Abstract
In this study, we used an exploratory methodology to determine what cultural models African American emerging adults use to understand infidelity/cheating. Cultural models are defined as “cognitive schema[s] that [are] intersubjectively shared by a social group” (D’Andrade, 1987, p. 112). We interviewed 144 participants ages 19-22 from three geographically distal sites. Qualitative analysis was conducted using NUDIST and In Vivo Analysis, a form of Grounded Theory. Among those in a main (dyadic) relationship, 37% of females and 57% of males stated they had been unfaithful to their main partner during the past month. We identify five cultural models defining 1) the nature of infidelity, 2) reasons for infidelity, 3) techniques for managing side (extra-dyadic) partners, 4) means of investigating suspected infidelity, and 5) condom use in main and side relationships. Our findings suggest that stressing condom use in side partner relationships may be a particularly effective means of HIV/STI prevention in this high-risk population.
What concepts related to sex with side partners do members of at-risk populations hold? In this article, we present findings based on a study of the sexual and relationship culture of low- to low-mid-SES African American emerging adults. Emerging adults is a term that refers to individuals in their late teens through 20s, transitioning through exploration and identity flux from adolescence to adulthood, an age group at high risk for HIV/STI infection (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults are also frequently referred to a “young adults.” African American emerging adults are the U.S. ethnic group at greatest risk for HIV infection with an estimated HIV infection rate of 144.7 per 100,000 individuals in 2009 compared to 11.2 for Whites, 38.3 for Hispanics, and 10.5 for Asians (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). African Americans also have the highest infection rate among ethnic groups in the United States for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Based on 2009 CDC data, the rate of chlamydia among African Americans was 1,559.1 cases per 100,000 individuals, 556.4 cases for gonorrhea, 19.2 cases for syphilis, higher than any other ethnic group for each infection (CDC, 2010).
In this population, sexual partnerships between two main (dyadic) partners and between one member of a main relationship and a side (extra-dyadic) partner are understood to be fundamentally different (Andrinopoulos, Kerrigan, & Ellen, 2006; Carey, Senn, Seward, & Vanable, 2008). We have used an exploratory methodology to determine the cultural models African American emerging adults use to understand participation in side relationships, also termed infidelity or, in the vernacular, cheating. Cultural models are defined as “cognitive schema[s] that [are] intersubjectively shared by a social group” (D’Andrade, 1987, p. 112). Our findings may have implications for HIV/STI prevention among African American emerging adults. For example, an understanding of cultural models related to infidelity could heighten the authenticity and motivational force of HIV/STI prevention messages. Intervention messages that are contradicted by cultural models could be modified or eliminated.
Culture is transmitted from one generation to the next and represents what is learned through interactions with others (D’Andrade, 1981). Cognitive anthropology posits that culture consists of shared information or knowledge encoded in systems of meaning (D’Andrade, 1984). “Typically,” D’Andrade states, “one uses a model to reason with or calculate from by mentally manipulating the parts of the model in order to solve some problem” (D’Andrade, 1995, p. 151). Cultural models are important cognitive tools that are learned in specific settings to deal with problems in social domains such as infidelity. Unlike many psychological constructs, cultural models are presumed to be specific to individual groups and must be studied with data from one cultural or ethnic group at a time. In addition to their HIV/STI vulnerability, low- to low-mid-SES, young adult African Americans were selected for this study to fulfill this homogeneity requirement. Anthropological methods, such as analysis of cultural models, may provide insight into risk behaviors that have so far been studied primarily using quantitative methods that stress individual variation. Prevention efforts may be improved by knowing more about this population’s cultural perspectives on side relationships: beliefs about how they develop, how partners communicate about them, and the sexual beliefs and behavioral patterns that characterize these relationships.
Infidelity traditionally refers to side involvement in a marital relationship but is commonly extended to other serious romantic relationships (Wiederman, 1997). While emerging adults, particularly African Americans, are unlikely to marry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007), they are often involved in main sexual relationships that frequently involve unprotected sex (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). Previous prevention research finds STI risk associated with infidelity, especially unawareness of a partner’s multiple sexual contacts (Drumright, Gorbach, & Holmes, 2004). In our work we focus on models of infidelity as they capture the unique cultural understandings of main versus side partners and may reveal risks specific to the behavior of each.
By emerging adulthood, most individuals report that they had a serious romantic partner (main relationship) within the previous 18 months (Carver et al., 2003). These relationships are marked by a sense of trust and commitment greater than that found in non-main sexual partnerships (Brady, Tschann, Ellen, & Flores, 2009). While such emotional bonding benefits personal and interpersonal development, it also has negative consequences for HIV/STI risk reduction. Researchers find decreased condom use and less concern over HIV/STI infection in main sexual relationships compared to non-main sexual partnerships, especially among African American emerging adults (Bauman & Berman, 2005). Decreased condom use means that infidelity can introduce risk to the other partner should a main partner engage in unprotected or risky sex outside of the main relationship (Jones & Oliver, 2007).
