerick, 1981). As mentioned before, non-sexual behaviors and daily interac-
tions are not universally considered unfaithful while the sexual behaviors are more
often unanimously perceived as such (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Kruger et al.,
2013; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981; Wilson et al., 2011). Past research has sought to
determine a list of behaviors individuals perceive as infidelity (Feldman & Cauff-
man, 1999; Kruger et al., 2013; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988; Wilson
et al., 2011; Yarab, Sensibaugh, & Allgeier, 1998). It seems that while some behav-
iors are clearly defined as an infidelity (i.e., intercourse, oral sex, dating, sexual
interactions) there are others than cannot be readily identified as one (i.e., going
out to eat/drink, hugging, sharing secrets, withholding information; Kruger et al.,
2013; Wilson et al., 2011). Interestingly, there are some ambiguous behaviors that
are more often considered infidelity behaviors than others. For example, sleeping
in the same bed with someone other than one’s partner is more often perceived as
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 3

infidelity when compared to staying in the same hotel room with someone other
than one’s partner (Kruger et al., 2013).
The reasons some behaviors that could be described as ambiguous in other sit-
uations are more often associated with infidelity when compared to other behav-
iors is not clear. One dominant explanation is that participant’s sex plays a role in
individual’s perceptions of infidelity—that is, males and females perceive infidelity
differently. There appears to be a cultural message in Western societies that males
will react more strongly to physical (i.e., sexual) betrayal, and females react more
strongly to emotional betrayals (i.e. their partner “falling in love” with someone
else.) However, extant research has failed to agree on how sex affect perceptions
and reactions to infidelity, and suggests that sex differences in infidelity are not so
clear-cut. Two studies suggest that female participants are more likely to view both
physical and emotional behaviors as acts of infidelity when compared to males.
Wilson et al. (2011) found that females perceived ambiguous behaviors (defined as
emotional bonding and nonsexual interactions) and explicit behaviors (comprised
by sexual interactions) as infidelity behaviors more often than their male counter-
parts. Furthermore, Kruger et al. (2013) found that females rated erotic behaviors
(i.e., watching a pornographic movie together), emotional bonding, behaviors
implying relationship status (i.e., holding hands, kissing on the lips), and resource
investment (i.e., supporting the other person financially) as unfaith
ful behaviors more often than males. Overall, ambiguous behaviors were positively
correlated with avoidance of unwanted sexual situations for both males and
females. Deceptive and explicit behaviors were positively correlated with guilt and
avoidance, and negatively associated with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation
and acting on attractions toward friends (Wilson et al., 2011).
Other theoretical explanations offer differing frameworks to examine percep-
tions and reactions to infidelity. Like the gendered explanations, findings from
studies using an evolutionary psychology framework mirrors current popular cul-
tural sentiments—namely, that sex differences in perceptions of infidelity exists
such that males are more likely to focus on sexual behavior as the defining charac-
teristic of infidelity and females are more likely to focus on emotional intimacy as
the defining characteristic of infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,
1992; Goetz & Causey, 2009; Harris, 2002). On the other hand, some researchers
have rejected the gendered argument, and make the case that when examining per-
ceptions of infidelity, the dominant cultural stigmas no longer hold.
Goetz and Causey (2009) found that men were more likely than women to per-
ceive sexual behaviors as indicative of their partner’s infidelity. Using an evolution-
ary psychology framework and cognitive system theory, these researchers posit
that men are more likely to perceive sexual infidelity as a betrayal because not
doing so would result in possible investment of resources in someone else’s off-
spring—a problem that women do not face because pregnancy belies female sexual
involvement. Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst (1982) reported comparable findings
based on the analogous principles. Emotional infidelity, which usually includes the
4 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

ambiguous behaviors, tends to not be perceived as betrayal by males because it is

