The Relationship Between the Motivation to Commit Infidelity and Negative Affect and Self-Esteem: How Cheating in Romance Might Signal Positive Well-Being in Adolescents

Abstract

Infidelity occurs in adult romantic relationships quite often; however, little is known about this relational phenomenon in the adolescent stage, despite its being a surprisingly common behavior. Through a correlational study, we set out to examine how the various documented motivations to engage in an act of infidelity are associated with negative emotional responses, self-esteem, and psychological well-being. In a sample of Spanish adolescents (N = 346 [M_age = 15.71, SD = 1.27; range from 13 to 19]), results showed that committing an act of infidelity due to sexual or emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) is related to higher levels of psychological well-being by undermining negative affect, thereby increasing the levels of self-esteem. The discussion of the findings emphasizes that infidelity could favor adolescents’ personal growth, because of the need to explore new sensations and feelings that arise during this period.

Keywords

Adolescence infidelity negative affect psychological well-being self-esteem

Introduction

The violation of the norm of monogamy or infidelity has been considered one of the most challenging problems to solve within the relational context of a couple (Heintzelman et al., 2014) and one of the main reasons for divorce and conjugal violence (e.g., Fife et al., 2013; Fincham & May, 2017). Indeed, infidelity occurs quite frequently in all kinds of romantic relationships, reflecting higher rates in cohabiting couples and dating relationships (Adamopoulou, 2013; Fincham & May, 2017). Although investigations outlining the harmful effects of infidelity in this type of relationship are extensive (e.g., Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015, 2019; Fincham & May, 2017; Garrido-Macías et al., 2020), it is necessary to shed light on this relational transgression in adolescence. Furthermore, it is essential to inquire why adolescents commit acts of infidelity.

In researching the issue of infidelity, studies have shown a higher rate of unfaithful behavior to the romantic partner in youth (e.g., Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011) and analyzed the emotional consequences that adolescents exhibit after suffering an infidelity (e.g., resentment, anger, or indifference; Williams & Hickle, 2011). However, it remains unclear whether being unfaithful to a partner could also affect the offender’s affective state and their welfare (e.g., self-esteem and psychological well-being). To address this gap, the purpose of the present research is to clarify the relational process involving adolescent infidelity and examine the association between different motivations for infidelity and negative affect, self-esteem, and psychological well-being.

Infidelity in adolescence

Although multiple meanings have been proposed to describe the concept of infidelity, no consensus exists on what behaviors constitute this relational phenomenon (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016). One of the most commonly used definitions to explain the notion of infidelity refers to the breach of the commitment of relational exclusivity previously agreed by both parties, which may be of a sexual, emotional or mixed nature, with a person who is not the main partner (e.g., Dillow et al., 2011; McAnulty & Brineman, 2007). Attending to the adolescent population, infidelity is a behavior that occurs quite frequently (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Furr, 2006). In this sense, it seems that around 40–60% of adolescents admit to having been unfaithful to a partner, even though infidelity in adolescent relationships—as in the case of adult relationships—is judged as an intolerable behavior (Furr, 2006). It is estimated that approximately 70% of adolescents disapprove of infidelity, especially when it is of a sexual nature (e.g., Furr, 2006; Lieberman, 1988).

Romantic relationships established in adolescence especially favor the development of personal identity and the desire for intimacy of adolescents (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Sanderson & Cantor, 1995; Williams & Hickle, 2011). Such romantic relationships contribute to the fact that adolescents assess the possibility of being faithful to their partner for the first time during this period of growth (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). In this respect, when the sense of personal identity, the desire for intimacy, and the sense of fidelity are in harmony, loyalty to the partner is strengthened (Markstrom & Kalmanir, 2001; Williams & Hickle, 2011). However, these notions may sometimes cause a discrepancy regarding the true intentions of adolescents (i.e., although the longing for intimacy may encourage adolescents to become involved in a romantic relationship, the desire to inquire about their personal identity may hinder adolescents from committing to that relationship; see Williams & Hickle, 2011, for further review). Thus, adolescents may be motivated to engage in an act of infidelity as a result of the dissonance between their sense of personal identity and desire for intimacy (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). In other words, adolescents may be motivated to become emotionally attached to a person other than the main partner, or they could be motivated to enjoy a wider diversity of sexual partners or sexual frequency, or both, without an emotional attachment (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999).

Barta and Kiene (2005) identified four basic motivations for infidelity, which have been consistently supported in subsequent research (e.g., Hackathorn & Ashdown, 2020; Omarzu et al., 2012; Selterman et al., 2019): sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger. More specifically, sexual dissatisfaction would be encouraged by the desire to innovate in different sexual practices and to have a greater variety of sexual partners. Conversely, emotional dissatisfaction would be prompted by trust and self-disclosure with a person other than the main partner (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Humphrey, 1987). That is, emotional dissatisfaction refers to the disappointment with the main romantic partner and the assessment of positive qualities that an alternative partner may possess (e.g., one member of the couple finds an alternative partner smarter). For its part, neglect seems to imply the feeling of being rejected by the main romantic partner (e.g., one member of the couple feels their partner does not spend enough time with them). Lastly, anger is linked to the desire to harm the main partner as a way to punish his or her bad behavior or offense (e.g., people are unfaithful because their partner has previously been unfair; Barta & Kiene, 2005). In line with the aforementioned, it is interesting to note that numerous investigations have revealed that both sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction with the main partner or the relationship, or both, are the most commonly reported reasons for infidelity—both traditional infidelity and online infidelity—in adult romantic relationships (e.g., Allen et al., 2005; González-Rivera et al., 2020; Hackathorn & Ashdown, 2020; Omarzu et al., 2012; Scheeren et al., 2018; Træen, 2010). For instance, Omarzu et al. (2012) revealed through a qualitative study that a lack of sexual and emotional satisfaction were the main reasons people declared for being unfaithful to their partners. Along the same lines, González-Rivera et al. (2020) recently argued that people with low levels of sexual and emotional satisfaction are more likely to engage in behaviors associated with online infidelity. In this respect, Hackathorn and Ashdown (2020) analyzed various motivations for becoming involved in online infidelity and found that motivations of a sexual or emotional nature were the most frequently reported by the participants. Regarding the adolescent population, Feldman and Cauffman (1999) revealed sexual motives (e.g., sexual attraction) were the main reason why adolescents engage in infidelity. In addition, Allen and Rhoades (2008) showed that emotional dissatisfaction with the partner and the relationship was stipulated as the most common reasons for infidelity in college students.

Infidelity from the perspective of the offending person: Negative affect, self-esteem and psychological well-being

The empirical research has neglected the effects of infidelity on the offending person (Fife et al., 2013). Although this is a notable gap in the literature given the interpersonal nature of infidelity, how infidelity affects the offending person can also be substantial in establishing an overview of what infidelity entails, not just for the person who suffers it but for the person who commits it. In this sense, we intend to analyze affective consequences and individual well-being, self-esteem, and psychological well-being, which could be affected by the offending person because of his or her act of infidelity.