The existing research involving African Americans finds African Americans may differ from other cultural groups in their beliefs about infidelity and their behavioral patterns associated with infidelity (Andrinopoulos et al., 2006). For example, rates of infidelity are higher among African Americans than other ethnic groups (Adimora, Schoenbach, & Doherty, 2007). Researchers cite many factors in creating a complicated cultural perspective on infidelity among African Americans, such as poverty and a sex-ratio imbalance, which encourage infidelity; and a strong religiosity that discourages infidelity and risky sexual behavior (Holt & McClure, 2006; Nelson et al., 2007; Steinman & Zimmerman, 2004). Much of the research on infidelity among African Americans has focused on gender discrepancies (often through studies enrolling only males or females e.g., Carey et al., 2008; O’Sullivan & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2003). Research with young adult African Americans found that young women perceived themselves in a main relationship even if their partner was not monogamous, whereas the young men described two types of partners: sex only and romantic (Andrinopoulos et al., 2006). Similarly Sobo’s (1993) and White’s (1999, p. 468) qualitative research found that African American women maintained an idealized image of a main relationship partner despite male infidelity. A woman’s status was based on loyalty, having a “good” man, and trusting him. Retaining one’s status warranted overlooking a partner’s infidelity. Despite this known infidelity in main relationships, Jones and Oliver’s (2007, p. 818) qualitative research with urban African American women found that having unprotected sex was a strategy to hold onto partners and to “block out what everybody says.” In Carey et al.’s (2008) research with African American male STI clinic attendees involved in concurrent relationships, men did not report awareness of the increased HIV risk associated with overlapping partnerships although they reported a rule of not bringing STIs into a main relationship through infidelity.
The existing research has not yet answered several key questions about infidelity among low-income, African American emerging adults that could lead to more effective HIV risk reduction programs. Researchers still know little about the negotiation and establishment of fidelity in main relationships, the effect of the status differential between the main and side partner on risky sexual behavior, the motivation for females to engage in infidelity, and the methods partners use to prevent infidelity. A cultural approach is well suited to the study of such questions.
The aim of this exploratory study is to document the interests and concerns of African American, low- to low-mid-SES emerging adults specifically with regard to side partner sex, or infidelity. This aim will be achieved by conducting and analyzing culture-sensitive interviews focused on relationships and sex with this at-risk population. The identification of cultural models related to infidelity could guide prevention of HIV/STI in this population by informing the content of prevention messages.
Method
Participants
Participants for the study were 143 (71 females) African American emerging adults from the San Francisco Bay Area, CA, Chicago, IL, and the greater Birmingham area, AL with a mean age of 20.4 (range = 19-22, mode = 19). Fifty-five percent of the participants had an educational level of high school graduate or less. The median monthly income of the participants was US$700.
Procedures
Recruitment venues for the sample were identified based on input from local community leaders and tours of the neighborhoods. In addition to recruiting from community service venues such as community centers and YMCAs, interviewers recruited participants from malls, parks, and busy street corners. Potential participants were approached and asked their country of birth, their birth date, and the racial/ethnic groups with which they identify. Those born in the United States, between 19 and 22 years of age, and identifying at least in part as African American or Black were asked to participate.
One female and one male sex-matched, African American interviewer at each of the three sites conducted Vernacular Term Interviewing (VTI) to explore the cultural reasoning of African American emerging adults with regard to sex-related behavior (cf. Eyre, 1997). Vernacular term interviewing uses the procedure of free listing (Weller & Romney, 1988) to elicit meanings of vernacular terms. In free listing, a participant is asked to list all responses she or he can think of in response to a specific question. These responses are recorded in writing by the interviewer. For example, one free listing question used in this study was “What are some particular things women or men do if they are interested in having sex with a particular person?” As the interviewer recorded responses, she or he identified certain responses as vernacular expressions suitable for follow-up questioning. An interview immediately following the free listing exercise then elicited discussion of the meaning of these vernacular expressions. One vernacular item commonly listed by men in response to the strategy question was “use game.” Given this response, the interviewer might ask, “What is game?” or “What causes a person to use game?”
In order to standardize how the interview was conducted, interviewers received 1 week of training at the University of California, San Francisco where they were taught how to administer VTI under supervision in a trial project. Subsequently, interviewers were supervised weekly using video teleconferencing. A total of 144 participants completed VTI. Each received a US$25 gift certificate for participation. Interviews were recorded digitally and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The research protocol was approved by the IRBs of the University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco Bay Area), Children’s Memorial Hospital (Chicago), and the University of Alabama, Birmingham (Greater Birmingham). Interviews took place between May and December 2008.
