Cited by 296Marriage and Sexual RelationshipsAttachment and Relationship DynamicsEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

An investment model prediction of dating infidelity.

Drigotas, Stephen M., Safstrom, C. Annette, Gentilia, Tiffany·1999·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Many researchers have examined the justifications individuals give after being unfaithful to their romantic partners. However, very little research has been done to determine factors that actually predict infidelity. Two studies were conducted using the investment model (C. E. Rusbult, 1980,1983) to predict instances of physical and emotional infidelity in dating relationships. The 1st study found that commitment level at the beginning of the semester successfully predicted later emotional and physical infidelity. The 2nd study used an interaction diary method to predict the physical and emotional intimacy of nonpartner opposite-sex interactions over the course of the week-long university holiday known as spring break. Once again, commitment level before spring break successfully predicted the emotional and physical intimacy of such interactions. Given the high percentage of individuals in married relationships who engage in some form of extradyadic sexual involvement at some point in their marriage (roughly 50% in the United States; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Tavris & Sadd, 1975), it is not surprising that researchers have sought to discover why. A substantial amount of research has delineated the categories of explanations that individuals give when asked for the reasons they have been unfaithful to their romantic partners. The explanations are diverse and cover a great deal of interpersonal territory. However, the territory often falls within the realm of post hoc explanation, the nature of which could well be tainted by motivated bias and inaccuracy. Very little research has been done to determine factors that actually predict infidelity from variables measured before the behavior occurred. The present research represents an attempt to predict dating infidelity using a model that has successfully predicted a variety of other important relationship behaviors: the investment model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983). Before launching into a discussion of the reasons for infidelity, it is important that we specifically explain our working definition of the concept. We maintain that infidelity is represented by the combination of (a) the feeling that one's partner has violated a relationship norm regarding the nature of the partner's interactions with someone else and (b) the fact that violation of this relationship norm typically elicits sexual jealousy and rivalry. Infidelity, thus, can be differentiated from behavior that is merely extradyadic but does not represent a violation of relationship norms regarding exclusivity. It is also important to note that such sexual jealousy appears to be culturally universal (e.g., Buss, 1994) and therefore may have some impact over and above specific cultural or relationship norms. Although the present research uses a North American sample of college dating relationships, we believe that the research reflects basic, universal processes that would most likely

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When commitment is not central to the relationship, it contributes to infidelity.

    “When commitment is not central to the relationship, that too contributes to infidelity [4].”

    From Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (2023) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T.
Affiliations
Southern Methodist University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1999
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
509-524
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2083798422
Cited by
296
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
infidelity, investment model, relationship commitment, emotional infidelity, dating relationships, sexual jealousy, relational norms, exclusivity, male-female interaction, post-hoc explanation, university students, spring break, breakup, relationship investment, relationship maintenance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review