not related to paternal certainty. However, females tend to report greater distress
over emotional infidelity because for them the risk is loss of resources and parental
burden (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst,
1982; Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, & Sagarin, 2006).
As an alternative explanation to the evolutionary theory, DeSteno and Salovey
(1996) used the double-shot hypothesis to explain sex differences regarding the
perceptions of infidelity. They suggest that individuals choose the option that most
implies the occurrence of the other alternative. Findings from a sample of 53 males
and 61 females suggest that females are more likely to focus on emotional infidel-
ity, but males are equally likely to focus on emotional and sexual infidelity. Thus, it
appears that for women, emotional infidelity entails that emotional bonding
includes sexual behaviors but not vice versa. For men, emotional and sexual behav-
iors seem to always be linked together regardless if the infidelity is defined as emo-
tional or sexual.
Opponents of the evolutionary view have argued that sex differences are not
about how individuals truly perceive infidelity, but are driven by forced choice to
pick one or the other (Harris, 2002; Harris, 2005). Brogdon, Fiztwater, and John-
son (2006) found that both sexes are more upset by sexual infidelity than emo-
tional when using a non-forced choice format. The purpose of their study was to
examine if sex influenced individuals’ views of sexual and emotional infidelity.
One hundred and twenty five participants responded to a hypothetical scenario in
which the participant discovered their long-term partner emotionally or sexually
cheated in various situations. Sexual infidelity was perceived as more negative
(M D 18.5) than emotional infidelity (M D 22.2) regardless of sex. These findings
suggest that when individuals are allowed to choose freely to what degree they feel
upset, sex differences disappear.
In an attempt to shed some light onto perceptions of infidelity for men and
women, prior research has sought to determine the role of previous experience
with infidelity and how it may affect individuals’ perception. In one study, males
who have been non-involved partners in the infidelity and females that had
reported engaging in infidelity behaviors reported higher focus on sexual infidelity
than their counterparts (Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno, Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003).
Berman and Frazier (2005) found that—contrary to dominant explanations—non-
involved female partners were also more distressed by sexual infidelity while non-
involved male partners were more distressed about the emotional infidelity.
Although research results continue to be contradictory, these findings suggest that
prior experience with infidelity might be a moderator to the perception and
response to betrayal. However, little research has been done to explore the relation-
ship between previous experience with infidelity and how individuals define an
infidelity.
Further research is needed in order to clarify the influence that sexual behavior
and emotional intimacy variables have on the understanding of infidelity. In the
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 5

interest of parsimony, the current study will focus on determining which behaviors
constitute unfaithfulness in order to highlight possible differences between emo-
tional and sexual behaviors as they relate to infidelity instead of focusing on how
upsetting such behaviors are. This is because past research has demonstrated that
the way individuals react and the way they understand infidelity do not always
overlap (Wilson et al., 2011). Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to
examine how individuals’ perceptions of infidelity behaviors are related to sex and
past history with infidelity. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that indi-
viduals with a history of infidelity, either as the involved or non-involved partner,
will be more likely to rate both emotion and physical behaviors as indicative
of infidelity when compared to individuals with no past history of infidelity.
Furthermore, it is expected the participant’s sex will have an effect on his or her
perception of infidelity in line with previous explanations in which female partici-
pants are more likely to view behaviors as indicative of cheating than their male
counterparts.

Method
Participants
The original sample consisted of 85 undergraduate students enrolled in psychology
classes from a private university in the southwest US. Two subjects were excluded
from analyses due to incomplete responses. The final sample contained a total of
83 participants, of which the majority were females (n D 65, 78%) between 18–
25 years old (n D 79, 95%; Mage D 21 years old). Participants identified themselves
as Hispanic (n D 36, 43.5%), White (n D 25, 30.5%), Asian (n D 9, 11%), Black
(n D 6, 7%), and Other (n D 7, 8%). Approximately, 80% had been in a previous
relationship and 50% of participants reported being in a current relationship with
a mean duration of 14 months. When asked about previous experience with infi-
delity, 44% identified themselves as non-involved partners (10 emotional, 6 sexual,
and 21 combined) while 34% reported being involved partners (13 emotional, 5
sexual, and 11 combined).