Measures
Data from 12 focus groups, conducted during a preliminary stage of the project, were used to develop short-answer questions on relationships and sex. The final free listing questions used were (1) What are some reasons to have sex with somebody? (2) What are some particular things guys or girls do if they are interested in having sex with a particular person? (3) What are some ways guys or girls are different from girls or guys in the way they approach sex? (4) What are some differences between main relationships and other kinds of sexual relationship or encounter? (5) What are some kinds of sexual relationships or encounters? and (6) What are some things that you have to deal with in a main relationship? VTI is specifically designed to elicit explanations of short answers to these questions and is not intended to elicit personal narratives. Each interview also contained an oral survey that included demographic and relationship items that were administered in part before and in part after VTI.
Analysis
Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed to identify categories and develop a codebook. Final codes were infidelity, main partner, baby mama/daddy, non-main partners, watch/attract/connect, game, money/exchange for sex, risk behaviors, abuse, gender differences, sex, adjacent to sex, and metacommentary. Data were managed using the qualitative analysis computer program NUDIST 4.0 (Richards & Richards, 1997). Two researchers coded randomly selected segments of transcripts in order to establish reliability. When agreement rates on codes and segments reached 80%, interviews were coded by individual researchers. In Vivo Analysis (IVA, also VCA; Milbrath, Ohlson, & Eyre, 2009), a method for qualitative analysis adapted from grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), was used for the in-depth analysis of passages to which the individual code of “infidelity” was applied. A multiracial team of three analysts with backgrounds in text analysis and advanced degrees in anthropology, psychology, and public health prepared for each IVA session by independently reading sections of the infidelity-coded transcripts. Over the course of 2 months, analysts continually identified, defined, and documented the structure of concepts drawn from the text and the models these concepts appeared to represent. In vivo concepts were recorded in a series of analytic memos written by each analyst following each group analysis session. Cultural models of infidelity repeated across the reviewed materials were identified from the analytic memos (see examples in Eyre, Auerswald, Hoffman, & Millstein, 1998; Eyre, Hoffman, & Millstein, 1998).
The IVA method differs from grounded theory analysis in that it does not develop a system of analyst-generated categories but instead interprets the interview text using participants’ in vivo concepts in an effort to represent their cognitions with the least distortion and make explicit the models a given group uses to interpret the social world and guide behavior. IVA is similar to grounded theory in its use of analytic techniques such as contrasting identified concepts for clarification, dimensionalizing to account for multiple meanings of complex concepts, and theoretical sampling of concepts for repetition and validation (Glaser, 1978).
Results
Relationship and Infidelity Behavior
The following data were obtained from the survey of demographic and relationship variables. On the average, females reported having fewer main partners in their life (n = 71, M = 4.6, SD = 3.2) than males (n = 72, M = 6.5, SD = 5.8). Over half of the females (65%) as well as males (63%) reported they were in a main relationship. Of those in a main relationship, 41% of females and 28% of males had been together 2 years or more. Of those currently in a main relationship, 37% of females and 57% of males stated they had sex with a side partner during the past month (cheating). Among the 17 females in a main relationship having sex with a side partner during the past month, 2 females had sex with a baby daddy (father of female’s out-of-wedlock child), 10 females had sex with booty calls (recurring sexual encounters initiated by late night phone calls), 5 females had sex with one night stands (sex one time only), and 3 females paid for sex. Among the 26 males in a main relationship having sex with a side partner during the past month, 2 males had sex with a baby mama (mother of male’s out-of-wedlock child), 14 males had sex with booty calls, 13 males had sex with one night stands, and 2 males paid for sex. Respondents were able to report having sex with multiple types of side partners within a month.
Supplemental Interview Content
Terms referencing religion (religion, religious, church, and/or God) appeared 31 times during the 144 interviews. The religion references occurred across only 3 participants, potentially indicating a minimal relevance of religion to the topic of infidelity in our sample. One participant discussed a disapproval of premartial sex based on religious grounds. The other 2 participants condemned gay relationships based on religious grounds. Also indicative of a lack of religious orientation, profanity usage was high among the sample with expletives appearing 539 times and appearing in the majority of interviews. Reference to birth control pills also was infrequent. Birth control, the pill, and contraception (not referring to condoms) appeared only 10 times total across 2 participants.
Cultural Models of Infidelity
The prohibition model
One cultural model we discovered concerning infidelity/cheating relates to the prohibition of side relationships among participants in main relationships. The prohibition model is shared by both males and females. Stated a female participant,
Sex is . . . somethin’ that you should have, like with a person that you could see yourself spendin’ the rest of your life together, someone that you know you committed to, and that you can trust [to] be faithful [and to be] happy with.
