Are Cheaters Sexual Hypocrites? Sexual Hypocrisy,the Self-Serving Bias,and Personality Style

Abstract

This article examines moral hypocrisy and the self-serving bias (SSB) in the sexual infidelity context. We found evidence of self-serving attributions that occur between primary relationship partners following sexual betrayals. Specifically, we found that sexual infidelity perpetrators (a) blamed their primary dyadic partners (i.e., victims) for infidelities significantly more than those victims blamed themselves for such infidelities, (b) blamed the surrounding circumstances for infidelities significantly more than their victims did, and (c) rated the emotional impact of infidelities on their victims as significantly less than victims’ ratings of such impact. Moreover, we found that participants with prior experience as both sexual infidelity perpetrators and victims displayed “sexual hypocrisy” by judging others more harshly than themselves for sexually unfaithful behavior. Our findings demonstrate that personality variables associated with sexual infidelity (narcissism, sexual narcissism, avoidant attachment, and primary psychopathy) are also relevant to self-serving attributions in the sexual infidelity context.

Keywords

sexual infidelity self-serving bias moral hypocrisy sexual hypocrisy

Introduction

Research on North Americans indicates that approximately a quarter of males and between 11.6% and 19.2% of females have engaged in extra-dyadic sex at least once in their lives (Mark, Janssen, & Milhausen, 2011; Wiederman, 1997). Relatedly, the annual prevalence rate of sexual infidelity among married individuals in the United States has been estimated at between 2.2% and 4.7% (Choi, Catania, & Dolcini, 1994; Treas & Giesen, 2000; Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav, 2007). Given the disruptive effect of sexual infidelity on romantic relationship longevity (Amato & Previti, 2003; Betzig, 1989; Buss, 2000; Gottman, 1999; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988) and its psychological (Beach, Jouriles, & O’Leary, 1985; Bird, Butler, & Fife, 2007; Cano & O’Leary, 2000; Christian-Herman, O’Leary, & Avery-Leaf, 2002) and behavioral (Shrout & Weigel, 2018) consequences on relationship partners, continued research is needed to better understand this prevalent social phenomenon and the psychological factors that drive it.

Moral Hypocrisy, the Self-Serving Bias (SSB), and Asymmetries in Culpability Perceptions

This article examines the intersection between moral hypocrisy, the SSB, and sexual infidelity. “Moral hypocrisy” describes the tendency to evaluate one’s own wrongdoings as less problematic or immoral than the identical wrongdoings of others (Polman & Ruttan, 2012; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2007, 2008) and is therefore one manifestation of the SSB. The SSB describes the tendency of individuals to internalize credit for their successes (e.g., to personal ability, intelligence, determination) but to externalize or minimize blame for their failures or wrongdoings (e.g., to other individuals, situational characteristics, or the perceived difficulty or unfairness of the failed task) (e.g., Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Bradley, 1978; Sedikides, Campbell, Elliot, & Reeder, 1998; Zuckerman, 1979). Such blame externalization and minimization may function to protect the attributor’s self-esteem (Abramson & Alloy, 1981; Forsyth, 2008). The SSB results in sexual hypocrisy when individuals (a) have experience as both perpetrators and victims of sexual infidelity, and (b) simultaneously evidence contradictory self-serving attributions between such experiences, thus betraying a role-based double standard.

In the current research, we were specifically interested in how participants’ roles as sexual infidelity perpetrators and/or victims influenced their blame attributions and perceptions of victim emotional impact. To date, no research has directly examined moral hypocrisy in the sexual infidelity context. The current research seeks to fill this gap and to additionally examine how certain personality variables that are associated with sexual infidelity perpetration affect such attributions. These issues are important from a clinical perspective given that blame externalization and denial or minimization of wrongdoing for one’s actions may impede reconciliation and/or foster continued wrongdoing following significant dyadic transgressions (e.g., Fife, Weeks, & Stellberg-Filbert, 2013; Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker, & Finkel, 2005; Wallach & Sela, 2008). This research is also important from a theoretical perspective given that it may provide a more nuanced understanding of attributional theory, moral hypocrisy, and their application to romantic relationships.

The SSB—Attributional patterns and minimization of personal wrongdoing

The SSB influences how individuals characterize their own and others’ behavior and culpability during and after interpersonal transgressions. Asymmetries in such characterizations often occur based upon one’s role as perpetrator or victim in the given transgression. Such systematic role-based asymmetries include the tendencies (a) of dyadic partners to blame each other for transgressions while attempting to minimize their own culpabilities, (b) of transgression perpetrators to blame situational factors for their wrongdoings to a greater extent than their victims do, and (c) of transgression perpetrators to downplay the magnitude of harm that they cause victims to a greater extent than their victims do.

Self-serving patterns of partner blaming

Romantic partners frequently blame each other for the transgressions that occur in their relationships in an attempt to minimize their own culpability while maximizing their partner’s culpability (Baumeister et al., 1990; Schütz, 1999; Whiting & Cravens, 2016). Such partner blaming frequently includes personal denial of wrongdoing, rationalizations and justifications of one’s behavior, and self-serving distortions of the matter in dispute (Schütz, 1999; Whiting & Cravens, 2016). Moreover, whereas perpetrators often perceive their victims to have provoked the interpersonal transgression and to therefore share blame for it, victims concurrently view such transgressions as unwarranted, unjustified, and deliberately malicious (Baumeister et al., 1990; Schütz, 1999; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Research similarly indicates that individuals often lack conscious awareness of making these distortions (Baumeister et al., 1990; Whiting & Cravens, 2016).

Various studies illustrate such asymmetrical partner blaming in romantic relationships. For example, in a study of unrequited love experiences, the reports of pursuers and rejecters systematically differed in self-serving ways, leading to seemingly contradictory blame patterns (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993). Whereas pursuers in that study frequently blamed rejecters for showing initial interest and leading them on, rejecters denied doing so and blamed their pursuers for being overly persistent despite apparently clear demonstrations of disinterest. Moreover, in a study of postdivorce adjustment, ex-spouses blamed each other more for causing the divorce than they blamed themselves for it (Gray & Silver, 1990).

Role-based asymmetries in situational attributions

Compared with victims, perpetrators of interpersonal transgressions have been shown to attribute significantly more responsibility for their actions to external or mitigating circumstances. This phenomenon has been repeatedly confirmed across numerous narrative-based studies. For example, Baumeister et al. (1990) found this asymmetry when investigating autobiographical accounts of anger-provoking situations, where 68% of perpetrator accounts involved such externalization compared with 20% of victim accounts. Zechmeister and Romero (2002) replicated such findings (44.2% vs. 19.8%) in a similarly designed experiment where they also found that such externalization occurred independently of victim forgiveness of their perpetrators or of perpetrator self-forgiveness. Moreover, Kearns and Fincham (2005) found this asymmetry in separate analyses of perpetrator and victim accounts of transgressions in romantic (51% vs. 31%) and non-romantic (67% vs. 37%) relationships. In addition, Stillwell and Baumeister (1997) found that merely asking participants to identify with the perpetrator in a story involving an interpersonal transgression caused them to embellish mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator’s behavior when later recounting that story and to do so significantly more than control participants or participants who had been asked to identify with the victim.