Procedures
Participants completed an anonymous online survey that included a 34-item scale
generated using the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale (PDIS) and 20 interper-
sonal behaviors (Kruger et al., 2013) along with the history of infidelity and demo-
graphic items (i.e., age, sex, race, relationship status). Participants received extra
credit in their psychology courses for volunteering in the study.

Measures
Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale (PDIS;Wilson et al., 2011). The PDIS assesses
attitudes towards behaviors that constitute emotional and sexual infidelity in
6 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

romantic relationships. The PDIS consists of three subscales: Ambiguous, Decep-

tive, and Explicit. The Ambiguous behaviors are those where there is no obvious
sign of betrayal, but the possibility of infidelity exists (i.e., eating or drinking, danc-
ing, hugging, buying and/or receiving gifts, and going somewhere). The Deceptive
behaviors are those intentionally done without the partner being aware (i.e., talking
on the phone and/or Internet, lying, withholding information, and fantasizing).
The Explicit behaviors are those behaviors directly associated with unfaithfulness
(i.e. sexual intercourse, oral sex, dating, heavy petting/fondling, flirting, and kiss-
ing). The PDIS was used to measure how participants viewed various behaviors as
indicative of infidelity. Participants rated to what extent they considered that a per-
son in a long-term relationship performing these behaviors with an individual
from opposite-sex other than their partner was committing an infidelity using a 6-
point Likert scale from 0 (never considered cheating) to 5 (always considered cheat-
ing). Two items were modified and one item was added to reflect modern trends
(“Clubbing” instead of “Dancing”; “Talking/texting on the phone” instead of “Talk-
ing on the phone"; “Bonding through social media”). One item was modified to
clarify that the behavior was not part of an activity in a group setting, which may
change the perception of it as betrayal (“Go somewhere alone”). Two items were
expanded based on past research (Kruger et al., 2013) to reflect different levels of
intensity (“Hugging briefly” and “Hugging for 10 seconds” instead of “Hugging”;
“Kissing on the cheek” and “Kissing on the lips” instead of “Kissing”). Items were
randomized to avoid order effects.
Interpersonal behaviors and infidelity (Kruger et al., 2013). Kruger and col-
leagues compiled a list of 27 behaviors that covered casual, romantic, and sexual
dimensions to measure the extent to which an individual in a long-term relation-
ship judged them as infidelity. Twenty of the items listed were included in the cur-
rent study to broaden the range of possible behaviors and reflect the fact that
behaviors that imply exclusivity and high level of intensity may be perceived as a
stronger indicator of betrayal. Items include: “Taking a shower together,” “Sleeping
in the same bed,” and “Accompanying to a formal event.” Two items were modi-
fied to clarify that the behavior was not part of an activity in a group setting, which
may change the perception of it as unfaithful (“Taking a road trip out of state
alone” and “Staying in the same hotel room alone”). One item was modified to
reflect the prevalence of texting explicit sexual content (The National Campaign to
Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008; “E-mailing/texting sexually explicit
messages). One item was modified to include the current experience of the sample
(“Calling when upset about school/work or social obligations”). Items were ran-
domized to avoid order effects.
History with infidelity. Participants completed items assessing personal experi-
ence with infidelity. The first section examined if the participant had experience as
the non-involved partner in an infidelity: (1) “Have you had any experience in which
someone you were romantically involved with cheated on you? Cheating may
include emotional and/or sexual unfaithfulness” and (2) “If yes, indicate the type of
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 7

infidelity”. Responses were recorded with a forced-choice format as (1) “Yes” or

“No” and (2) “Emotional,” “Sexual,” or “Both.” The second section assessed if the
participant had experience as the involved partner in an infidelity: (1) “Have you
had any experience in which you have cheated on someone you were romantically
involved with? Cheating may include emotional and/or sexual unfaithfulness” and
(2) “If yes, indicate the type of infidelity”. Responses were recorded with a forced-
choice format as (1) “Yes” or “No” and (2) “Emotional,” “Sexual,” or “Both.” In
order to clarify what “cheating” entailed, the definition of emotional and sexual infi-
delity as described by Wilson et al. (2011) were included in the questions. During
analysis, participants were grouped according to their self-reported answer:
“involved” for those who had sexual or emotional experience with someone other
than one’s primary partner, “non-involved” for those whose partner had sexual or
emotional involvement with someone else, and “no infidelity history.”