Negative affect arises naturally when one party is harmed because of the other’s behavior (Merolla, 2008). Conversely, research has revealed that negative emotions such as guilt, shame, or anger are also evident in the offending person who perceives himself or herself to have acted wrongly (Hall & Fincham, 2008, 2009; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Riek et al., 2014). In this sense, with regard to infidelity, it is possible that the person committing the act of betrayal suffers from intense emotional distress (Hall & Fincham, 2009; Spanier & Margolis, 1983), either because of the uneasiness of having hurt the partner or due to the fear of breaking up the relationship (Fife et al., 2008). Nevertheless, relatively recent research has demonstrated in the adult population that people who engage in an act of infidelity tend to justify it and feel little responsibility compared to their partner’s estimate of such behavior (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016, 2017). Similarly, numerous studies have shown that in the face of couple conflict, the offending person seems to minimize his or her degree of responsibility and guilt due to the cognitive dissonance resulting from his or her transgression. This is the offender’s way of reducing the negative emotional impact of his or her misbehavior by describing his or her actions in a more benevolent way (e.g., Cameron et al., 2002; Gordon & Miller, 2000; Mikula et al., 1998). Considering the study population, adolescents also experience cognitive dissonance in achieving their relational goals. This might be due to their needs to explore new alternatives (i.e., search for a sense of identity) and the desire to commit and be faithful to their partner (i.e., balance the levels of intimacy), and their emotional state may be affected during an episode of cheating. Feldman and Cauffman (1999) present possible proof of this in examining experiences of infidelity during the adolescent stage. These authors found that adolescents, despite disapproving of infidelity, reported having experienced positive emotions as a result of it. They argue that infidelity may be part of an adolescent’s exploration and play a relevant role in the struggle to establish their identity. Thus, although research on adolescent infidelity is scarce, considering the previous findings, it would not be surprising that teens experience lower levels of negative affect than adults do.

Meanwhile, self-esteem has been commonly referred to as the positive or negative subjective appreciation that an individual makes about his or her worth as a person (e.g., MacDonald & Leary, 2012; Rosenberg, 1965). Self-esteem is particularly significant in adolescence, because this stage is a critical and decisive cycle for the development of the individual (Trzesniewski et al., 2013). With respect to the couple context, studies show slight support exists for the idea that committing infidelity increases levels of self-esteem in the offender. For instance, Glass and Wright (1988) reported that married men and women in their study claimed the increase in levels of self-esteem and self-confidence were among the reasons they used to justify their act of infidelity. Similarly, Allen and Rhoades (2008) found in a sample of college students that seeking self-esteem enhancement led to infidelity, especially infidelity of an emotional nature, which is perhaps because people generally exhibit an inherent desire to maintain interpersonal relationships, originated by their need for belonging and approval (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2004). In the same vein, Selterman et al. (2019) and Alexopoulos et al. (2020) have also revealed that, for young adults, increased self-esteem—specifically, obtaining external validity and feeling desired by others—encouraged them to be unfaithful. Regarding negative affect, to our knowledge, no studies have revealed an association with self-esteem in the face of infidelity from the perspective of the offending person. However, a decrease in levels of negative emotions after exhibiting negative behavior has been shown to be associated with higher levels of self-esteem (Ritchie et al., 2016). According to some researchers, this seems to be because in the face of a negative act (e.g., lying to parents or making fun of someone for their appearance) people tend to be motivated to improve and protect themselves (e.g., Alicke & Sedikides, 2011; Sedikides & Alicke, 2012), so that they manage the event in a more constructive way to positively maintain their sense of self (e.g., Sedikides & Green, 2009; Skowronski, 2011). In relation to this assumption, although there is no research on the adolescent population, it would be reasonable to expect that committing infidelity at this stage will increase levels of self-esteem, preceded by its association with lower levels of negative affect. This expectation takes into consideration the importance of romantic relationships for the psychosocial development of teens and the potential dissonance between their desire for personal identity and intimate relationships (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011).

Finally, psychological well-being has been described as a positive state of mental health and is considered a fundamental element for the healthy functioning of people (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Psychological well-being, in turn, is influenced by life experiences, personal characteristics, the sense of identity, and emotional regulation (Helson & Srivastava, 2001). Thus, people with high levels of well-being seem to show aspects of personality related to adequate development of their sense of identity and greater appreciation for others. In other words, they have the ability to create an environment that suits their personal needs and interests (e.g., De Caroli & Sagone, 2016; Helson & Srivastava, 2001). On one hand, various researchers have found that adolescents seem to experience greater development in some dimensions of psychological well-being, such as when it comes to their personal growth, due to their great rush to search for new sensations and behaviors (Opree et al., 2018; Steinberg et al., 2008). On the other hand, they may experience a decrease in self-acceptance because they often feel insecure and rejected by others (e.g., Nickerson & Nagle, 2005; Opree et al., 2018). Focusing attention on the subject of study, note that the consequences of infidelity seem to be different between the adolescent population and the adult population (Knopp et al., 2017). In this regard, despite the absence of evidence from the adolescent population, empirical literature focused on the adult population suggests that sometimes, cheating can favor personal growth and understanding (Balswick & Balswick, 1999). This could be especially relevant in the adolescent population, as they experience a marked need to explore and seek the balance of their personal identity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). With regard to negative affect, there is no research examining its association with the psychological well-being of the offending person. In contrast, the general psychological literature contains several studies that have found that low levels of negative affect are associated with greater well-being and life satisfaction (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2008; Suh et al., 1998) and that negative emotions do not necessarily promote low levels of psychological well-being (Wong, 2011). In this sense, it has been argued that people’s well-being may be fundamentally associated with avoiding negative actions and minimizing uncomfortable emotional experiences (Kuppens et al., 2008). That is, negative acts are not always perceived as totally unfair or harmful, as long as they are perceived to favor a positive emotional experience (Kitayama & Markus, 2000). On a different note, there are numerous investigations conducted in common domains of the individual that suggest that the level of self-esteem has positive consequences for physical and psychological well-being (e.g., sports or academic fields; Ozben, 2013; Sowislo & Orth, 2013; Trzesniewski et al., 2006). Therefore, as self-esteem improves, so does psychological well-being (Bajaj et al., 2016; Nwankwo et al., 2015). Instead, to date, research is lacking regarding the association between self-esteem and psychological well-being in more personal domains such as infidelity, taking the perspective of the offender. However, considering the aforementioned, one would expect that infidelity promotes lower levels of negative affect in offending adolescents, because it could be a positive experience in searching between their desire to explore their personal identity and balance their levels of intimacy (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). In turn, the experience is associated with high levels of self-esteem and, consequently, with higher levels of psychological well-being, given their urgency to explore new behaviors and feelings (Opree et al., 2018; Steinberg et al., 2008).