A main relationship is a committed relationship preceded by negotiations in which mutual needs are communicated. Love and trust are cultivated in the relationship. We term the prohibition of side relationships the fidelity agreement. It is each main partner’s responsibility not to cheat on the other. At the outset of the main relationship, the couple enters into a fidelity agreement. The fidelity agreement has certain qualifiers. The first is that the fidelity agreement can be modified by the couple, as this female described:
It could be whatever agreement they made about it: you can talk to somebody, that’s it, just talk to ’em. You could sleep with somebody else. Don’ tell me. You could do both as long as I never find out. Or maybe they might have an open relationship to the point where they might bring [in] somebody else.
Despite the flexibility of modified fidelity agreements, in most cases the couple settles for the default fidelity agreement that prohibits outside sexual behavior for both partners.
The second qualifier of the fidelity agreement is the double standard, a form of gender bias favoring more permissive sexual standards for males. The perceived severity of female and male infidelity varies as a result of this. As a male stated,
We expect our women to be faithful, but we ain’t gotta be faithful like that. Like I’ve been with females who like I cheat on ’em . . . like they’ll still accept me back or whatever. But if a female cheat, . . . there’s no talking. Like, “Go on.”
The exciting sex model
The cultural model of exciting sex involves a belief shared by many participants that sex is more exciting when it takes place outside the main relationship. The exciting sex model is predominantly focused on male behavior but is shared by males and females. According to our participants, the person who cheats is seeking, first, oral sex, and, more generally, freaky sex. (Freaky sex is highly energetic sex that includes unusual locations and sexual positions.) Described a male participant,
The [side] girl might, like, [give you oral sex] mo’, might give you mo’ money or might [have intercourse with you] mo’, goddamn. They might do more stuff, might do more different stuff that the other girl might just not [be] into, right now. . . . Yeah, freakier stuff, . . . she might let you [have anal intercourse with her]. (slang removed)
If a male believes that his main partner is “too good” to perform oral sex, he may seek to preserve her virtue by finding a less worthy partner to perform it. As one male said,
[The main girl] look so good, you so mind-blown by the look, it’s like, “Aww, okay, man. I ain’t gonna make her do that [oral sex].” And you’ll go out and get somebody with low self-esteem that’s gonna do whatever, that never been close to a guy with good rims on his car, good looks. They jumpin’ right in. They doin’ whatever. You know?
This passage reveals that the man perceives himself and his main partner to be of high status while the side partner is of lower status. By performing low-status sexual activities outside the home the male can maintain the high status of his main partner.
Although men were far more vocal about their unmet needs for oral and freaky sex, women also mentioned seeking such sex on the outside:
You care about him, but he may not want to do that right now. . . . If you want oral, “Baby,” he’ll be like, “Nah, baby. That’s somethin’ special. I do wanna wait ’til we get married.” “Look, I can’t wait on you. I need to get this now,” you know what I’m sayin’?
This woman’s sense of urgency resembles the male’s sense of urgency for oral sex in the passages above. Overall, according to this model, those who seek side partners find their unmet sexual needs gratified outside the main relationship.
The side partner management model
Another cultural model related to infidelity concerns the management of side partners by the main partner who cheats. The side partner model is predominantly focused on male behavior but is shared by males and females. As one male stated,
You never let your main girl get too deep in your business that she find out that you got a little sidelines, ’cuz that’ll make her feel like, “Oh, he cheatin’ on me. He don’t even need me!” . . . So you gotta keep them far apart as you can.
The goal of side partner management is to keep the side partner in place and away from the main partner. Some female side partners are cognizant and accepting of their secondary position, as a male explains by vocalizing the female’s position:
I’m not really mad at you ’cuz you got a [main] girl ’cuz I still get my time, whatever I want from you, and I can talk to any other guy in your face, and you can’t get mad because we not entitled to each other.
But it is difficult for some female sides to avoid becoming emotionally attached to the male partner. As a female describes, “You got a learn that he got a girlfriend, ’n that they happy. So you just sleepin’ with him, ’n the only thing you can do is just sleep with him ’n leave it alone.”
We termed this type of side partner an acquiescent side. While acquiescent sides do not interfere with the main relationship, they may find their position stressful. As a female states,
It’s more stress. Because in a relationship, y’all committed. In a sexual relationship, y’all not. So you can’t—if they cheatin’, ’n you get mad, you can’t say nothing. In a relationship, you could say something. In the other one, you can’t. You’ve got to let that thing go.