Results
Principal component analysis identified three components labeled emotional, sex-
ual, and deceptive consistent with findings from previous scholarly work by
Mattingly and colleagues (2010; Table 1). The emotional component included
items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 32, 34;
the sexual component included items 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; the deceptive com-
ponent included items 20 and 33. Item 25 (kissing on the cheek) did not load on
any of these three components and was removed from analysis. Overall, sexual
behaviors were rated higher by participants in regards to whether the behavior
constituted infidelity (M D 4.73, SD D .74), followed by deceptive behaviors (M D
3.13, SD D 1.33), and emotional behaviors (M D 2.86 SD D 1.07; Table 2). Out of
the sexual behaviors, 90% of participants always considered behaviors such as tak-
ing a shower together, oral sex, and sexual intercourse to be infidelity behaviors,
while 88% of them perceived dating as always indicative of betrayal. Emotional
behaviors that implied high physical touch were also highly rated as always indica-
tive of infidelity. For example, 61% of participants considered heavy petting and
fondling as always indicating betrayal, while 51% of participants saw sleeping in
the same bed as always indicative of infidelity.
Two analyses of variance were conducted to determine how prior history with
infidelity and sex influenced perceptions of infidelity behaviors. A two-way
ANOVA was conducted to examine whether males and females perceived infidelity
behaviors differently if they had been non-involved partners. The analysis revealed
a significant interaction between involvement and sex on sexual behavior ratings,
F (1,37) D 6.67, p D .012. Males with no history as the non-involved partner rated
sexual behaviors lower (M D 3.93) than non-involved males (M D 4.93) and
females regardless of their involvement condition (Mnon-involved D 4.88, Mno non-
involved history D 4.85). There was a significant main effect of experience as the non-
involved partner on sexual behaviors ratings, F (1,37) D 7.57, p D .007, such that
8 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

Table 1. Principal component analysis of selected items from PDIS and interpersonal behaviors and
infidelity scale.
Item Emotional Sexual Deceptive

1 Eating or drinking .589

2 Clubbing .628
3 Hugging briefly .437
4 Hugging for more than 10 seconds .614
5 Go somewhere together alone .772
6 Taking a road trip out of state alone .752
7 Buy and/or receive gifts .726
8 Bonding through social media (i.e., using Snapchat, liking each other’s .664
picture on Instagram, chatting on Facebook)
9 Talking/texting on the phone .647
10 Forming a deep emotional bond .715
11 Staying in the same hotel room alone .729
12 Accompanying to formal event .711
13 Sitting in lap .788
14 Spending lots of time together .809
15 Supporting the other person financially .702
16 Calling when upset about their relationship partner .698
17 Calling when upset about school/work or social obligations .702
18 Telling dirty jokes .585
19 Lying .649
20 Withholding information .645
21 Sharing secrets .729
22 Holding hands .659
23 Sleeping in the same bed .748
24 Taking a shower together .758
25 Kissing on the cheek
26 Kissing on the lips .726
27 E-mailing/texting pictures of themselves naked .783
28 Texting erotic/sexually explicit messages .737
29 Sexual intercourse .793
30 Oral sex .830
31 Dating .784
32 Heavy petting/fondling .548
33 Fantasizing .577
34 Flirting .688

Note. Analysis loaded three factors: emotional items, sexual items, and deceptive items.