Purpose of the present study

Quite a few investigations have dealt with the negative consequences of infidelity from the perspective of the offended person (e.g., Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015, 2019; Fife et al., 2013; Fincham & May, 2017; Garrido-Macías et al., 2020); however, research on the harmful effects of this type of transgression for the offending person, especially in adolescence, is scarce. Similarly, studies conducted to date on infidelity in adolescence have mainly involved American sample populations (e.g., Anderman et al., 1998; Furr, 2006; Williams & Hickle, 2011). An innovative approach is to provide data from other countries beyond the United States, such as Spain, where the general infidelity rates are higher compared to other countries of the European Union (Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2019). Therefore, we aim to address the gap in the psychological literature by understanding how this complex relational process affects intimate adolescent relationships.

It should also be mentioned that adolescent romantic relationships tend to be generally fragile, short-lived, and more casual than committed (Arnett, 2004; Cohen et al., 2003; Shulman & Conolly, 2013). That is why getting involved in infidelity motivated by sexual or emotional dissatisfaction could further favor the search for their sense of identity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). Consequently, adolescents’ levels of negative affect could be decreased and their levels of well-being increased by indulging in infidelity to explore new alternatives and experience new sensations and behaviors (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Opree et al., 2018; Steinberg et al., 2008). Thus, taking into account what constitutes neglect and anger (Barta & Kiene, 2005), they might not be such preponderant motivations in the adolescent stage. The opposite is the case in adult romantic relationships, which are generally characterized by the establishment of more stability and commitment (e.g., Shafer et al., 2014; Shulman & Conolly, 2013).

Specifically, we expect that committing infidelity motivated by sexual and emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) are negatively associated with negative affect (Hypothesis 1a), self-esteem (Hypothesis 1b), and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 1c). In parallel, we also expect a negative association between negative affect, self-esteem (Hypothesis 2a), and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 2b). Likewise, we expect a positive association between self-esteem and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 3). We intend to examine whether perpetrating an infidelity due to sexual and emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) causes lower levels of negative affect, which is associated in turn with higher levels of self-esteem and, ultimately, higher levels of psychological well-being (Hypothesis 4).

As an additional objective of this study, we aimed to explore the role of sex in relation to motivations for infidelity, given that empirical evidence is inconclusive in this regard. Studies show that men are mainly motivated by reasons of a sexual nature (e.g., Barta & Kiene, 2005; Hackathorn & Ashdown, 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2017; Træen, 2010) and women are mainly motivated by emotional reasons (e.g., emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, or anger; Babin & Dindia, 2005; Barta & Kiene, 2005; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Hackathorn & Ashdown, 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2017). However, other researchers have shown that reasons for infidelity do not differ based on sex (Babin & Dindia, 2005; Guadagno & Sagarin, 2010; Scheeren et al., 2018).

Method

Participants

The initial sample consisted of 396 adolescents (131 boys and 265 girls) between 13 and 24 years old (M = 16.77, SD = 1.93). To perform a correlation test with a medium effect size of d = .25, a significance level of α = .05, and a power of .80, we considered 120 participants using the G*Power program (Faul et al., 2009). Twenty-six participants were excluded from analyses because they did not complete the full questionnaire. In addition, according to the World Health Organization standard, which has determined the adolescent period ends at 19 years old, 24 participants who exceeded this age limit were removed. Thus, the final sample was composed of 346 adolescents (116 boys and 230 girls) from six high schools in Granada (Spain). They ranged from 13 to 19 years old (M = 15.71, SD = 1.27). Of this sample, 38.7% reported being involved in a relationship at the time of the study, whereas 61.3% reported not being in a relationship. In addition, 32% reported having been unfaithful to their current or former partner.

Procedure and design

Participants completed the measures of interest in various high school classrooms in Granada (Spain), under the supervision of three researchers who received training beforehand. Before carrying out the experiment, we informed the parents about the voluntary character of the study, the anonymity and confidentiality of their children’s responses, and the study’s estimated duration. After parents provided consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the participants voluntarily completed the study surveys embedded into a single questionnaire. We informed the participants that the general purpose of the study was to examine various processes involved in relational and emotional well-being. Specifically, the participants were first instructed to think about their current relationships with their partners and to figure out which of the reasons we presented would lead them to be unfaithful. Participants who were not in current relationships were asked to think about the reasons why they would be unfaithful to their hypothetical partners. Next, they responded to measures of negative affect, self-esteem, and psychological well-being. After completing the questionnaire, the participants were informed about the true nature of the study. They were asked to provide feedback and were thanked for their participation. Participants took 30 min to complete the survey. The research was conducted after receiving the approval of the ethics committee of the University of Granada.

Measures

Motivations for infidelity inventory

The Motivations for Infidelity Inventory (Barta & Kiene, 2005) was used to measure participants’ motives to commit infidelity. The inventory consists of 16 items distributed in four subscales: sexual dissatisfaction (four items; e.g., “I wanted more frequent sex”); emotional dissatisfaction (five items; e.g., “I wasn’t sure if my steady partner was the right person for me”); neglect (four items; e.g., “My steady partner wasn’t spending enough time with me”); and anger (three items; e.g., “I wanted to ‘get back at’ my steady partner for something he or she did”). In accordance with the usual standards, a translation and back-translation process was performed (English–Spanish/Spanish–English). Responses were formatted on a 1 (not at all a reason) to 7 (very much a reason) Likert scale, so that higher scores indicated greater motives for committing infidelity. The original measure has revealed adequate psychometric properties, showing an internal consistency of 0.75 for sexual dissatisfaction, 0.77 for emotional dissatisfaction, 0.81 for neglect, and 0.79 for anger. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained in the present study were 0.71 for sexual dissatisfaction, 0.82 for emotional dissatisfaction, 0.83 for neglect, and 0.73 for anger.

Positive and negative affect schedule

The negative affect subscale was administered to measure negative emotions (Watson et al., 1988; Spanish adaptation of Sandín et al., 1999), asking participants to indicate the kind of emotions they would experience if they were unfaithful to their partner. It consists of 10 items that describe different emotions (e.g., “Irritable, upset, nervous”), and participants rated the extent to which they experienced each presented emotion, using a Likert scale from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (very much). The subscale has shown adequate psychometric properties in its validation for the Spanish population, with values that indicate an internal consistency between 0.89 (women) and 0.91 (men). The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient obtained in this study was 0.91.

Self-esteem scale

The scale is a one-dimensional measure that evaluates self-esteem, conceptualized as the subjects’ general appreciation of their self-worth (general positive or negative attitudes toward oneself; Rosenberg, 1965; Spanish version of Martín-Albo et al., 2007). It consists of 10 items divided into two subscales: a positive dimension (five items; e.g., “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others”) and a negative dimension (five items; e.g., “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure”). The response format is Likert-type with four response options ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (totally disagree). The scale has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in its adaptation to the Spanish population, showing an internal consistency ranging from 0.85 (first administration) and 0.88 (second administration). Cronbach’s alpha obtained for this sample was 0.82.