Some sides who begin as acquiescent transform themselves into sides who want to take the female main partner’s position. The process of catching feelings may trigger such a change. As a female states,
You get attached. You might catch feelings, like maybe you might love the person, or you just might like the sex that good that you don’t wanna give it to nobody. You just want it all to yourself.
A partner who wants to take over the main partner’s position we call an aggressive side. As a male describes,
She could work her way up. . . . Y’all might be having problems. Your sideline’s there; she always there, ya feel me? So eventually you ’n your main separate then that’s when her levels get promoted to where now she’s in the position of being your main. But then there’s always somebody under her.
Factors outside of the male cheater’s control may result in his ending up with a main partner he does not want.
An aggressive female side might also deliberately become pregnant so she can take over the main partner’s position. As a female described,
The girl’ll be like, “Ha, ha, yo’ man got me pregnant. I’m gonna have a baby by yo’ man. . . . Well, I got a part of him. He gonna have to deal with me for life, ’cuz I got his baby.”
The status of having a man’s child or becoming a baby mama is a lifetime appointment. This woman gains more status than even the main partner. A woman who finds out that a side is pregnant may leave and the man may end up with a woman in his life that he did not want because of the child.
Given the propensity of an acquiescent side to transform into an aggressive side, and the difficulty of assessing aggressive sides at the outset of a relationship, any side relationship potentially threatens the main relationship. Once the side partner becomes aware of the cheater’s female main partner she may seek to take her position.
Another way to manage a side partner is to treat them as a main. The side who believes she is a main will be unaware of a competitor and will not disrupt the main relationship. But given that side relationships are often more focused on sex, are unpredictable, and involve a degree of secrecy, how would a side think she is a main? A male cheater explained,
You spendin’ time with her. You take her out. . . . Y’all go out and took her to the beach or whatever and that’s somethin’ that she will remember. . . . You don’t have to spend no money really. You just go downtown and watch fireworks and she’ll remember that for the rest of her life. . . . That’s how they fall.
A gender bias is at play in the side management model. The model is male-focused. Males are more likely than females to have their preferences met in a side relationship. The shortage of relationship-eligible males due to high unemployment, incarceration, and other factors means that females will have more difficulty finding desirable main partners than males (Nelson et al., 2007).
The investigation model
A female advised, “Do research. Just don’t go off the first thing you hear.” Informants revealed various methods for checking up on their partners. For example, a partner’s cell phone can provide clues to infidelity. As a female described,
Okay, his outgoin’ . . . I know for a fact his max is 40. So if I go on his phone and it’s something erased that mean you—somethin’ you didn’t want me to see. . . . And I go to [incoming] text messages. . . . I notice that three days ago it was at 200 and now it’s at 150. Where the text messages at? And you go through outbox. He done sent somethin’. It’s erased. . . . that’s the type of stuff we look for.
The investigation model includes methods used to gather clues and evidence for a possible confrontation and is directly linked to suspicion of infidelity. As a second female described, “Followin’ him around in your car. . . . Make sure you know everywhere he going, day ’n night, make sure he at work, go there and check ’n see is he at work.” A third female explained, “If they think you supposed to be at work they call your job [laugh]. They ride by your house and see is you there. If you ain’t there, they’ll still be callin’ your phone.”
The investigation process appears relentless, determined to exact a price. Once evidence becomes substantial enough to confront a partner, arguments and violence may follow. Male culpability does not necessarily mean defeat, however. As a female describes, “They just get mad, start goin’ off for no reason or they might put the blame on her, try to, like, reverse it to her, talk about, ‘I’m gonna leave you if you don’t stop actin’ like this.’” However, sometimes a relationship does end, as this cautioning male related:
Yeah, boy, don’t cheat. That’ll mess up everything. . . . Don’t do it. . . . You in the door, you doin’ good, . . . sleepin’ good, eatin’ good. Just, having fun like you wanna have sex, getting’ [oral sex]. But you better not cheat, ’cuz that gonna mess up everything.
As this man suggests, the consequences of infidelity may not be considered until a man is investigated and caught and a main relationship is lost.
The condom model
The condom model concerns beliefs as to how to prevent one possible outcome of infidelity, becoming infected with an STI or HIV. The condom model is shared by both males and females. As one male stated, “So therefore, you gotta look at it like, ‘Well, hey, she got that [disease]. In order for me not to give my girl that [disease], I gotta put this piece of plastic between us.’” As a female stated, “Nine times out of ten with the main girlfriend or boyfriend, they’re not usin’ protection.” Infidelity renders the main couple susceptible to disease brought from the outside. With the considerable amount of male (48%) as well as female (23%) infidelity within the last month, there is an ongoing incidence of infection among main partners and a widely recognized imperative to use condoms with side partners. As one male put it, “You can’t forget that you got a girl at home. You gotta know your boundaries. Even though shorty may be pretty, thick, got a nice [buttocks], cute face, but you also gotta know she could be infected.” Infidelity becomes more consequential when condoms have not been used with a side partner.