Role-based asymmetries in perception of transgression-related harm

Individuals also demonstrate self-serving, role-based biases when recounting the harm of dyadic transgressions. Specifically, perpetrators of interpersonal transgressions tend to minimize the magnitude of the harm that their actions cause relative to victims’ ratings of such harm (Baumeister et al., 1990; Kearns & Fincham, 2005; Stillwell & Baumeister, 1997), and this discrepancy has been characterized as a “magnitude gap” (Baumeister, 1997; Baumeister & Campbell, 1999). For example, Baumeister et al. (1990) found that perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions contained significantly fewer descriptions of lasting negative consequences and significantly more denials of them than victim accounts. In addition, the authors found that such perpetrator narratives were significantly less likely to describe damage caused to the relationship or to identify continued victim anger, but that they were significantly more likely to reference apologies and to indicate positive resolutions following transgressions. Similarly, Kearns and Fincham (2005) found that perpetrator accounts of transgressions in non-romantic relationships were significantly less likely than victim accounts to mention lasting negative consequences or to state that the victims remained angry or hurt. These authors also found that individuals who perpetrated interpersonal transgressions in romantic relationships were significantly more likely than victims to deny that their wrongdoings had any lasting negative consequences.

Personality Predictors of Sexual Infidelity Perpetration and Their Relationship to the SSB

Prior research has identified various personality predictors of sexual infidelity perpetration that are associated with the SSB. These infidelity predictors include narcissism (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002; Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006), sexual narcissism (McNulty & Widman, 2014; Widman & McNulty, 2011), primary psychopathy (Egan & Angus, 2004; Kastner & Sellbom, 2012), and attachment insecurity, along the dimensions of attachment anxiety (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997) and attachment avoidance (Beaulieu-Pelletier, Philippe, Lecours, & Couture, 2011; DeWall et al., 2011).

These variables are also associated with SSB manifestations. This is especially true for narcissism (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Emmons, 1987; John & Robins, 1994; Stucke, 2003), sexual narcissism (McNulty & Widman, 2013; Widman & McNulty, 2010), and psychopathy (Campbell & Elison, 2005; Chabrol, van Leeuwen, Rodgers, & Gibbs, 2011; Cleckley, 1964; DeLisi et al., 2014). These personality variables are known predictors of self-serving attitudes and behaviors in different contexts. For a more detailed review of these infidelity predictors and their relationships to the SSB, see Warach, Josephs, and Gorman (2018). As additionally established in that study, each of these predictors is significantly associated with the SSB in the context of perpetrating a hypothetical retaliatory infidelity.

The Current Research

We based our current investigation on a hypothetical vignette paradigm (Study 1) and through inquiry of participants’ actual experiences with sexual infidelity perpetration or victimization (Study 2A) or actual experiences with both (Study 2B). We included Study 1 and Study 2 to compare how individuals make role-based, self-serving attributions following a hypothesized sexual infidelity (Study 1) with their attributions in response to actual infidelities (Study 2); this distinction could illustrate differences between anticipated versus actual self-serving or sexually hypocritical reactions. Prior research has demonstrated other discrepancies between anticipated and actual reactions in the sexual infidelity context (e.g., Allen & Baucom, 2006; Harris, 2002). However, no research to date has examined this distinction with respect to the SSB and sexual hypocrisy.

Regarding role-based culpability asymmetries, we hypothesized that (a) partners of a primary dyad in which sexual infidelity occurred would systematically blame each other for that infidelity more than they would blame themselves (and would do so regardless of their role in the infidelity), (b) perpetrating partners would blame the surrounding circumstances for the infidelity more than victimized partners would, and (c) perpetrating partners would rate the emotional impact of the infidelity on their victims as lower than their victims would. In addition, we hypothesized that our Study 2B participants (who had real life experiences as both perpetrators and victims of sexual infidelity) would display such culpability asymmetries between their accounts of either experience and that this finding would provide direct evidence of moral hypocrisy in romantic infidelity. Regarding the noted personality variables, we hypothesized that they would be positively associated with greater self-serving attitudes and sexual hypocrisy in either role. Finally, in line with prior research illustrating differences between anticipated and actual responses to extra-dyadic behavior, and consistent with the idea that the SSB may serve to protect the attributor’s self-esteem, we hypothesized that role-based culpability asymmetries would be more apparent in our inquiry of participants’ actual experiences of sexual infidelity.

Study 1: Vignette Response Experiment

Study 1 employed a between-subjects design to examine the SSB in the sexual infidelity context. Study participants were randomly assigned to read a vignette in which they were either the perpetrator of a sexual infidelity (perpetrator condition) or the victim of a sexual infidelity (victim condition). These vignettes were identical except for the perpetrator or victim roles to which participants were assigned. After reading their assigned vignette, participants rated the extent to which they, their hypothetical romantic partner, and the circumstances surrounding the sexual infidelity were individually responsible for the infidelity occurring. Participants in both conditions also rated the emotional impact of the infidelity on the victim. For both studies, we report how we determined our sample sizes, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures.

Method

Sample size and power analysis

We employed Amazon Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com) to recruit participants (all of whom were from the United States) for all studies in this article. A total of 325 participants (49.23% male) completed Study 1 (see Table 1 for a listing of participant and sample characteristics for the current studies). G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) software indicated that 134 participants would be required to detect medium (d = 0.5) effects (Cohen, 1988), assuming a two-tailed normal distribution, an alpha of .05, a power (1 – β) of .8, and an allocation ratio of 1.03. Although prior research has demonstrated large aggregate effect sizes for SSBs in U.S. (d = 1.05) and community (d = 1.08) samples (Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004), we chose to employ medium effect sizes as guidelines for the minimum sample sizes that our analyses required to be adequately powered. We oversampled from these minimums given the external validity concerns inherent to smaller samples.

Table 1.

Participant and Sample Characteristics for Studies 1, 2A, and 2B.

	Study 1	Study 2A	Study 2B
Overall recruitment
Individuals taking screening test	—	533
Total participants recruited	359	184	168
Fail attention check	34 (9.47%)	16 (8.7%)	19 (11.31%)
Remaining participants	325	168	149
Perpetrator condition	160	42	—
Victim condition	165	126	—
Participant sex
Male	160 (49.23%)	67 (39.9%)	61 (40.9%)
Female	162 (49.85%)	101 (60.1%)	88 (59.1%)
Non-sex binary	3 (.92%)	—	—
Decline to respond	—	—	—
Racial composition
Caucasian	73.2%	81.5%	76.5%
African American	8.0%	6.0%	5.4%
Latino/a	3.4%	3.0%	8.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander	5.2%	4.8%	4.0%
Native American	0.6%	0.0%	0.0%
Other	0.9	0.0%	0.0%
Multiracial	8.6%	3.0%	5.4%
Decline to respond	—	1.8%	—
Participant ages
Age range	18-77	20-74	19-76
M	37.47	38.32	36.96
SD	12.44	12.27	11.96

Instruments

The following instruments were used for both of the studies in this article. All such instruments were mean aggregated, with higher scores indicating higher scale ratings. Table 2 lists the Cronbach’s alpha values for all instruments employed in each study.