Did not emerge in any components and was removed from analysis.

non-involved partners rated these behaviors higher (M D 4.90) than individuals

with no history as the non-involved partner (M D 4.39). There was a significant
main effect of experience as the non-involved partner on emotional behaviors rat-
ings, F (1,37) D 4.00, p D .049, such that non-involved partners rated these behav-
iors higher (M D 3.01) than individuals with no history as the non-involved
partner (M D 2.44). There was a significant main effect of sex on sexual behavior
ratings, F (1,37) D 5.41, p D .023, such that females rated these behaviors higher
(M D 4.86) than males (M D 4.43). There was a significant main effect of sex on
emotional behavior ratings, F 1,37) D 4.22, p D .043, such that females rated these
behaviors higher (M D 3.02) than males (M D 2.44). There was not a significant
difference on ratings of non-involved partners that have been involved in a specific
type of infidelity (emotional, sexual, or both; Table 3).
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether males and females
viewed infidelity behaviors differently if they had been the involved partners. The
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 9

Table 2. Mean ratings of sexual behaviors by involvement status.

Non-involved partner/involved partner No previous history as involved partner

n M SD n M SD

Females* 31 4.88 0.12 34 4.85 0.12

Males* 6 4.93 0.27 12 3.93 0.19
Overall** 37 4.90 0.15 46 4.39 0.13

Involved partner/non-involved partner No previous history as non-involved partner

Females** 22 4.84 0.14 43 4.88 0.10

Males** 7 4.88 0.25 11 3.87 0.20
Overall** 29 4.86 0.14 54 4.37 0.11

p < 0.10,p < 0.05.

analysis revealed a significant interaction between involved partner role and sex on
sexual behavior ratings, F (1,29) D 8.11, p D .006. Males with no involvement his-
tory rated sexual behaviors lower (M D 3.87) than involved males (M D 4.88) and
females regardless of their involvement condition (Minvolved D 4.84, Mno involved
history D 4.88). There was a significant main effect of experience as the involved
partner on sexual behaviors ratings, F (1,29) D 6.93, p D .010, such that involved
partners rated these behaviors higher (M D 4.86) than individuals with no history
as the involved partner (M D 4.37). There was a significant main effect of sex on
sexual behavior ratings, F (1,29) D 6.92, p D .010, such that females rated these
behaviors higher (M D 4.86) than males (M D 4.37). There was a significant main
effect of sex on emotional behavior ratings, F (1,29) D 6.53, p D .013, such that
females rated these behaviors higher (M D 3.05) than males (M D 2.31). There
was not a significant difference on ratings of involved partners that have been
involved in a specific type of infidelity (emotional, sexual, or both).

Discussion
Despite evidence that there is an increasing prevalence of infidelity in monoga-
mous relationships (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,
2016; Wiederman, 1997), there appears to be a gray area when it comes to defining
behaviors that constitute infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Kruger et al.,

Table 3. Two way ANOVA of sexual behaviors by involvement status.

Source df Type III SS MS F p

Non-involved partner
Gender 1 2.438 2.438 5.405 .023
Victim 1 3.413 3.413 7.565 .007
GenderVictim 1 3.010 3.010 6.671 .012
Total 83 1904.245
Involved Partners
Gender 1 3.092 3.092 6.920 .010
Victim 1 3.098 3.098 6.934 .010
GenderPerpetrator 1 3.623 3.623 8.109 .006
Total 83 1904.245
10 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

2013; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981; Wilson et al., 2011). The current study sought to
determine which behaviors—including daily activities, emotional bonding, erotic
behavior, and sexual behaviors—constitute infidelity. Furthermore, this study
examines whether sex and one’s own infidelity experience influence on the percep-
tion of such behaviors as being unfaithful.