Psychological well-being scale

The scale is composed of 29 items divided into six subscales (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Spanish adaptation of Díaz et al., 2006): (a) self-acceptance (four items; e.g., “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out”); (b) positive relations (five items; e.g., “I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns”); (c) autonomy (six items; e.g., “I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people”); (d) environmental mastery (five items; e.g., “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”); (e) purpose in life (five items; e.g., “I have a sense of direction and purpose in life”); and (f) personal growth (four items; e.g., “When I think about it, I haven’t really improved much as a person over the years”). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). It should be noted that the psychological well-being scale has six subscales grouped into a second-order factor called general psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). In this regard, because the proposed six-dimensional structure with a second-order general factor has been confirmed with Spanish samples showing adequate psychometric properties (see Díaz et al., 2011; Van Dierendonck et al., 2008), we also computed the items’ averages as a global indicator of psychological well-being (Cronbach’s α = 0.85).

Sociodemographic characteristics

Data about sex, age, current romantic relationship status, and incidence of infidelity were collected.

Analysis strategy

To test the research hypotheses, we first carried out a bivariate correlation analysis to obtain information about the way in which the variables of interest are associated (Table 1). Next, four serial mediation analyses were run using PROCESS (Version 2, Model 6; Hayes, 2013) to examine the indirect effects of (a) sexual dissatisfaction, (b) emotional dissatisfaction, (c) neglect, and (d) anger motivations for infidelity on psychological well-being, based on rates of negative affect and self-esteem (see Tables 2 and 3; Figures 1 and 2). We included as the predictor (X) sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger motivations for infidelity. We included psychological well-being as the criterion (Y), and negative affect (M1) and self-esteem (M2) as the mediating variables. Following Hayes’ (2013) procedures for testing indirect effects with serial mediators, bias-corrected confidence intervals for indirect associations were estimated based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. In these models, a confidence interval (CI) that does not include 0 indicates a statistically meaningful association. We included the sex and age of the participants, whether they were involved in a relationship, and whether they had been unfaithful at some point in their lives as covariates in this model.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the main study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Sexual dssatisfaction	–
2. Emotional dissatisfaction	0.501**	–
3. Neglect	0.426**	0.720**	–
4. Anger	0.397**	0.574**	0.493**	–
5. Negative affect	−0.144**	−0.147**	−0.045	−0.094	–
6. Self-esteem	−0.043	−0.030	−0.081	−0.103	−0.149**	–
7. Psychological well-being	−0.081	−0.006	−0.008	−0.078	−0.117*	0.595**	–
8. Sex^a	−0.247**	−0.055	−0.026	−0.024	0.150**	−0.093	−0.048	–
9. Age	0.006	−0.082	−0.020	−0.079	−0.037	−0.067	−0.012	0.171**	–
10. Maintain a relationship^b	0.124*	0.190**	0.153**	0.137*	−0.018	0.059	0.029	−0.200**	−0.302**	–
11. Infidelity incidence^c	0.036	−0.103	−0.179**	−0.069	−0.060	0.128*	0.029	−0.117*	−0.211**	0.013	–
M	1.98	2.44	2.62	2.18	3.20	30.08	5.86	–	16.71	–	–
SD	1.24	1.55	1.68	1.53	1.15	6.01	0.71	–	1.27	–	–

Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.

^a0 = male, 1 = female.

^b0 = yes, 1 = no.

^c0 = yes, 1 = no.

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Table 2.

Multiple mediation analysis of the sexual dissatisfaction, negative affect and self-esteem on psychological well-being.

	Negative affect (NA)		Self-esteem (SE)		Psychological well-being (PWB)
Background	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI
Constant	3.486***	[1.522, 5.450]	33.294***	[23.582, 43.005]	2.112***	[1.103, 3.121]
Sexual dissatisfaction (SD)	−0.125*	[−0.244, −0.006]	−0.403	[−1.065, 0.258]	−0.051	[−0.107, 0.005]
Negative affect			−0.747*	[−1.385, −0.109]	−0.034	[−0.095, 0.027]
Self-esteem					0.069***	[0.057, 0.082]
Sex ^a	0.258	[−0.054, 0.571]	−1.188	[−2.769, 0.393]	0.056	[−0.083, 0.196]
Age	−0.010	[−0.127, 0.107]	−0.034	[−0.624, 0.557]	0.018	[−0.035, 0.071]
Maintain a relationship ^b	0.034	[−0.257, 0.325]	0.532	[−0.945, 2.009]	0.051	[−0.093, 0.196]
Infidelity incidence ^c	−0.114	[−0.411, 0.182]	1.384	[−0.195, 2.963]	−0.058	[−0.196, 0.079]
	R² = 0.037		R² = 0.051		R² = 0.383
	F(5, 278) = 2.38, p = 0.039		F(6, 277) = 2.46, p = 0.024		F(7, 276) = 20.36, p < 0.001
Indirect effects	Effects		Symmetric BCI
Total	−0.017		[−0.062, 0.027]
I1	0.004		[−0.002, 0.018]
I2	0.006		[0.001, 0.019]
I3	−0.028		[−0.074, 0.016]

Note: I1 = SD→ NA→ PWB; I2 =SD→ NA→ SE→ PWB; I3 = SD→ SE→ PWB; symmetric BCI: symmetric bootstrapping confidence interval. The indirect effects are significant where the bootstrap confidence interval does not include the value 0.

^a0 = male, 1 = female.

^b0 = yes, 1 = no.

^c0 = yes, 1 = no.

*p< 0.05. ***p< 0.001.

Table 3.

Multiple mediation analysis of the emotional dissatisfaction, negative affect and self-esteem on psychological well-being

	Negative affect (NA)		Self-esteem (SE)		Psychological well-being (PWB)
Background	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI	Coeff.	Symmetric BCI
Constant	3.742***	[1.784, 5.669]	33.426***	[23.576, 43.276]	2.028***	[0.922, 3.064]
Emotional dissatisfaction (ED)	−0.129**	[−0.216, −0.042]	−0.169	[−0.640, 0.302]	0.001	[−0.042, 0.044]
Negative affect			−0.736*	[−1.376, −0.096]	−0.027	[−0.089, 0.035]
Self-esteem					0.070***	[0.058, 0.082]
Sex^a	0.323*	[0.026, 0.619]	−0.921	[−2.394, 0.552]	0.095	[−0.046, 0.235]
Age	−0.024	[−0.140, 0.092]	−0.076	[−0.654, 0.502]	0.013	[−0.040, 0.065]
Maintain a relationship^b	0.090	[−0.197, 0.377]	0.542	[−0.958, 2.042]	0.037	[−0.108, 0.182]
Infidelity incidence^c	−0.174	[−0.468, 0.120]	1.297	[−0.301, 2.895]	−0.060	[−0.198, 0.077]
	R² = 0.050		R² = 0.047		R² = 0.376
	F(5, 278) = 3.58, p = 0.004		F(6, 277) = 2.39, p = 0.029		F(7, 276) = 19.15, p < 0.001
Indirect effects	Effects		Symmetric BCI
Total	−0.002		[−0.036, 0.027]
I1	0.003		[−0.003, 0.015]
I2	0.007		[0.001, 0.016]
I3	−0.012		[−0.045, 0.021]

Note: I1 = ED→ NA→ PWB; I2 = ED→ NA→ SE→ PWB; I3 = ED→ SE→ PWB; symmetric BCI: symmetric bootstrapping confidence interval. The indirect effects are significant where the Bootstrap Confidence Interval does not include the value 0.