Table 2.

Cronbach’s Alpha Values for Personality Measures.

	Cronbach’s alpha
	Study 1	Study 2A	Study 2B
Brief-Pathological Narcissism Inventory (B-PNI)	.91	.92	.9
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form (ECR-S)
Attachment Anxiety Subscale	.83	.83	.8
Attachment Avoidance Subscale	.85	.84	.8
Sexual Narcissism Scale (SNS)	.87	.84	.87
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), “Primary Psychopathy” Subscale	.91	.9	.91

Brief-Pathological Narcissism Inventory (B-PNI)

The B-PNI (Schoenleber, Roche, Wetzel, Pincus, & Roberts, 2015) is a 28-item Likert-type response instrument that measures pathological narcissism. On this instrument, participants indicate the extent to which each item (e.g., “It’s hard to feel good about myself unless I know other people admire me” and “It irritates me when people don’t notice how good a person I am”) describes themselves on 6-point scales ranging from 1 (“not at all like me”) to 6 (“very much like me”).

Sexual Narcissism Scale (SNS)

The SNS (Widman & McNulty, 2011) is a 20-item Likert-type scale response instrument that measures narcissism in the sexual context. Participants taking the SNS respond to each item (e.g., “I expect sexual activity if I go out with someone on an expensive date” and “I do not usually care how my sexual partner feels after sex”) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form (ECR-S)

The ECR-S (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007) is a 12-item, 7-point Likert-type scale response instrument that measures the adult attachment style dimensions of attachment anxiety (i.e., “fear of interpersonal rejection or abandonment, an excessive need for approval from others, and distress when one’s partner is unavailable or unresponsive”) and avoidance (i.e., “fear of dependence and interpersonal intimacy, an excessive need for self-reliance, and reluctance to self-disclose”) on two separate subscales (Wei et al., 2007, p. 188). The instructions on this instrument tell participants to agree or disagree with each of the 12 items according to how they generally experience relationships, from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), “Primary Psychopathy” Subscale

The “Primary Psychopathy” subscale of the LSRP (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) consists of 16 items, each answerable on 4-point scales ranging from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 4 (“agree strongly”), and was employed to measure participant primary psychopathy. “Primary psychopathy” denotes “a selfish, uncaring, and manipulative posture towards others” (Levenson et al., 1995, p. 152).

Demographics questionnaire

Participants completed a brief demographics questionnaire in which they were asked about their age, sex, and ethnicity.

Attention check questions

Two attention check questions were included in each of the studies within this article. Both of these questions appeared as items on the personality measures we employed and instructed participants to select a particular Likert-type response. As widely employed in the literature (e.g., Berinsky, Margolis, & Sances, 2014; Curran, 2016), the purpose of our attention checks was to ascertain which participants were paying adequate attention to the study and which were paying inadequate attention, responding carelessly, and/or randomly selecting answers.

Procedures

We conducted all studies in this article on Qualtrics (www.Qualtrics.com), an online survey platform. We provided prospective participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk with direct links to each of our studies, all of which began with an informed consent screen. In addition, our recruitment advertisements on Amazon Mechanical Turk informed participants that they would be answering questions regarding sexual infidelity in romantic relationships and completing various personality questionnaires. For Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to read a vignette in which they were either the victim or the perpetrator of a hypothetical sexual infidelity. These vignettes were identical except for the role of the participant as either the victim or the perpetrator in the scenario. Both vignettes began with the following text:

Imagine that you are currently romantically involved with someone. The two of you have an established relationship, and you comfortably refer to your partner as your “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.” You and your partner spend a great deal of time together, but have recently had some troubles in your relationship.

The perpetrator vignette then contained the following text: “One day, you cheat on your partner by having sex with another person and later tell your partner about it. You tell your partner that you cheated because your needs were not being totally met in your relationship.” The analogous portion of the victim vignette read, “One day, your partner cheats on you by having sex with another person and later tells you about it. Your partner tells you that they cheated because their needs were not being totally met in your relationship.”

After reading their assigned vignette, participants responded to four questions, three of which pertained to blame attribution and the fourth of which pertained to the magnitude of emotional impact that the hypothetical victim would experience because of the infidelity. All questions were administered in random order to control for potential order effects. The three blame questions were presented identically after both vignettes: (a) “In this situation, how much is your partner to blame for the sexual infidelity?”; (b) “In this situation, how much are you to blame for the sexual infidelity?”; and (c) “In this situation, how much are aspects of the circumstances to blame for the sexual infidelity?” These questions were answerable on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (“not at all to blame”) to 7 (“totally to blame”). The fourth question, pertaining to emotional impact on the victim, differed slightly between conditions. In the victim condition, it read, “In this situation, how much of a lasting emotional impact would your partner’s sexual infidelity likely have on you?” In the perpetrator condition, it read, “In this situation, how much of a lasting emotional impact would your sexual infidelity likely have on your partner?” This question was also answerable on a 7-point Likert-type scale, but was bounded between 1 (“no emotional impact whatsoever”) and 7 (“extreme emotional impact”).

After reading the vignette to which they were assigned and answering the subsequent questions, participants then completed each of the personality measures and the demographics questionnaire. These follow-up measures were administered in randomized order to control for order effects. Finally, participants in both studies in this article were provided with a debriefing screen and were thanked for their participation.

Results

Overall SSB analyses

As demonstrated by the Shapiro–Wilk test, perpetrator and victim condition response distributions differed significantly from normality (p < .001 for all), and we accordingly proceeded with nonparametric analyses. Consistent with the SSB, Mann–Whitney U-test analysis demonstrated that victims (M = 6.45, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.09) blamed perpetrators for the infidelity significantly more than perpetrators (M = 6.04, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.63) blamed themselves for it; U = 11,697.0, z = 2.07, p = .04, r = .12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.01, .23] (CIs around effect sizes are reported here). No significant overall difference was found between perpetrator blame of their victims (M = 2.35, Mdn = 1.0, SD = 1.94) and victim self-blame (M = 2.36, Mdn = 2.0, SD = 1.68); U = 12,701.0, z = .61, p = .54, ns. Moreover, perpetrators (M = 3.42, Mdn = 4.0, SD = 1.94) and victims (M = 3.26, Mdn = 3.0, SD = 1.82) did not significantly differ in the extent to which they attributed blame to the situation; U = 12,173.0, z = 1.23, p = .22, ns. Finally, perpetrators (M = 6.10, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.2) and victims (M = 6.08, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.31) did not significantly differ in their perception of the lasting emotional impact of the infidelity on the victim; U = 12,695.5, z = .65, p = .52, ns.