Perceptions of infidelity behaviors

As previous studies (Wilson et al., 2011) have noted, sexual behaviors (i.e. inter-
course, unclothed interactions, etc.) were the most likely to be rated as “always per-
ceived as cheating” by participants. However, not all sexual behaviors are created
equal—some behaviors were more likely to be chosen as “always perceived as
cheating” by participants when compared to others. For example, sexual inter-
course and oral sex seem to be perceived almost unanimously as “always cheating”,
followed by taking a shower together, and dating. On the other hand, emotional
behaviors were rated as indicative of betrayal with less consensus, consistent with
previous scholarship (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Kruger et al., 2013; Weis &
Slosnerick, 1981; Wilson et al., 2011). Among the emotional behaviors, those that
may lead to sexual activities, such as heavy petting and fondling, sleeping in the
same bed, and staying in the same hotel room alone, were consistently rated as infi-
delity behaviors. Behaviors that may imply a certain level of relationship intimacy,
such as forming a deep emotional bond, staying in the same hotel room, sitting in
lap, and holding hands, were moderately perceived as infidelity. Finally, behaviors
that may be done with close friends, such as eating, hugging, talking/texting on the
phone, and calling when upset, were mostly rated as “never considered cheating.”
As hypothesized, individuals with previous experiences with infidelity—regard-
less if they were involved or non-involved in the act(s)—rated sexual behaviors dif-
ferently than individuals with no past history. Non-involved partners rated
emotional behaviors higher than individuals with no past history. Deceptive
behaviors did not significantly correlate with history of infidelity. One possible
explanation is that since emotional behaviors tend to fall in the ambiguous cate-
gory (Wilson et al., 2011), people do not perceive their acts as unfaithful until sex-
ual interaction occurs. This explanation is supported by additional research, whose
findings suggest that for many participants a large majority of infidelity is sexual,
as shown by a sample of 417 participants in which 82% reported sexual betrayal
(Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). Another possible explanation is that non-involved
partners become “hyper vigilant” after experiencing unfaithfulness, and thus tend
to see sexual and emotional behaviors as more indicative of cheating than other
people. Future research should explore this area.

Sex and perception of infidelity behaviors

Our findings provide evidence of significant differences between male and female
participants’ perceptions of infidelity behaviors. Females—regardless of their
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 11

previous role in infidelity—rated sexual and emotional behavior items as indicative

of infidelity more often than males. This contradicts previous research that pro-
posed a unanimous perception of behaviors regardless of sex when using a non-
force choice format (Brogdon, Fiztwater, & Johnson, 2006). However, when previ-
ous experience with infidelity was factored in, male non-involved partners rated sex-
ual behaviors as more indicative of infidelity than female non-involved partners,
which replicated the findings by Edlund et al. (2006). On the other hand, males that
have not been non-involved partners rated sexual behaviors as less indicative of infi-
delity than any other category. This seems to support the evolutionary view, which
proposed that males are more sensitive to sexual behaviors due to the evolutionary
implications (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Goetz & Causey, 2009).
Finally, females rated sexual behaviors equally high regardless of their previous
experience with infidelity.

Implications for family therapy

Our findings hold several important implications for clinicians working with infidelity
in couple relationships. Infidelity is one of the top issues that incite couples to seek
therapy, as well as being one of the most difficult areas to clinically treat, and one of
the most devastating to relationships (American Association for Marriage and Family
Therapy, 2016; Dupree, White, Olsen, & Lafleur, 2007; Glass, & Wright, 1997; Wilson
et al., 2011). While previous research and anecdotal evidence has clearly delineated
the different types of infidelity (Kruger et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2011), and docu-
mented the negative impact of different types of unfaithful behaviors on relationships
(American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 2016), few studies have
investigated the impact of sex and previous experiences of infidelity on one’s percep-
tions of infidelity behaviors. This study makes the case that, although there are differ-
ences in how different genders interpret benign behaviors, whether or not individuals
in relationship have had prior experience with infidelity (whether as the involved
partner or non-involved partner in the infidelity) also matters.
It is common for MFTs to see couples dealing with actual or perceived infidelity,
and many studies in family therapy literature have addressed concerns related to
helping couples get past the affair. However, this study offers insight to clinicians
regarding the impact of sex and past experiences with infidelity and how these
variables may affect individuals in their current relationships. The results of this
study can improve the likelihood that MFTs recognize and further assess complica-
tions due to perceptions of infidelity, as opposed to a narrow view that infidelity is
only related to sexual behaviors, and can also help MFTs to broaden their inquiries
into emotional and sexual infidelity beyond the colloquial, “men care about sex
and women care about love” paradigms. Clarifying which behaviors are seen as
unfaithful for each partner—rather than assuming infidelity has an exclusive defi-
nition—will likely prove useful for clinicians working with couples, be they dating,
in the premarital phase, or married.
12 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

