An investment model prediction of dating infidelity.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · see citing works
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146 · see citing works
Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023552 · Cited by 1,637 · see citing works
Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x · Cited by 1,263 · see citing works
Causes of Conjugal Dissolution: A Cross-cultural Study
Betzig, L. (1989) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/203798 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds.
Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028723 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Infidelity in romantic relationships
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpi014 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Predictors of Extradyadic Sexual Involvement in Unmarried Opposite-Sex Relationships
Maddox Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013) · Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2017) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences
Rokach, A., & Chan, S. H. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20053904 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“When commitment is not central to the relationship, that too contributes to infidelity [4].”
BackgroundWhy do men marry and why do they stray?
Winking, J., Kaplan, H., Gurven, M., & Rucas, S. (2007) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0437 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
The role of attachment avoidance in extradyadic sex
Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Couture, S. (2011) · Attachment & Human Development · doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.562419 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
What is Infidelity? A Vignette Study on Norms and Attitudes toward Infidelity
Bozoyan, C., & Schmiedeberg, C. (2023) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2022.2104194 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Executive control and faithfulness: Only long-term romantic relationships require prefrontal control
Ueda, R., Yanagisawa, K., Ashida, H., & Abe, N. (2018) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-018-5181-y · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- 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