SSB correlational analysis

As presented in Table 3, Spearman’s rank-order correlational analyses were employed to determine the associations between participants’ blame attributions and their emotional impact ratings and personality variables. Between-subjects comparisons of independent correlation coefficients using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Preacher, 2002) revealed various role-based differences in associations between the personality variables and attributional responses. For example, each personality variable was significantly more associated with partner blame in the perpetrator condition than in the victim condition (p ≤ .02 for all), and the effect sizes for these associations were all small (r = .13-.28) (Cohen, 1988). Moreover, each personality variable was significantly associated with reduced self-blame in the perpetrator condition relative to the victim condition (p ≤ .03 for all), with a medium effect size for sexual narcissism (r = .38) and small effect sizes for the remainder of the variables (r = .12-.25). Sexual narcissism (z = 3.1, p = .002, r = .17) and psychopathy (z = 2.05, p = .04, r = .11) were each more strongly associated with reduced self-blame in the perpetrator condition than with partner blame in the victim condition. By contrast, psychopathy was more strongly associated with perpetrator blame of victim than victim self-blame (z = 2.2, p = .03, r = .12) and was significantly more associated with situation blame in the perpetrator condition than in the victim condition (z = 2.24, p = .03, r = .12).

Table 3.

Study 1: Spearman’s Rank-Order Analysis for Perpetrator (P) and Victim (V) Condition Correlations.

	Partner blame		Self-blame		Situation blame		Emotional impact
	P	V	P	V	P	V	P	V
Narcissism	.26**	−.09	−.22**	.2*	.21**	.05	−.18*	−.11
Sexual narcissism	.44**	−.1	−.42**	.3**	.28**	.21**	−.39**	−.19*
Anxious attachment	.21**	−.05	−.12	.12	.3**	.09	−.11	.0
Avoidant attachment	.2*	−.14	−.21**	.28**	.22**	.1	−.3**	−.14
Psychopathy	.36**	−.08	−.3**	.13	.31**	.07	−.34**	−.17*

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

Our Study 1 findings comport with literature demonstrating how perpetrators of interpersonal transgressions often attempt to minimize their culpability relative to their victims’ perceptions of such culpability (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1990; Gray & Silver, 1990; Kearns & Fincham, 2005). Here, infidelity perpetrator participants blamed themselves significantly less for their roles in a hypothesized infidelity than their victims blamed them. Also corresponding to previous research, our analysis suggests that each of the personality predictors of sexual infidelity that we examined is associated with role-based, self-serving attributions (e.g., Campbell, Reeder, et al., 2000; Campbell & Elison, 2005; McNulty & Widman, 2013; Warach et al., 2018) and further extends such findings to the sexual infidelity context. However, our findings indicate that these personality variables are primarily associated with perpetrator-serving attributions regardless of one’s role in the infidelity; these variables significantly correlated with blame externalization, reduced self-blame, and attenuated emotional impact ratings for perpetrators, but for victims were associated with increased self-blame (narcissism, sexual narcissism, and avoidant attachment) and reduced emotional impact ratings (sexual narcissism and psychopathy).

Study 2: Prior Actual Sexual Infidelity Experiences Experiment

The purpose of Study 2 was to examine the SSB and sexual hypocrisy when considering actual experiences of sexual infidelity, rather than the hypothesized ones of Study 1. For this study, we recruited participants who had perpetrated and/or been the victims of sexual infidelity. We asked them to attribute blame and to estimate the emotional impact on the victim for these experiences using the questions from Study 1. Although all data in Study 2 were collected together, we subdivided participant responses into two parts for the present analysis. In Study 2A, we examined participants who had either perpetrated or been the victim of sexual infidelity (but not both). In Study 2B, we examined participants who had both perpetrated and been the victim of sexual infidelity.

Method

Sample size and power analysis

The input parameters for Study 2A G*Power sample size determinations were identical to those of Study 1, except for now having an allocation ratio of 3. G*Power analysis revealed that the sample size required for detection of medium (d = 0.5) (Cohen, 1988) effects was 178. For Study 2B, G*Power analysis indicated that 57 participants would be required to detect medium (d = 0.5) (Cohen, 1988) effects, assuming a two-tailed normal distribution, an alpha of .05, and a power (1 – β) of .8. As noted in Table 1, a total of 184 participants (39.9% male) completed Study 2A and 168 (40.9% male) completed Study 2B.

Procedures

Screening test (Studies 2A and 2B)

Prospective participants took a screening test (the demographics questionnaire from Study 1) that additionally included questions about their prior experiences as the perpetrators and/or victims of sexual infidelity. Individuals who indicated that they had such experience were allowed to continue to the study.

Study questions (Study 2A)

Participants who indicated experience as perpetrators of actual sexual infidelity were provided with the following prompt:

You stated that you have previously cheated on a significant other by having a sexual experience with someone else. Please recall this event, or the most recent time that this happened (if it has happened more than once). Think about this event. Consider your role, your partner’s role, and the role of the situation in answering the following questions.

The victim condition prompt (administered to participants who indicated experience as victims of sexual infidelity) was identical except for the first sentence, which instead read, “You stated that you have previously been cheated on by a significant other who had a sexual experience with someone else.”

After reading either prompt, participants responded to the four questions from Study 1. These questions were worded identically as they were in Study 1, except for the questions pertaining to emotional impact, which now read as follows: “In this situation, how much of a lasting emotional impact did your sexual infidelity likely have on your partner?” (perpetrator condition), and “In this situation, how much of a lasting emotional impact did your partner’s sexual infidelity have on you?” (victim condition). Here again, all questions were administered in randomized order to control for potential order effects. Participants completed all portions of this study in a randomized order to control for order effects.

Study questions (Study 2B)

The procedures and questions of Study 2B were identical to those of Study 2A, except that the Study 2B participants (who had indicated both perpetration and victimization experience in the screening questionnaire) were separately provided with the Likert-type scale questions for both perpetrator and victim conditions.