^a0 = male, 1 = female.

^b0 = yes, 1 = no; ^c 0 = yes, 1 = no.

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Figure 1.

Serial mediation model depicting indirect effect of sexual dissatisfaction and psychological well-being through negative affect and self-esteem. Unstandardized beta coefficients reported, with standard errors within parentheses. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

Figure 2.

Serial mediation model depicting indirect effect of emotional dissatisfaction and psychological well-being through negative affect and self-esteem. Unstandardized beta coefficients reported, with standard errors within parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Results

Associations between motivations for infidelity (sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger), negative affect, self-esteem, and psychological well-being

We performed a bivariate correlation analysis to examine whether committing infidelity motivated by sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) were negatively associated with negative affect (Hypothesis 1a), self-esteem (Hypothesis 1b), and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 1c). Our analysis also examined whether negative affect was negatively related to self-esteem (Hypothesis 2a) and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 2b), as well as whether self-esteem was positively associated with psychological well-being (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Table 1, sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction were only negatively related to negative affect (Hypothesis 1a), indicating that adolescents’ motivation to be unfaithful to their partners due to sexual and emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) is associated with experiencing less negative affect. Simultaneously, negative affect was negatively related to self-esteem (Hypothesis 2a) and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 2b), indicating that lower levels of negative affect are related to higher levels of self-esteem and psychological well-being. Finally, self-esteem was positively associated with psychological well-being (Hypothesis 3), indicating that higher levels of self-esteem are related to higher levels of psychological well-being. The results partially support Hypothesis 1 and confirm Hypotheses 2 and 3.

Indirect effect of infidelity motivations on psychological well-being based on rates of negative affect and self-esteem

Indirect effects can exist in the absence of a significant total effect (Zhao et al., 2010). Thus, to examine the indirect effects of sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger motivations to commit infidelity on psychological well-being based on rates of negative affect and self-esteem (Hypothesis 4), four mediation analyses were run using Model 6 of the PROCESS macro program (Version 2; Hayes, 2013). The sociodemographic variables mentioned in the previous section were included as control variables (see Tables 3 and 4).

Table 4.

Sex differences in motivations for infidelity.

	Male M (SD)	Female M (SD)	t	p	95% CI	d
1. Sexual dissatisfaction	2.41 (1.41)	1.76 (1.09)	4.35	<0.001	[0.355, 0.944]	0.51
2. Emotional dissatisfaction	2.56 (1.59)	2.38 (1.53)	1.01	0.312	[−0.171, 0.534]	0.11
3. Neglect	2.68 (1.63)	2.58 (1.71)	0.49	0.623	[−0.279, 0.465]	0.06
4. Anger	2.23 (1.53)	2.16 (1.53)	0.45	0.654	[−0.266, 0.422]	0.04

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, d = Cohen’s d.

No evidence of an indirect effect of neglect as motivation for infidelity [b = 0.001, SE = 0.00, 95% CI (–0.003, 0.007)] on individuals’ psychological well-being was observed, based on rates of negative affect and self-esteem. Although the indirect effect of anger as motivation was significant (b = 0.004, SE = 0.00, 95% CI [0.000, 0.014]), the relationship between anger as a motivation and negative affect was not significant (b = -0.091, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [–0.188, 0.007]). Thus, no indirect effect of anger as a motivation on psychological well-being through negative affect and self-esteem was observed. Conversely, in relation to sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction, the variables included in the model predicted 38.3% and 37.2% of the variance of the inclination to show psychological well-being, respectively. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction motivations were indirectly linked to higher psychological well-being via their effects on decreased negative affect and increased self-esteem. Specifically, the motivation to be unfaithful to the partner because of increased sexual and emotional dissatisfaction was associated with decreased negative affect, which, in turn, seemed to be associated with increased self-esteem and was ultimately related to higher psychological well-being (controlling for negative affect and self-esteem; see Figures 1 and 2). The total effect of sexual dissatisfaction on psychological well-being was significant (b = –0.068, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [–0.135, –0.001]), as opposed to emotional dissatisfaction, which was not significant (p > .05).

These findings support Hypothesis 4.¹ Sex was significant on negative affect in the case of emotional infidelity. That is, girls showed higher scores on negative affect than boys (M_girls = 3.32, SD = 1.15; M_boys = 2.95; SD = 1.12).

Auxiliary analyses

To explore the role of sex in the different motivations for infidelity, we carried out a t-test using independent samples. The participants’ sex was included as independent variable, whereas motivations for infidelity (i.e., sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger) were used as dependent variables. We arbitrarily coded sex as 0 for male and 1 for female. The results only yielded statistically significant differences in sexual dissatisfaction as a motive depending on sex. That is, boys scored higher than girls did on sexual dissatisfaction as one of the main reasons for committing infidelity (see Table 4).

Discussion

The present research examined which motivations for committing infidelity (i.e., sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, neglect, and anger) are associated with different emotional, dispositional, and welfare variables, such as negative affect, self-esteem, and psychological well-being, respectively.

First, the results revealed that sexual and emotional dissatisfaction were associated with lower levels of negative affect. Adolescents seem to develop cognitive dissonance when developing their relationship skills (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). Consequently, they could be motivated to commit infidelity either to experience sexual practices with a wide variety of sexual partners, or to become emotionally involved with a person other than the main partner (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999), minimizing the negative emotional impact of their behavior when re-evaluating it in a more benevolent way (e.g., Cameron et al., 2002; Gordon & Miller, 2000). However, more research is needed to assert such statements. The results also revealed that lower levels of negative affect were associated with higher levels of self-esteem and psychological well-being. This finding is novel in the adolescent population and supports previous research results showing that people may be motivated to improve and shield themselves when faced with misbehavior (e.g., Alicke & Sedikides, 2011; Sedikides & Alicke, 2012). This allows people to manage the incident in a more positive way to maintain their sense of identity and minimize uncomfortable experiences (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2008; Skowronski, 2011). Likewise, the results showed that higher levels of self-esteem were associated with higher levels of psychological well-being. This finding is in line with previous research evidencing that as self-esteem improves, so does psychological well-being (Nwankwo et al., 2015; Trzesniewski et al., 2006).