Limitations
The current study used a convenience sample of undergraduate, psychology stu-
dents from a private university in the Southern region of the US consisting primar-
ily of young adults, which limit the generalizability of the results. The present study
replicates results obtained in previous research with older adults (Mattingly, Wil-
son, Clark, Bequette, & Weidler, 2010)—namely, that individuals perceive explicit
behaviors as more indicative of betrayal than ambiguous behaviors—which with-
holds the complexity of defining infidelity, though with limited generalizability.
Perhaps, there is a correlation between age and previous experience with infidelity
that further influences perception of behaviors that may indicate unfaithfulness.
Another limitation of the current study is the cultural homogeny of the sample.
A majority (74%) of the participants were Hispanic and Caucasian; therefore,
application of the present results to other ethnic and cultural groups is limited.
Likewise, sexual orientation of participants was not examined. Past research indi-
cated that sexual orientation did not have a significant association with hetero-
and homosexual oriented participant’s ratings of distress of involvement with infi-
delity (Harris, 2002). Researchers make the case that experiences with infidelity
help to construct individual’s beliefs regarding how distressing named behaviors
are, independent of their sexual orientation. However, future research should
include a measure of sexual orientation, and include homosexuality, heterosexual-
ity, bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality to illuminate the impact (or lack
thereof) of sexual orientations on perceptions of infidelity.
The current study did not examine whether the type of infidelity that non-
involved partners’ experienced impacted their rating of perception of infidelity
behaviors. Likewise, it was not examined if involved partners rate infidelity behav-
iors lower if such behaviors resemble to their previous experience. It is possible
that the specific type of infidelity can affect how individuals conceptualize infidel-
ity, given the proposal of psychological mechanisms to overperceive certain types
of infidelity after having experienced it oneself (Goetz & Causey, 2009). Similarly,
the current study did not include an exhaustive list of online behaviors. If the
world of offline infidelity is clearly a gray area, there is an even greater lack of con-
sensus regarding online behaviors (Whitty, 2005).

Directions for future research

Future research should consider a more demographically varied sample, including
participants across a wide range of ages, sexual orientations, social economic sta-
tus, etc. Furthermore, incorporating the impact of technology on personal and
romantic relationships will be integral in new scholarship, as technological advan-
ces have changed the landscape of human interaction and connection. Recent
scholarship has investigated the correlation between social media platforms like
Snapchat and Facebook and level of jealousy, and findings suggest that individuals
may be using these platforms to connect with individual other than their primary
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 13

romantic partner (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015; Vaterlaus, Barnett, Roche, &
Young, 2016). Thus, future research efforts could benefit by investigating the types
of social media platforms used to connect with individuals other than one’s pri-
mary romantic partner in order to more fully understand the role that one’s online
presence plays in real-life sexual encounters. Moreover, the impact on perception
of infidelity by the association of sex, love, and marriage combined with individu-
al’s own infidelity experiences would also be a factor worthy of further investiga-
tion, given that high association of these three factors have an effect on
individual’s acceptance of extramarital involvement (Weis & Slosnerick, 1981).
Although the aim of the current study was to examine the influence that partici-
pants’ sex and past experiences with infidelity have on their perception of behav-
iors that may constitute infidelity, variables such as age, culture, and sexual
orientation may also impact individuals’ views. Future research should consider
such variables in order to provide a clearer understanding of how infidelity is con-
ceptualized. This may be especially valuable for therapists working with diverse
populations and the impact infidelity has on their relationships.
Overall, the current study advances the understanding of factors that influence
the perception of infidelity. The current study provides further evidence that per-
ceptions of infidelity are viewed differently based on one’s own history with infidel-
ity and on one’s sex.