What are the limitations of the condom model? Few people in this age group use condoms with their main partners (Senn, Carey, Vanable, Coury-Doniger, & Urban, 2009; Yamazaki, Strobino, & Ellen, 2010), and the level of infidelity for both sexes in our sample is high. Safety appears to hinge on the safety of side partner sex, which may include several side partners and may involve high-risk sexual practices. But one female recounted her experience:
I could know that you have a main girl ’n I’m tired of using rubbers and I wanna feel ’cuz I know I ain’t got nothing, and you shouldn’t have nothing either, so we gonna have sex. ’N, shoot, we’ll find out if you got something, and if I got something. And my man gonna find [out] about us cheatin’ too.
This is simple gambling: the person believes she is disease-free and reasons that her intended partner is probably clean as well.
The condom model is important to the constellation of infidelity models in part because disease and pregnancy are real-life indicators of infidelity. If a side partner becomes pregnant it also becomes obvious that the main partner has been unfaithful and has not used a condom. As one female described, “If I’m your wife or if I’m your woman, . . . [the babies we have] should be our babies.” In part because of disease and pregnancy, infidelity/cheating is often the cause of the breakup of main relationships. Similar to the exciting sex model, the condom model is balanced across genders with males and females having similar detection-avoiding motivations for condom use.
Discussion
Our research revealed five cultural models related to infidelity each of which was found to be shared by participants and offers a way of thinking about side sexual partnerships. The prohibition model provides an overarching conceptual framework of fidelity that defines unfaithful behavior. The exciting sex model explains criteria used to select side partners and provides a rationale for infidelity. The side partner management model offers a paradigm for limiting the intensity of side partner relationships and keeping a main partner and a side partner apart. The investigation model offers a paradigm for gathering evidence and identifying a main partner’s side partners. The condom model offers a paradigm, albeit inadequately followed, for avoidance of HIV, STIs, and out-of-relationship pregnancy in order to conceal infidelity when participating in side-partner sex.
Cultural models of infidelity are interrelated. The prohibition model informs all other models by establishing the construct of infidelity. However, the construct of infidelity is challenged by the exciting sex and the side partner management models, both of which are oriented toward finding sex outside the main relationship. The exciting sex model establishes the motivation that drives the side partner management model. The reality of side partner sex is reconciled with the prohibition model through concealment of side partner sex, which creates an illusion of monogamy. When this illusion fails, the investigation model indicates consequences. The condom model derives its motivational force from all other models and supports maintaining the illusion of monogamy. It does not advocate condom use in the main relationship, which would create suspicion of infidelity, but instead advocates condom use in side relationships in part to conceal infidelity from the main partner. In this way, the prohibition model is not contradicted in appearance, only in fact.
There are also gender differences in social problem solving based on the models. The exciting sex model and the side partner management models are more male-focused. The investigation model is predominantly female-focused. However, all models are likely to be used by either sex as they seek to understand and react to opposite sex behavior.
Religion is influential in the African American community and increased religious involvement is associated with decreased sexual involvement and risk behavior (McCree, Wingood, DiClemente, Davies, & Harrington, 2003). However, we found minimal evidence of religious thinking with respect to infidelity in our findings. Farmer et al. (2009) found that individuals’ support of religious doctrine predicted behavior only among certain subsets of the religious population. Additionally, Steinman and Zimmerman (Steinman & Zimmerman, 2004) found a waning religious attendance and influence on sexual behavior as African American adolescents moved into young adulthood. Future research may investigate how the models we have reported are perceived by individuals with greater religious involvement.
Evidence supporting the promotion of side condom use
Over the past 10 years, concurrency has become a widely used construct in HIV/STI research to refer to overlapping sexual partners (Adimora, Schoenbach, & Floris-Moore, 2009). These partners could be any number of types (e.g., onetime partners, casual partners, paying partners, baby daddies/mamas, side partners, main partners, etc.). Contrarily, infidelity implies that one sexual partner is a main, primary partner. Concurrency does not indicate a distinction between main, side, and casual partnerships although African American emerging adult thinking about sexual partnerships does, according to our findings. Concurrency is thus, in our view, not an adequate construct with which to characterize the sexual cognition of African American emerging adults (e.g. Carey et al., 2008). Concurrency is inherently noncultural, blurring important distinctions that this group makes about their sexual partnerships. Several researchers have argued that HIV prevention would be more effective if constructs used to design interventions were tailored to the social and cultural beliefs of target populations (DiClemente et al., 2009; Prather et al., 2006; Wyatt, 2009).