The results showed that sexual dissatisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction were ultimately associated with less negative affect, which, in turn, was associated with higher self-esteem, consequently leading to greater psychological well-being. Adolescents feel the need to explore and experience new sensations, as well as the desire to commit and be faithful to their partners (e.g., Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). As a result of this discrepancy, infidelity during adolescence can occur as a result of the need to establish a strong and clear sense of identity, as well as the need to establish intimate relationships to achieve a coherent sense of self (i.e., adolescents often have to choose between self-exploration and the development of an intimate bond with another; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). That is, teens are more often motivated to be unfaithful due to sexual or emotional dissatisfaction with their partners. Consequently, adolescents seem to experience low levels of negative affect, increasing their self-esteem, and finally their levels of psychological well-being. This finding is also innovative for this area of research and could complement previous studies results that indicate adolescents experience positive emotions after being unfaithful to their partner (e.g., Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). In this respect, researchers such as Feldman and Cauffman (1999) or Williams and Hickle (2011) argue that positive emotional responses would not be significant that teens feel happy for having been involved in infidelity; but rather, they praise their ability to captivate an alternative partner, and thus the success of their own experimentation. Adolescents can thereby lessen the negative emotional impact of their behavior and deem it more favorable (e.g., Cameron et al., 2002; Gordon & Miller, 2000). Thus, it would seem that the motivations for infidelity are more oriented toward oneself (i.e., personal growth) than to the partner (e.g., desires to cause harm, revenge, or failure to fulfill commitments). Therefore, it makes sense that their levels of self-esteem increase and, consequently, their levels of psychological well-being after committing infidelity motivated by either sexual or emotional dissatisfaction, or both.

It is interesting that no significant relationships were observed between neglect and anger motivations and negative affect, self-esteem, and psychological well-being. However, if one looks at the adolescent period and what constitutes neglect (i.e., perception of being rejected by a partner) and anger (i.e., manifest desire to engage in infidelity as a form of punishing a partner; Barta & Kiene, 2005), then perhaps it is sensible to consider these motivations for infidelity to be more salient in adult romantic relationships or in more advanced stages of the relationship, in which a longer relationship duration, stability, commitment, or relational investment are usually observed (e.g., Shafer et al., 2014; Shulman & Conolly, 2013). Future research could inquire about the meaning that different motivations for infidelity can acquire at different relational stages.

In addition, it should be noted that negative affect was affected by sex only in the case of emotional dissatisfaction, with higher scores being observed in girls compared to boys. When compared to males, females tend to maintain expectations regarding their relationships based mainly on emotional aspects such as mutual trust, respect, companionship, and loyalty (Valor-Segura et al., 2010), showing a greater relational competence and a greater tendency toward the care and sustenance of their relationships (e.g., Knox et al., 1997; Manning et al., 2006). For this reason, it is likely that a transgression or conflict that goes against such expectations, such as being emotionally unfaithful to their partners, will cause intense negative affect for them given the probability that the relationship comes to an end (Knox et al., 1997). However, more research is needed to support such claims.

As an additional goal, the results of the auxiliary analyses revealed that boys more often than girls reported sexual dissatisfaction as one of the main reasons for being unfaithful to their partners. Although the empirical evidence is inconclusive regarding the motivations for infidelity and gender (e.g., Allen et al., 2005; Barta & Kiene, 2005; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Scheeren et al., 2018), this finding could be justified by the fact that men more often than women seem to manifest a less restricted sociosexual orientation (e.g., Barta & Kiene, 2005; Rodrigues & Lopes, 2017). That is, they tend to show more unrestrained sexual behaviors, attitudes, and desires (e.g., Sprecher et al., 2013). This position could result both from evolutionary principles (Buss, 1998) and from socialization and gender roles (Wood & Eagly, 2002), which has been commonly referred to as a double standard phenomenon (Rodrigues & Lopes, 2017). Future research might consider these perspectives to observe their influence on the motivations for infidelity.

Although this work complements other research and contributes to a better understanding of what the motivations for infidelity in the adolescent stage entail, it is not without limitations, which we will try to overcome in future research. Because it is a non-experimental study, we cannot establish causal relationships or generalize our results to the entire population. Future research could replicate our findings to determine whether they can be generalized beyond the Spanish context and make use of an experimental methodology to provide causal explanations. Likewise, a high percentage of adolescents were not involved in a relationship, which could have raised doubts when considering under what motivations they could be unfaithful to their partner. However, because the motivations for infidelity are an intrinsic relational process (Barta & Kiene, 2005) this should not be considered a strong limitation of the study. Our findings are preliminary, so future studies could further examine whether motivations for infidelity during adolescence differ depending on whether or not teens are involved in a relationship.

Furthermore, it may be interesting for future research to explore whether same-sex couples differ from heterosexual couples in their motivations for committing infidelity in romantic adolescent relationships. In a similar vein, future studies could assess the role of adolescent sexual activity in unfaithful behaviors, although previous research on the adult population has shown that low levels of sexual activity are related to higher levels of dissatisfaction (e.g., Heiman et al., 2011; McNulty et al., 2016; Træen, 2010). Finally, future research may consider the roles of certain predictor variables in the perpetration of infidelity, such as conflict and parental attachment style (e.g., Hatamy et al., 2011; Platt et al., 2008), or personality traits such as neuroticism (e.g., Barta & Kiene, 2005; Isma & Turnip, 2019), to replicate and provide further evidence to our findings.

Conclusions

This study contributes to an improved understanding of the research area of infidelity within romantic adolescent relationships, revealing that sexual and emotional dissatisfaction (vs. neglect and anger) seem to be the main motivations for infidelity at this stage of development. These motivations cause less negative affect in adolescents, which in turn seems to be positively related to self-esteem and consequently greater psychological well-being. During the adolescent period, adolescents often face many physical changes, readjustments in their social relationships, and emotional challenges. In view of their urgent need to find new feelings and behaviors, perhaps committing infidelity may contribute to the development of their personal growth. In this regard, although the results of our study are preliminary, the findings could be significant to work on educational programs that promote appropriate sexual education, an adequate understanding of what infidelity entails, and the behaviors that constitute it. Such programs can ultimately lead to adequate development of adolescents’ social relationships, especially their romantic relationships, which improves their levels of emotional well-being and psychosocial health.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This paper was made possible thanks to the financing provided by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness for the R&D project “New forms of Gender Violence: Risks and protective factors for psychosocial well-being [PSI2017-84703-R (MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE)]”.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (PSI2017-84703-R).

ORCID iDs

Ana M. Beltrán-Morillas

Marta Garrido-Macías

Note

Author Biographies

Ana M. Beltrán-Morillas is a PhD in Social Psychology in the Department of Personality, Evaluation, and Psychological Treatment at the University of Granada. Her main research interests are offenses in romantic relationships, in work relationships and the forgiveness process in them.

María Alonso-Ferres is a PhD candidate in the department of Social Psychology at the University of Granada. Her research focuses on emotions, power, and dual processes in close relationships.