Results

Study 2A—Between-subjects comparison of post-infidelity attributions

Overall SSB analyses

Likert-type format response analysis

The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the distributions of participant perpetrator (p ≤ .004 for all) and victim (p < .001 for all) responses diverged significantly from normality, and nonparametric analysis was accordingly employed. Mann–Whitney U-test analysis demonstrated robust evidence of self-serving attributions between the perpetrator and victim groups. First, perpetrator group participants (M = 2.6, Mdn = 3.0, SD = 1.79) blamed their primary relationship partners for the infidelity that they reported significantly more than victim group participants (M = 1.69, Mdn = 1.0, SD = 1.16) blamed themselves for such infidelities; U = 1,844.5, z = 3.3, p = .001, r = .25, 95% CI = [.1, .39]. Second, perpetrators (M = 3.39, Mdn = 4.5, SD = 1.96) blamed the situation for their infidelities significantly more than victims did (M = 3.19, Mdn = 3.0, SD = 2.07); U = 2,079.0, z = 2.06, p = .04, r = .16, 95% CI = [.01, .3]. Third, perpetrator (M = 4.17, Mdn = 4.0, SD = 2.05) ratings of the emotional impact of their infidelities on their primary relationship partners were significantly lower than victims’ ratings of this impact on themselves (M = 5.52, Mdn = 6.0, SD = 1.57); U = 1,631.0, z = 3.81, p < .001, r = .25, 95% CI = [.1, .39]. However, no significant difference was found between victim blame of their partners (M = 6.55, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 0.99) and perpetrator self-blame (M = 6.33, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 0.9); U = 2,212.0, z = 1.95, p = .051, ns.

Correlational analysis

As displayed in Table 4, Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed various significant associations between participant attributional category responses and their personality variables in the perpetrator and victim roles. We again employed between-subjects tests of differences of independent correlation coefficients using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Preacher, 2002) to determine the association between these personality variables and participants’ role-based attributions. This analysis revealed that sexual narcissism (z = 4.15, p < .001, r = .32), anxious (z = 2.1, p = .04, r = .16) and avoidant (z = 3.47, p = .001, r = .27) attachment, and psychopathy (z = 3.61, p < .001, r = .28) were significantly more associated with partner blame among infidelity perpetrators than infidelity victims. Narcissism (z = 2.38, p = .02, r = .18), sexual narcissism (z = 2.21, p = .03, r = .17), avoidant attachment (z = 2.05, p = .04, r = .16), and psychopathy (z = 3.01, p = .002, r = .23) were associated with significantly less self-blame in the perpetrator condition than in the victim condition. Psychopathy alone was associated both with significantly decreased perpetrator self-blame compared with victim blame of perpetrator (z = 2.02, p = .04, r = .16) and with greater perpetrator blame of their victims relative to victim self-blame (z = 2.63, p = .01, r = .2). Greater perpetrator situation blaming relative to such blaming among victims was associated with narcissism (z = 2.12, p = .03, r = .16), avoidant attachment (z = 2.16, p = .03, r = .17), and psychopathy (z = 2.34, p = .02, r = .18). Finally, narcissism was associated with significantly reduced emotional impact ratings in the perpetrator condition compared with such ratings in the victim condition (z = 2.19, p = .03, r = .17).

Table 4.

Study 2A: Spearman’s Rank-Order Analysis for Participants With Prior Infidelity Perpetrator (P) or Victim (V) Experience.

	Partner blame		Self-blame		Situation blame		Emotional impact
	P	V	P	V	P	V	P	V
Narcissism	.2	−.11	−.25	.18*	.47**	.12	−.32*	.07
Sexual narcissism	.46**	−.26**	−.2	.2*	.17	.12	−.1	−.07
Anxious attachment	.22	−.16	−.11	.22*	.36*	.19*	.01	.01
Avoidant attachment	.4**	−.21*	−.25	.12	.42**	.05	−.06	−.03
Psychopathy	.51**	−.10	−.44**	.08	.38*	−.03	−.2	−.06

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Study 2B—Within-subjects comparison of post-infidelity attributions

Overall SSB analyses

Likert-type format response analysis

As again demonstrated by the Shapiro Wilk test, the distributions of all responses in both perpetrator and victim roles differed significantly from normality (p < .001 for all), and nonparametric analysis was accordingly employed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis provided evidence of role-based, self-serving attributions even in this within-groups sample, and results paralleled those of Study 2A. For example, participants blamed their primary dyadic partners for the sexual infidelities that they had perpetrated (M = 3.44, Mdn = 3.0, SD = 2.11) significantly more than they blamed themselves for the infidelities in which they were victims (M = 3.02, Mdn = 2.0, SD = 2.13); z = 2.2, p = .03, r = .18, 95% CI = [.02, .33]. Participants also externalized significantly more blame to the situation for their sexual infidelity perpetrations (M = 4.5, Mdn = 5.0, SD = 1.87) than for their victimizations (M = 3.95, Mdn = 4.0, SD = 1.99); z = 3.16, p = .002, r = .26, 95% CI = [.1, .4]. Finally, participants rated the emotional impact on the victim as significantly lower when they perpetrated the sexual infidelity (M = 4.54, Mdn = 5.0, SD = 1.89) than when they were the victims (M = 5.41, Mdn = 6.0, SD = 1.62); z = 4.62, p < .001, r = .38, 95% CI = [.23, .51]. However, as with Study 2A, no significant difference was found between participants’ blame of the perpetrator when they were sexual infidelity victims (M = 5.99, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.47) and their self-blame as sexual infidelity perpetrators (M = 5.81, Mdn = 7.0, SD = 1.65); z = 1.4, p = .16, ns.

Correlational analysis

Table 5 displays Spearman’s correlation analysis between participant attributional category responses and their personality variables. Within-subjects Fisher’s r-to-z transformation analysis (Lee & Preacher, 2013a, 2013b; Steiger, 1980) revealed that narcissism (z = 2.35, p = .02, r = .19), sexual narcissism (z = 3.8, p < .001, r = .31), avoidant attachment (z = 4.53, p < .001, r = .37), and psychopathy (z = 4.36, p < .001, r = .36) were associated with significantly greater partner blame as perpetrators than as victims. As in Study 2A, these same personality variables were associated with significantly less self-blame in the perpetrator role compared with the victim role (p ≤ .001 for all), with narcissism having a small effect size (r = .21) on this association and the remainder having medium effect sizes (r = .33-.37). Although negatively correlated with perpetrator blame in both roles, avoidant attachment was associated with significantly greater perpetrator self-blame compared with victim blame of the perpetrator (z = 2.14, p = .03, r = .18). None of the personality variables were associated with significant blame disparities between perpetrator partner blame and victim self-blame, and none were associated with situational blame disparities (p ≥ .07, ns, for all). Finally, only anxious attachment was associated with significantly greater emotional impact ratings as victims than as perpetrators (z = 2.0, p = .046, r = .16).

Table 5.

Study 2B: Spearman’s Rank-Order Analysis for Participants With Prior Infidelity Perpetrator (P) and Victim (V) Experience.