References
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (2016). Infidelity. Retrieved
from http://www.aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/Content/Consumer_Updates/Infidelity.
aspx
Berman, M. I., & Frazier, P. A. (2005). Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors
of reactions to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1617–1627. doi:
10.1177/0146167205277209
Brogdon, B. L., Fitzwater, A. L., & Johnson, L. C. (2006). Differences in Men’s and Women’s
Perception of Infidelity in Varying Situations. The Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry, 5, 18.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes/18
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evo-
lution, Physiology, and Psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1992.tb00038.x
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology,
3(1), 11–27. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(82)90027-9
Desteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary Origins of Sex Differences in Jealousy? Ques-
tioning the “Fitness” of the Model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1996.tb00391.x
Dupree, W. J., White, M. B., Olsen, C. S., & Lafleur, C. T. (2007). Infidelity treatment patterns: A
practice-based evidence approach. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35(4), 327–341.
doi: 10.1080/01926180600969900
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex differences in
jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 462–470. doi:
10.1177/147470490600400137
14 N. MORENO AND E. P. KAHUMOKU-FESSLER

Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin’heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates
of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of research on Adolescence, 9(3), 227–252. doi:
10.1207/s15327795jra0903_1
Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1997). Reconstructing marriages after the trauma of infidelity. In W. K.
Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions
(pp. 471–507). New York: John Wiley.
Goetz, A. T., & Causey, K. (2009). Sex differences in perceptions of infidelity: Men often assume
the worst. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 253–263. doi: 10.1177/147470490900700208
Harris, C. R. (2005). Male and female jealousy, still more similar than different: Reply
to Sagarin. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 76–86. doi: 10.1207/
s15327957pspr0901_6
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psy-
chological Science, 13(1), 7–12. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00402
Johnson, R. E. (1970). Some Correlates of Extramarital Coitus. Journal of Marriage and Family,
32(3), 449–456. doi: 10.2307/350111
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Strout, S. L. (2013).
Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary
Psychology, 11(1), 159–171. doi: 10.1177/147470491301100115
Mattingly, B. A., Wilson, K., Clark, E. M., Bequette, A. W., & Weidler, D. J. (2010). Foggy faith-
fulness: Relationship quality, religiosity, and the perceptions of dating infidelity scale in an
adult sample. Journal of Family Issues, 31(11), 1465–1480.
Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and
consequences. Adolescence, 23(89), 35–43.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differen-
ces (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sex-
ual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(1), 17–23. doi: 10.1016/
S1090-5138(02)00106-X
Sheppard, V. J., Nelso, E. S., & Andreoli-Mathie, V. (1995). Dating relationships and infidelity:
Attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 21(3), 202–212. doi: 10.1080/
00926239508404399
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and Tech:
Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults. Washington, DC: Author.
Thompson, A. (1984). Emotional and Sexual Components of Extramarital Relations. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 46(1), 35–42. doi: 10.2307/351861
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A
comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing, 18(3), 141–146. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An
exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 62, 594–601. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029
Weis, D., & Slosnerick, M. (1981). Attitudes toward sexual and nonsexual extramarital involve-
ments among a sample of college students. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(2), 349–358.
doi:10.2307/351386
Whitty, M. T. (2005). The realness of cybercheating: Men’s and women’s representations of
unfaithful Internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 57–67. doi: 10.1177/
0894439304271536
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey.
Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 167–174. doi: 10.1080/00224499709551881
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 15

Wilson, K., Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., & Bequette, A. W. (2011). The gray
area: Exploring attitudes toward infidelity and the development of the perceptions of dating
infidelity scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(1), 63–86.
Yarab, P. E., Sensibaugh, C. C., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). More than just sex: Gender differences
in the incidence of self-defined unfaithful behavior in heterosexual dating relationships. Jour-
nal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10(2), 45–57. doi: 10.1300/J056v10n02_03