Marta Garrido-Macías PhD, is lecturer of Social Psychology at the University of Alicante. Her research interests include sexual violence, sexual coercion, intimate partner violence, interpersonal relationships, sexual assertiveness, dependence and commitment.

Laura Villanueva-Moya is a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the University of Granada. Her research interests include gender discrimination, gender ideology, and gender differences in decision-making.

M. Dolores Sánchez-Hernández is a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the University of Granada. She researches on gender violence in the digital age.

Francisca Expósito PhD, is professor in Social Psychology at the University of Granada. Her research interests include sexism, intimate partner violence, forensic psychology, interpersonal relationships, and sexual harassment.

References

Adamopoulou

(2013). New facts on infidelity. Economic Letters, 121, 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.025

Alexopoulos

Timmermans

McNallie

(2020). Swiping more, committing less: Unraveling the links among dating app use, dating app success, and intention to commit infidelity. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.009

Alicke

M. D.

Sedikides

(2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. Guilford Press.

Allen

E. S.

Atkins

D. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

Gordon

K. C.

Glass

S. P.

(2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi014

Allen

E. S.

Rhoades

(2008). Not all affairs are created equal: Emotional involvement with an extradyadic partner. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 34(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230701620878

Anderman

E. M.

Griesinger

Westerfield

(1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.84

Arnett

J. J.

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

Babin

Dindia

(2005). Sex differences and similarities in emotional and sexual inidelity. Communication Association Convention in Boston: Massachusetts.

Bajaj

Gupta

Pande

(2016). Self-esteem mediates the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.020

10.

Balswick

(1999). Extramarital affairs: Causes, consequences, and recovery. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal, 2, 419–427.

11.

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, 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440

12.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

13.

Beltrán-Morillas

A. M.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

(2015). El perdón ante transgresiones en las relaciones interpersonales [Forgiveness for transgressions in interpersonal relationships]. Psychosocial Intervention, 24, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.05.001

14.

Beltrán-Morillas

A. M.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

(2019). Unforgiveness motivations in romantic relationships experiencing infidelity: Negative affect and anxious attachment as predictors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00434

15.

Benetti

Kambouropoulos

(2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.015

16.

Buss

D. M.

(1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551914

17.

Cameron

J. J.

Ross

Holmes

J. H.

(2002). Loving the one you hurt: Positive effects of recounting a transgression against an intimate partner. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1506

18.

Cohen

Kasen

Chen

Hartmark

Gordon

(2003). Variations in patterns of developmental transitions in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental Psychology, 39, 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.657

19.

De Caroli

M. E.

Sagone

(2016). Resilience and psychological well-being: Differences for affective profiles in Italian middle and late adolescents. Revista INFAD de Psicología, 1, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2016.n1.v1.237

20.

Díaz

Blanco

Durán

M. M.

(2011). La estructura del bienestar: el encuentro empírico de tres tradiciones [The Structure of well-being: The empirical encounter of three traditions]. Revista de Psicología Social/International Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411797361266

21.

Díaz

Rodríguez-Carvajal

Blanco

Moreno-Jiménez

Gallardo

Valle

Van Dierendonck

(2006). Adaptación Española de las escalas de Bienestar Psicológico [Spanish adaptation of the scales of Psychological Wellbeing]. Psicothema, 18, 572–577.

22.

Dillow

M. R.

Malachowski

C. C.

Brann

Weber

K. D.

(2011). An experimental examination of the effects of communicative infidelity motives on communication and relational outcomes in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 473–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.588986

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

24.

Feldman

S. S.

Cauffman

(1999). Sexual betrayal among late adolescents: perspectives of the perpetrator and the aggrieved. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021605532205

25.

Fife

S. T.

Weeks

G. R.

Gambescia

(2008). Treating infidelity: An integrative approach. The Family Journal, 16, 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480708323205

26.

Fife

S. T.

Weeks

G. R.

Stellberg-Filbert

(2013). Facilitating forgiveness in the treatment of infidelity: An interpersonal model. Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00561.x

27.

Fincham

F. D.

May

R. W.

(2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008

28.

Furr

R. E.

(2006). Infidelity in adolescent romantic relationships [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Tennessee.

29.

Garrido-Macías

Valor-Segura

Expósito

(2020). Sexual transgressions in couples: the influence of dependence and commitment on their perception and handling. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 23, e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.25

30.

Glass

S. P.

Wright

T. L.

(1988). Clinical implications of research on extramarital involvement. In Brown

R. A.

Field

J. R.

(Eds.), Treatment of sexual problems in individual and couples therapy (pp. 301–346). PMA.

31.

González-Rivera

J. A.

Aquino-Serrano

Pérez-Torres

E. M.

(2020). Relationship satisfaction and infidelity-related behaviors on social networks: A preliminary online study of Hispanic women. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(1), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010023

32.

Gordon

A. K.

Miller

A. G.

(2000). Perspective differences in the construal of lies: Is deception in the eye of the beholder? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200261005

33.

Guadagno

R. E.

Sagarin

B. J.

(2010). Sex differences in jealousy: An evolutionary perspective on online infidelity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2636–2655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00674.x

34.

Hackathorn

Ashdown

B. K.

(2020). The webs we weave: Predicting infidelity motivations and extradyadic relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1746954

35.

Haden

Hojjat

(2006). Aggressive responses to betrayal: Type of relationship, victim's sex, and nature of aggression. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 23, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506060181

36.

Hall

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(2008). The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 174–202. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.174

37.

Hall

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of dating infidelity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327189

38.

Hatamy

Fathi

Gorji

Esmaeily

(2011). The relationship between parenting styles and attachment styles in men and women with infidelity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3743–3747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.366

39.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

40.

Heiman

J. R.

Long

J. S.

Smith

S. N.

Fisher

Sand

M. S.

Rosen

R. C.

(2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9703-3

41.

Heintzelman

Murdock

N. L.

Krycak

R. C.

Seay

(2014). Recovery from infidelity: Differentiation of self, trauma, forgiveness, and posttraumatic growth among couples in continuing relationships. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000016

42.

Helson

Srivastava

(2001). Three paths of adult development: Conservers, seekers, and achievers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.995

43.

Humphrey

(1987). Treating extramarital sexual relationships in sex and couples therapy. In Weeks

Hof

(Eds.), Integrating sex and marital therapy: A clinical guide (pp. 149–170). Brunner/Mazel.

44.

Inglés

C. J.

Torregosa

M. S.

García-Fernández

J. M.

Martínez-Monteagudo

M. C.

Estévez

Delgado

(2014). Conducta agresiva e inteligencia emocional en la adolescencia. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v7i1.97

45.

Isma

Turnip

(2019). Personality traits and marital satisfaction in predicting couples’ attitudes toward infidelity. Journal of Relationships Research, 10, E13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2019.10

46.

Knopp

Scott

Ritchie

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

Stanley

S. M.

(2017). Once a cheater, always a cheater? Serial infidelity across subsequent relationships. Archives of Sex Behavior, 46, 2301–2311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1018-1

47.