	Partner blame		Self-blame		Situation blame		Emotional impact
	P	V	P	V	P	V	P	V
Narcissism	.09	−.18*	−.11	.2*	.13	.16*	.0	.03
Sexual narcissism	.18*	−.25**	−.21**	.26**	.07	.21*	.0	−.14
Anxious attachment	.09	.02	.11	.13	.11	.15	.06	.25**
Avoidant attachment	.11	−.39**	−.16	.31**	.02	.13	.05	−.04
Psychopathy	.23**	−.26**	−.24**	.28**	−.02	.13	.1	.13

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

Differences in participant SSB existed between Study 1 and Study 2. Such differences parallel prior research findings of discrepancies between hypothetical and actual reactions to sexual infidelity (e.g., Allen & Baucom, 2006; Harris, 2002). In contrast to our vignette-based Study 1 findings, Studies 2A and 2B provide more robust support for our hypotheses that participants would display role-based, self-serving culpability asymmetries in their accounts of prior sexual infidelities. The greater demonstration of role-based SSB in Study 2 compared with Study 1 likely relates to the distinction between hypothetical events (from which individuals may feel more emotionally removed) and actual events that are more salient to individuals’ self-esteem. As would be predicted from prior research, the greater potential self-esteem threat inherent to evaluating one’s involvement in actual sexual infidelity may have triggered the enhanced role-based SSB displays in Study 2 (e.g., Campbell & Sedikides, 1999).

As identified in Study 2, the noted tendencies of infidelity perpetrators to blame their victims, the situation, and to minimize the emotional harm of their actions comport with prior research showing such role-based culpability asymmetries (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1990; Kearns & Fincham, 2005; Schütz, 1999; Stillwell & Baumeister, 1997; Whiting & Cravens, 2016; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Of greatest relevance to our sexual hypocrisy inquiry, these role-based asymmetries occurred in Study 2B between participants’ reports of their perpetration and victimization experiences; participants in Study 2B believed that their partners’ infidelities were relatively more blameworthy and harmful than their own, thus evidencing sexual hypocrisy.

As with Study 1, our correlational findings and accompanying Fisher’s r-to-z transformation analysis again suggested that the personality predictors of sexual infidelity that we measured are transgressor-serving traits for infidelity perpetrators and victims. Accordingly, although the within-subjects results of Study 2B provide solid evidence of sexual hypocrisy, our correlational analyses demonstrate that the noted personality variables are associated with an attenuation of sexual hypocrisy given that they reduce the SSB in the victim role. However, differences were found to exist between Studies 1, 2A, and 2B in the associations between these variables and culpability attributions and emotional impact ratings. The specific reasons for such differences warrant further inquiry elsewhere.

General Discussion

Our findings indicate that the SSB and moral hypocrisy are relevant to sexual infidelity. Given the ubiquity of self-serving attributions across a wide range of situations (e.g., Mezulis et al., 2004) it is unsurprising to find that the SSB also manifests itself in the sexual infidelity context. However, the current findings are important because they provide a better understanding of the role-based, self-serving attributions that occur between primary relationship partners following sexual betrayals. Relatedly, our findings demonstrate the potentially hypocritical nature of such attributions (i.e., sexual hypocrisy) that can occur where individuals have experience as both perpetrators and victims of sexual infidelity. Moreover, our findings provide evidence of a “perpetrator-serving bias” in both perpetrator and victim roles that is associated with the personality predictors of infidelity that we examined. These findings and their clinical and theoretical implications will now be discussed.

Patterns of SSB Manifestation and Sexual Hypocrisy Following Sexual Infidelity

Our findings illustrate the specific SSB manifestations that contribute to sexual hypocrisy. Our Study 2 findings suggest that sexual infidelity perpetrators manifest the SSB by externalizing blame (to their partners and the surrounding circumstances) and by minimizing the magnitude of the emotional harm that they cause to their relationship partners. Our Study 2B findings indicate that individuals may simultaneously harbor contradictory blame attributions and culpability judgments for their sexual infidelity experiences that depend upon their roles as either perpetrators or victims. We label this outcome as “sexual hypocrisy” given that it is a direct application of moral hypocrisy to sexual infidelity.

Contrary to one of our initial hypotheses, in Study 2 we found no significant differences between perpetrator self-blame and victim blame of their perpetrators. It is, therefore, evident that sexual infidelity perpetrators manifest the SSB primarily through blame externalization and indirect minimization of their own culpability (i.e., reduced emotional impact ratings), rather than through directly minimizing their own self-blame. Perpetrators’ inability to directly absolve themselves of blame for their actions may occur due to strong social norms against sexual infidelity (e.g., Gallup, 2017; Treas & Giesen, 2000). These findings additionally provide greater refinement to attributional theory (both generally and as specifically applied to romantic relationships) as they identify the important role of personality variables in how individuals attribute blame for interpersonal transgressions. Future research should further explore the role of personality variables in the noted distinction between direct and indirect culpability minimization for infidelity perpetrators.

Personality Predictors of Sexual Infidelity, Sexual Hypocrisy, and a Perpetrator-Serving Bias

Previous research has shown positive relationships between the SSB and narcissism, sexual narcissism, anxious and avoidant attachment, and primary psychopathy (e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Warach et al., 2018; Widman & McNulty, 2011). However, such research does not examine the SSB or its manifestations from the perspective of victims of actual interpersonal transgressions. In addition, this study is the first to examine the relationships between these personality traits and moral hypocrisy. Our findings indicate that these personality variables are associated with self-serving evaluations for perpetrators, with an “other-serving bias” (Sedikides et al., 1998) for infidelity victims, and therefore that they attenuate moral hypocrisy. Future research should more closely examine the association between the noted personality variables, other-serving biases, and moral hypocrisy in different contexts.

Clinical Relevance of Self- and Other-Serving Attributions and Sexual Hypocrisy

The self-serving attributions and sexual hypocrisy that we identify in this article have important relevance to mental health professionals. This is the case given the overall prevalence of sexual infidelity (e.g., Mark et al., 2011; Wiederman, 1997) and its effects on mental health (e.g., Beach et al., 1985; Bird et al., 2007; Cano & O’Leary, 2000). Indeed, estimates suggest that approximately one third (Geiss & O’Leary, 1981; Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997) to over half (Glass & Wright, 1988) of dyads in couples therapy seek treatment because of sexual infidelity. Couples therapists perceive sexual infidelity as one of the most difficult presenting problems to treat (Whisman et al., 1997), and the self-serving attributions and sexual hypocrisy discussed in this article may contribute to this difficulty. Specifically, the culpability asymmetries noted in Study 2 may complicate couples’ abilities to reconcile following sexual infidelity as they may hinder communication and be the source of additional tension and resentment. Moreover, the distinctions between our Study 1 and Study 2 findings may suggest that individuals lack conscious awareness of their propensities toward self-serving and role-based biases as actors in actual sexual infidelities. Such unawareness is typical of many cognitive biases, including the SSB (Baumeister et al., 1990; Whiting & Cravens, 2016), and may itself exacerbate the interpersonal impact of sexual infidelity.