We believe that the models revealed in this study suggest several adjustments that could be incorporated into existing or future HIV/STI interventions to increase effectiveness with African American emerging adults. Overall, there is strong resistance among African American emerging adults to using condoms in main relationships (Yamazaki et al., 2010). There is a sense of obligation, albeit not backed by action, to consistently use condoms with side partners. It is likely that an HIV/STI intervention would be more congruent with low- to low-mid-SES African American culture if it promoted consistent condom use with side partners and did not seek to promote condom use in the main relationship. This is provided that (1) it is recognized that important perceived risks of noncondom use in side partnerships are not health related, (2) individuals are encouraged to commit to changing risky behaviors, and (3) individuals are encouraged to seek and enact solutions directed at risky activities (Catania, Kegeles, & Coates, 1990). Such interventions could be more effective than interventions that focus on concurrency rather than the distinction between main partner and side partner sexual partnerships (Dejong, Wolf, & Austin, 2001; Horner et al., 2008). Facing numerous obstacles, existing approaches to intervention have struggled to alter high rates of HIV and STI infection in this population (Hall et al., 2009).
The prohibition model
The prohibition model highlights the barriers associated with encouraging condom use in main relationships. The fidelity agreement establishes the inappropriateness of condom use in main relationships; since neither partner should be having sex outside the relationship there should be no possibility of catching an illness after initial testing. Although partners, especially females, may be aware that infidelity can occur, the existence of the agreement makes advocating condom use in the main relationship equivalent to an accusation or confession of infidelity. Thus, condom use with side partners becomes a more likely behavioral change than condom use with a main partner.
The exciting sex model
This model highlights the sometimes high-risk nature of “freaky,” side partner sex, specifically its inclusion of oral and anal sex, which are less likely to involve condom use among African American emerging adults than vaginal sex (Houston, Fang, Husman, & Peralta, 2007). These types of sexual relationships are often not the main focus of mass media campaigns targeted at African American emerging adults, which instead focus on respecting one’s partner, waiting to have sex until a relationship is serious, and consistent vaginal sex condom use (Romer et al., 2009). While such radio and TV campaigns have been shown to successfully reach their intended audience, our findings suggests that the audience’s most high-risk sexual activity (inconsistent condom use during “freaky” side sex) may be going unmentioned.
The side partner management model
Of the models discovered, the side partner management model potentially provides the strongest support for promoting side partner condom use. In side partner relationships, condoms are essential to avoiding the self-incrimination that comes with bringing an STI or baby obtained from a concealed side relationship to the attention of a main partner. We recommend that more interventions take advantage of an opportunity to link individuals’ strong intrinsic motivations to avoid discovery of side relationships with consistent condom use. We recommend that risk-reduction interventions consider campaign messages that specifically advocate condom use with side partners as a means to protect main relationship partners and the main relationship itself. Additionally, males could be encouraged to refuse to have sex without condoms in side partnerships to disrupt the attempts of aggressive sides to become pregnant and assume the title of main partner. While males’ primary motivation may be focused on preventing pregnancy, the use of a condom would simultaneously offer both partners some protection against HIV/STIs.
The investigation model
Main partners (especially women) frequently suspect infidelity and are active in their efforts to exercise control of their relationships. This suspicion may originate from previous experience with cheating or from cultural knowledge. While partners investigating possible cheating may do so primarily to protect the main relationship, investigation indirectly reduces the noncheating partner’s risk of being exposed to HIV/STIs that the cheating partner might contract from a side.
HIV/STI prevention programs may increase condom use among men in side relationships by acknowledging the female suspicion of cheating. Campaigns that stress the negative consequences of inconsistent condom use may choose to include the dissolution of the actual main relationship among the long-term consequences of acquiring an STI or child from a side partnership. Programs also might place more stress on the dangers of sustaining a main relationship with a cheating partner.
The condom model
The condom model is of particular interest since it is a template for at-risk persons’ efforts to prevent STIs, HIV, and unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps most striking about this model is the deviation from two traditional motivations for condom use: avoiding HIV/STIs and preventing pregnancy (Foulkes, Pettigrew, Livingston, & Niccolai, 2009; Senn et al., 2009). In our sample, participants did report using condoms to avoid HIV/STIs and pregnancy, but more often than not this avoidance was accompanied by a strong belief that HIV/STI infection and pregnancy were undesireable because they would reveal acts of infidelity; this was especially the case with males. As was the case with the other models, condom use within a main relationship is not advocated by participants. These findings support efforts to promote condom use among side relationships by capitalizing on the strong intrinsic motivation to conceal infidelity.