Knox

Zusman

Nieves

(1997). College students’ homogamous preference for a date and mate. College Student Journal, 31, 445–448.

48.

Kitayama

Markus

H. R.

(2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In Diener

Suh

E. M.

(Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 113–161). MIT Press.

49.

Kuppens

Realo

Diener

(2008). The role of positive and negative emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.66

50.

Leary

M. R.

(2004). The function of self-esteem in terror management theory and sociometer theory: A comment on Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, and Schimel (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 478–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.478

51.

Lieberman

(1988). Extra-premarital intercourse: Attitudes toward a neglected sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551427

52.

MacDonald

Leary

M. R.

(2012). Individual differences in self-esteem. In Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 354–377). Guilford.

53.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “non-relationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558406291692

54.

Markstrom

C. A.

Kalmanir

H. M.

(2001). Linkages between the psychosocial stages of identity and intimacy and the ego strengths of fidelity and love. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XID0102_05

55.

Martín-Albo

Núñez

J. L.

Navarro

J. G.

Grijalvo

(2007). The Rosenberg self-esteem scale: Translation and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006727

56.

McAnulty

Brineman

(2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2007.10559848

57.

McNulty

J. K.

Wenner

C. A.

Fisher

T. D.

(2016). Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6

58.

Merolla

A. J.

(2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59, 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970802062428

59.

Mikula

Athenstaedt

Heschgl

Heimgartner

(1998). Does it only depend on point of view? Perspective-related differences in justice evaluations of negative incidents in personal relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 931–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<931::AID-EJSP904>3.0.CO;2-5

60.

Nickerson

Nagle

R. J.

(2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604274174

61.

Nwankwo

C. B.

Okechi

B. C.

Nweke

P. O.

(2015). Relationship between perceived self-esteem and psychological well-being among student athletes. Academic Research Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 2(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.14662/IJALIS2015.040

62.

Omarzu

Miller

A. N.

Schultz

Timmerman

(2012). Motivations and emotional consequences related to engaging in extramarital relationships. International Journal of Sexual Health, 24, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2012.662207

63.

Opree

S. J.

Bricic

Vanwesenbeeck

(2018, February). Linking children’s susceptibility to advertising to life course events [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Netherlands–Flanders Communication Association (NeFCA), Ghent, Belgium.

64.

Ozben

(2013). Social skills, life satisfaction, and loneliness in Turkish university student. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.203

65.

Paul

E. L.

McManus

Hayes

(2000). ‘Hook-ups’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552023

66.

Pettijohn

T. F. II

Ndoni

(2013). Imagined infidelity scenario forgiveness and distress: The role of method of discovery and specific cheating behavior. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.12691/rpbs-1-2-1

67.

Platt

Nalbone

D. P.

Casanova

G. M.

Wetchler

J. L.

(2008). Parental conflict and infidelity as predictors of adult children‘s attachment style and infidelity. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180701236258

68.

Riek

B. M.

Root Luna

L. M.

Schnabelrauch

C. A.

(2014). Transgressors’ guilt and shame: A longitudinal examination of forgiveness-seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 751–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513503595

69.

Ritchie

T. D.

Seidikes

Skowronksi

J. J.

(2016). Emotions experienced at event recall and the self: Implications for the regulation of self-esteem, self-continuity and meaningfulness. Memory, 24, 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1031678

70.

Rodrigues

Lopes

(2017). Sociosexuality, commitment, and sexual desire for an attractive person. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0814-3

71.

Rodrigues

Lopes

Pereira

(2017). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity, and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the Second Love web site. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182

72.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

73.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

74.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

B. H.

(1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1

75.

Sanderson

C. A.

Cantor

(1995). Social dating goals in late adolescence: Implications for safer sexual activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1121

76.

Sandín

Chorot

Lostao

Joiner

T. E.

Santed

M. A.

Valiente

R. M.

(1999). Escala PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: validación factorial y convergencia transcultural [PANAS scale of positive and negative affect: factorial validation and transcultural convergence]. Psicothema, 11, 37–51.

77.

Scheeren

Apellániz

I. A. M.

Wagner

(2018). Marital infidelity: The experience of men and women. Trends in Psychology/Temas em Psicologia, 26(1), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.9788/tp2018.1-14en

78.

Sedikides

Alicke

M. D.

(2012). Self-enhancement and self-protection motives. In Ryan

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation (pp. 303–322). Oxford University Press.

79.

Sedikides

Green

J. D.

(2009). Memory as a self-protective mechanism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1055–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00220.x

80.

Selterman

Garcia

J. R.

Tsapelas

(2019). Motivations for extradyadic infidelity revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1393494

81.

Shafer

Jensen

T. M.

Larson

J. H.

(2014). Relationship effort, satisfaction, and stability: Differences across union type. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 40, 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12007

82.

Shulman

Conolly

(2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330

83.

Skowronski

J. J.

(2011). The positivity bias and the fading affect bias in autobiographical memory: A self-motives perspective. In Alicke

M. D.

Sedikides

(Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 211–234). Guildford Press.

84.

Sowislo

J. F.

Orth

(2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028931

85.

Spanier

G. B.

Margolis

R. L.

(1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498309551167

86.

Sprecher

Treger

Sakaluk

J. K.

(2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sex Behavior, 45, 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6

87.

Steinberg

Albert

Cauffman

Banich

Graham

Woolard

(2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012955

88.

Suh

Diener

Oishi

Triandis

H. C.

(1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482

89.

Thompson

A. E.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2016). I can but you can’t: Inconsistencies in judgments of and experiences with infidelity. Journal of Relationships Research, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2016.1

90.

Thompson

A. E.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2017). Understanding variations in judgments of infidelity: An application of attribution theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350578

91.

Træen

(2010). Sexual dissatisfaction among heterosexual Norwegians in couple relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681991003622518

92.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Moffitt

T. E.

Robins

R. W.

Poulton

Caspi

(2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42, 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.381

93.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Robins

R. W.

(2013). Development of self-esteem. In Zeigler-Hill

(Ed.), Current issues in social psychology. Self-esteem (pp. 60–79). Psychology Press.

94.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

(2010). Emociones poderosas y no poderosas ante conflictos de pareja: Diferencias de género [Powerful and powerless emotions in partner conflicts: Gender differences]. Intervención Psicosocial, 19, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2010v19n2a4

95.

Van Dierendonck

Díaz

Rodríguez-Carvajal

Blanco

Moreno-Jiménez

(2008). Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being: A Spanish exploration. Social Indicators Research, 87, 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9174-7

96.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and Negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.54.6.1063

97.

Williams

L. R.

Hickle

K. E.

(2011). “He cheated on me, I cheated on him back”: Mexican American and White adolescents’ perceptions of cheating in romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.007

98.

Wong

P. T. P.

(2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022511

99.

Wood

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, 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699

100.

Zhao

X. S.

Lynch

J. G.

Jr. Chen

(2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257