The relationship between the noted personality variables and the other-serving bias among victims may also have clinical relevance. Elevated levels of these personality variables may predispose individuals to negative mental health outcomes following sexual infidelity victimization given their characteristic tendencies toward victim role self-blame. The negative emotional impact of this tendency toward victim self-blame may be compounded by the already traumatic nature of romantic betrayal (e.g., Baucom, Gordon, Snyder, Atkins, & Christensen, 2006; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004, 2008; Lusterman, 2005; Steffens & Rennie, 2006). Future research may wish to investigate the moderating effect of these personality variables on mental health outcomes following infidelity victimization.

Limitations and Future Research

Various limitations to our study warrant explicit discussion. First, the absence of cultural considerations from our analysis represents a threat to its external validity. Cultural factors have been shown to moderate the presence and magnitude of the SSB (Higgins & Bhatt, 2001; Mezulis et al., 2004), as well as attitudes toward sexual infidelity (e.g., Widmer, Treas, & Newcomb, 1998). We limited our current analysis to individuals in the United States, utilized samples that predominantly comprised Caucasian participants, and therefore reduced our chances of examining cultural diversity. Future research should investigate the applicability of our findings to more culturally diverse samples.

Second, and relatedly, our analysis does not consider other contextual factors that may influence the nature and magnitude of role-based, self-serving attributions and their possible contributions to sexual hypocrisy. For example, in Study 1 we did not ask participants about their current relationship statuses or personal histories of infidelity perpetration and victimization; such factors could have influenced participants’ responses to the hypothetical vignettes. Other potentially relevant factors to post-infidelity self-serving attributions and sexual hypocrisy include individuals’ beliefs surrounding the morality or acceptableness of sexual infidelity, their desire to remain in the primary relationship, their level of emotional closeness to their partner, and the extent to which they are otherwise satisfied in the relationship. Partners’ attributions may be similarly shaped by the number of times that the perpetrator had been sexually unfaithful in the relationship (e.g., a moment of intoxicated weakness vs. a serial philanderer), the duration of the affair, and/or the perpetrator’s level of emotional involvement with the third party. Longitudinal research that considers such contextual factors may, therefore, be especially warranted in future investigations of post-infidelity self-serving attributions and sexual hypocrisy.

Third, our definition of infidelity represents another possible limitation. In our studies we loosely defined infidelity as a sexual experience that occurred outside of the primary dyad and that involved “cheating” on the primary partner. However, individuals may differ in how they define a “sexual experience” (e.g., Byers, Henderson, & Hobson, 2009; Randall & Byers, 2003) and “cheating” (e.g., Blow & Hartnett, 2005) and may accordingly differ in their attributional responses to such definitions. In the current studies, we were most concerned with how participants displayed the SSB and sexual hypocrisy when faced with whatever they subjectively considered to be “sexual infidelity.” However, future research may wish to examine the possible moderating role of various discrete definitions of “sexual infidelity” on how participants display role-based attributional biases. In addition, future research may wish to investigate the effect of emotional infidelity on such biases.

Fourth, this study relied upon self-report instruments in measuring participant personality variables and in gauging their SSB. Accordingly, discrepancies may exist between such self-report and participants’ actual personality traits and/or attributions. Future research may attempt to mitigate this limitation by employing measures that limit participant self-report and/or corroborate it through other means.

Fifth, the SSB, blame externalization, role-based culpability asymmetries, and moral hypocrisy are understood here and elsewhere (e.g., Abramson & Alloy, 1981; Forsyth, 2008) to protect the attributor’s self-esteem. However, to the best of our knowledge no existing research has directly investigated the relationship between self-esteem threats and deployment of self-serving attributions. Future research should address this issue.

The current studies demonstrate predictable, role-based patterns in how individuals evaluate and attribute responsibility for sexual betrayal. Our findings are also significant in that they demonstrate that these evaluations occur as a function of personality. In addition to the theorized emotionally defensive function that such self-centered and hypocritical evaluations serve, they may also facilitate sexual infidelity and at least partially account for its pervasiveness in romantic relationships. Finally, these role-based culpability asymmetries may disrupt the already precarious stability of many romantic relationships in the aftermath of sexual infidelity; among other things, they may complicate relationship reconciliation and rehabilitation. These additional issues are ripe for future research.

Supplemental Material

Warach_OnlineAppendix – Supplemental material for Are Cheaters Sexual Hypocrites?: Sexual Hypocrisy, the Self-Serving Bias, and Personality Style

Supplemental material, Warach_OnlineAppendix for Are Cheaters Sexual Hypocrites?: Sexual Hypocrisy, the Self-Serving Bias, and Personality Style by Benjamin Warach, Lawrence Josephs and Bernard S. Gorman in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

References

Abramson

L. Y.

Alloy

L. B.

(1981). Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: Reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 436-447.

Allen

E. S.

Baucom

D. H.

(2006). Dating, marital, and hypothetical extradyadic involvements: How do they compare? The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 307-317.

Amato

P. R.

Previti

(2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626.

Baucom

D. H.

Gordon

K. C.

Snyder

D. K.

Atkins

D. C.

Christensen

(2006). Treating affair couples: Clinical considerations and initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 375-392.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Baumeister

R. F.

Campbell

W. K.

(1999). The intrinsic appeal of evil: Sadism, sensational thrills, and threatened egotism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 210-221.

Baumeister

R. F.

Stillwell

Wotman

S. R.

(1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994-1005.

Baumeister

R. F.

Wotman

S. R.

Stillwell

A. M.

(1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377-394.

Beach

S. R. H.

Jouriles

E. N.

O’Leary

(1985). Extramarital sex: Impact on depression and commitment in couples seeking marital therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 11, 99-108.

10.

Beaulieu-Pelletier

Philippe

F. L.

Lecours

Couture

(2011). The role of attachment avoidance in extradyadic sex. Attachment & Human Development, 13, 293-313.

11.

Berinsky

A. J.

Margolis

M. F.

Sances

M. W.

(2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 739-753.

12.

Betzig

(1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654-676.

13.

Bird

M. H.

Butler

M. H.

Fife

S. T.

(2007). The process of couple healing following infidelity: A qualitative study. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 6(4), 1-25.

14.

Blow

A. J.

Hartnett

(2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 183-216.

15.

Bogaert

A. F.

Sadava

(2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191-204.

16.

Bradley

G. W.

(1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-71.

17.

Buss

D. M.

(2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealously is as necessary as love and sex. New York, NY: The Free Press.

18.

Byers

E. S.

Henderson

Hobson

K. M.

(2009). University students’ definitions of sexual abstinence and having sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 665-674.

19.

Campbell

J. S.

Elison

(2005). Shame coping styles and psychopathic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 96-104.

20.

Campbell

W. K.

Foster

C. A.

Finkel

E. J.

(2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 340-354.

21.

Campbell

W. K.

Reeder

G. D.

Sedikides

Elliot

A. J.

(2000). Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329-347.

22.

Campbell

W. K.

Sedikides

(1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43.

23.

Campbell

W. K.

Sedikides

Reeder

G. D.

Elliot

A. J.

(2000). Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 229-239.

24.