Our findings and intervention recommendations relate to an alarming result observed in HIV/AIDS prevention literature that finds urban, emerging adult African Americans aware of the possibility of HIV/STI infection and unplanned pregnancy, but not vigilant about prevention (The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009). The findings of a national poll by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2009) reported that while African Americans were more “personally concerned about becoming infected with HIV” than other ethnic groups, among African Americans ages 18 to 29, 47% were still “not too concerned” or “not at all concerned” about HIV. Our participants recognize they are personally vulnerable to HIV/STI infection and that any partner, even a highly desirable one, may have an STI, but alone this has not been enough to inspire condom use. The condom model suggests that linking condom use to successful concealment of infidelity may increase condom use among individuals unmoved by traditional HIV prevention messages.
Future Directions
Our research suggests that shared models of social behavior are identifiable in this population and reflect a well-articulated system of social roles and interactive behaviors of relevance to an understanding of HIV/STI transmission. An advantage of vernacular term interview data is that it provides participant explanations of behavior. Another strength of this research is that we drew our sample from multiple sites to offset site-specific bias. Nonetheless, this study employed only convenience samples of low- to low-mid-SES African American emerging adults. Partially offsetting this, the study has a large sample size for qualitative research but future work is needed to confirm our findings with the population of low SES African American emerging adults. There is also always the possibility of interviewer bias in qualitative research. We addressed this through intensive interviewer training at the University of California, San Francisco and weekly Internet- and video-enabled interviewer supervision.
We believe that the strengths of this study outweigh its limitations. More research, however, both qualitative and quantitative, needs to be conducted to understand the role of cultural models in determining risky behavior among at risk populations and to point to areas amenable to culturally informed intervention. It should be noted that African Americans also face structural factors beyond an individual’s control such as economic conditions, violence, and a sex-ratio imbalance that all contribute to placing them at a higher risk for HIV/STI. These factors should continue to be considered in intervention design with cultural models (see Adimora & Schoenbach, 2002).
Culturally based interventions have proven effective in influencing at-risk populations resistant to traditional campaigns, most notably young, urban African Americans (DiClemente et al., 2009). Our findings suggest that the distinction between main and side relationships is a critical factor in the relationships of urban, emerging adult African Americans and potentially key to culturally based approaches with this population. Our findings provide evidence that individuals with a main partner may not treat their side partners the same way individuals without a main partner treat their casual sex partners.
Many intervention efforts, especially extensive clinical and community interventions, address infidelity in relationships and condom use with all partners. However, not all programs directly address the difference in main and side partner status (DiClemente, Salazar, & Crosby, 2007). We feel this is a consequential difference. Our findings suggest that individuals in this population utilize elaborate cultural models that feature caveats for several generalizations. Our participants reported a knowledge of the importance of condom use all the time but acknowledged several exceptions, for example with a side partner you would like to make a main partner. Intervention programs that do not explicitly recommend condom use in these qualified situations may be missing an opportunity to influence their audience. Public service campaigns may be particularly susceptible to a tendency to generalize in their efforts to maximize the applicability of a message. DeJong et al.’s (2001) review of U.S. federally funded public service campaigns found that television advertisements aimed at HIV prevention and condom use lacked information about why individuals failed to use condoms (such as concern about sexual pleasure) and focused too heavily on general messages. DeJong argued that messages stating that everyone was at risk made individuals in higher risk populations underestimate their risk level. Similarly, we argue that campaigns that explicitly address the way risk is manifested in main and side relationships are key to conveying a prevention message to this audience. For example, The Office of Minority Health’s “Act against AIDS” campaign web site features five sets of campaign materials available to its audience. None of the five mention side partners specifically (Office of Minority Health, 2011).
Noar’s (2006, p. 5) meta-analysis of health, mass media campaigns found that public health campaigns are most effective when following several basic tenets, including segmenting of the audience into “meaningful subgroups” and using “a message design approach that is targeted to and likely to be effective with the audience segment.” Our results suggest applying these guidelines to HIV/AIDS prevention with African American emerging adults and the infidelity that brings high levels of risk into their romantic relationships. New interventions built on the cultural models in this population that acknowledge side relationships and stress condom use within them may prove a more effective weapon against the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank community agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA, Chicago, IL, and Greater Birmingham, AL that generously allowed us to interview their clients, and they thank the youth who participated. They also extend their appreciation to Elonda Bates, Mohammed Abdulla, Frankia Granberry, Besheer Mohamed, Clara Kamunde, and Malcolm Hoover, who conducted the interviews. They also thank Colette Auerswald, Robert Garofalo, Shirley Robinson Hankins, and Amy Johnson for their contributions to the research. They thank Susan G. Millstein for her contribution to the research and her comments on an earlier draft of this article. They thank Emily Arnold and Marguerita Lightfoot for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project described was supported by Award Number R01HD051438 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.