Cano

O’Leary

K. D.

(2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive episodes and symptoms of nonspecific depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 774-781.

25.

Chabrol

van Leeuwen

Rodgers

R. F.

Gibbs

J. C.

(2011). Relations between self-serving cognitive distortions, psychopathic traits, and antisocial behavior in a non-clinical sample of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 887-892.

26.

Choi

K. H.

Catania

J. A.

Dolcini

M. M.

(1994). Extramarital sex and HIV risk behavior among US adults: Results from the National AIDS Behavioral Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 2003-2007.

27.

Christian-Herman

O’Leary

K. D.

Avery-Leaf

(2002). The impact of negative events in marriage on depression. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 20, 24-40.

28.

Cleckley

(1964). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

29.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Curran

P. G.

(2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19.

32.

DeLisi

Angton

Vaughn

M. G.

Trulson

C. R.

Caudill

J. W.

Beaver

K. M.

(2014). Not my fault: Blame externalization is the psychopathic feature most associated with pathological delinquency among confined delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1415-1430.

33.

DeWall

C. N.

Lambert

N. M.

Slotter

E. B.

Pond

R. S.

Deckman

Finkel

. . . Fincham

F. D.

(2011). So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302-1316.

34.

Egan

Angus

(2004). Is social dominance a sex-specific strategy for infidelity? Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 575-586.

35.

Emmons

R. A.

(1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11-17.

36.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

37.

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.

38.

Forsyth

D. R.

(2008). Self-serving bias. In Darity

W. A.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (p. 429). Detroit, MI: Macmillan.

39.

Foster

J. D.

Shrira

Campbell

W. K.

(2006). Theoretical models of narcissism, sexuality, and relationship commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 367-386.

40.

Gallup. (2017). Gallup poll: Moral issues. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/moral-issues.aspx

41.

Gangestad

S. W.

Thornhill

(1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution & Human Behavior, 18, 69-88.

42.

Geiss

S. K.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 515-520.

43.

Glass

S. P.

Wright

T. L.

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

Field

(Eds.), Treatment of sexual problems in individual and couples therapy (pp. 301-346). New York, NY: PMA Publishing.

44.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

(2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213-231.

45.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

(2008). Optimal strategies in couple therapy: Treating couples dealing with the trauma of infidelity. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 38, 151-160.

46.

Gottman

J. M.

(1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

47.

Gray

J. D.

Silver

R. C.

(1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses’ divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1180-1191.

48.

Harris

C. R.

(2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7-12.

49.

Higgins

N. C.

Bhatt

(2001). Culture moderates the self-serving bias: Etic and emic features of causal attributions in India and in Canada. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 49-61.

50.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

(1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.

51.

Kastner

R. M.

Sellbom

(2012). Hypersexuality in college students: The role of psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 644-649.

52.

Kearns

J. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 321-333.

53.

Lee

I. A.

Preacher

K. J.

(2013a, October). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with no variable in common [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org

54.

Lee

I. A.

Preacher

K. J.

(2013b, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org

55.

Levenson

M. R.

Kiehl

K. A.

Fitzpatrick

C. M.

(1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158.

56.

Lusterman

D. D.

(2005). Infidelity: Theory and treatment. In Harway

(Ed.), Handbook of couples therapy (pp. 337-351). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

57.

Mark

K. P.

Janssen

Milhausen

R. R.

(2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples: Demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 971-982.

58.

McNulty

J. K.

Widman

(2013). The implications of sexual narcissism for sexual and marital satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1021-1032.

59.

McNulty

J. K.

Widman

(2014). Sexual narcissism and infidelity in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1315-1325.

60.

Mezulis

A. H.

Abramson

L. Y.

Hyde

J. S.

Hankin

B. L.

(2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747.

61.

Polman

Ruttan

R. L.

(2012). Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 129-139.

62.

Preacher

K. J.

(2002) Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org

63.

Randall

H. E.

Byers

E. S.

(2003). What is sex? Students’ definitions of having sex, sexual partner, and unfaithful sexual behavior. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 87-96.

64.

Roscoe

Cavanaugh

L. E.

Kennedy

D. R.

(1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and consequences. Adolescence, 23, 34-43.

65.

Rusbult

C. E.

Hannon

P. A.

Stocker

S. L.

Finkel

E. J.

(2005). Forgiveness and relational repair. In Worthington

E. L.

(Ed.), The handbook of forgiveness (pp. 185-206). New York, NY: Routledge.

66.

Schoenleber

Roche

M. J.

Wetzel

Pincus

A. L.

Roberts

B. W.

(2015). Development of a brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1520-1526.

67.

Schütz

(1999). It was your fault! Self-serving biases in autobiographical accounts of conflicts in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 193-208.

68.

Sedikides

Campbell

W. K.

Elliot

A. J.

Reeder

G. D.

(1998). The self-serving bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 378-386.

69.

Shrout

M. R.

Weigel

D. J.

(2018). Infidelity’s aftermath: Appraisals, mental health, and health-compromising behaviors following a partner’s infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1067-1091.

70.

Steffens

B. A.

Rennie

R. L.

(2006). The traumatic nature of disclosure for wives of sexual addicts. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 13, 247-267.

71.

Steiger

J. H.

(1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.

72.

Stillwell

A. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1997). The construction of victim and perpetrator memories: Accuracy and distortion in role-based accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1157-1172.

73.

Stucke

T. S.

(2003). Who’s to blame? Narcissism and self-serving attributions following feedback. European Journal of Personality, 17, 465-478.

74.

Treas

Giesen

(2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48-60.

75.

Valdesolo

DeSteno

(2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18, 689-690.

76.

Valdesolo

DeSteno

(2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1334-1338.

77.

Wallach

H. S.

Sela

(2008). The importance of male batterers’ attributions in understanding and preventing domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 655-650.

78.

Warach

Josephs

Gorman

B. S.

(2018). Pathways to infidelity: The roles of self-serving bias and betrayal trauma. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44, 497-512.

79.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L.

(2007). The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR)–Short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204.

80.

Whisman

M. A.

Dixon

A. E.

Johnson

(1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple problems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 3, 361-366.

81.

Whisman

M. A.

Gordon

K. C.

Chatav

(2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 320-324.

82.

Whiting

J. B.

Cravens

J. D.

(2016). Escalating, accusing, and rationalizing: A model of distortion and interaction in couple conflict. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 15, 251-273.

83.

Widman

McNulty

J. K.

(2010). Sexual narcissism and the perpetration of sexual aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 926-939.

84.

Widman

McNulty

J. K.

(2011). Sexual narcissism scale. In Fisher

T. D.

Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Davis

S. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 496-497). New York, NY: Routledge.

85.

Widmer

E. D.

Treas

Newcomb

(1998). Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 349-358.

86.

Wiederman

M. W.

(1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167-174.

87.

Zechmeister

J. S.

Romero

(2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675-686.

88.

Zuckerman

(1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB