COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

Communicative Infidelity: Talking is cheating

Max Martin
University of Kentucky

Abstract
Childers et al. (2011) studied the phenomenon of how sexting and infidelity on the internet is
growing rapidly. They took a sample size of 5,187 people for their study and explored how
people use the internet to find partners. The experiment was designed to help married people find
other potentially married people for sexual activity. In Cravens et al. (2013) they composed a
four question diagram composed of 90 Facebook infidelity stories that have taken place during
the last year. Their diagram shows the similarities each cheater did in the beginning phase, during

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

and post cheating phase. The diagram was composed of the following: What is the experience of
nonparticipating partners when their partners have engaged in infidelity behaviors on Facebook?,
what are the basic social processes that occur when discovering the infidelity behaviors?, what
are the basic psychological processes that occur? And last what similarities or differences exist
between the current research on offline and online infidelity and the process model from the
current study. Derby et al. (2012) introduced the growing obsession called snooping which is
when one partner looks through the others personal belongings when they are not present,
usually electronic based such as: text messages, e-mails, facebook messages and twitter
messages. Derby created a 42 item Internet questionnaire was completed by 268 undergraduates
at the University of Tennessee. In the study by Hackathorn et al. (2011) it revealed that at least
30% of the on-line population visits sexual web sites in a year and that at least 12 million people
use the internet for sexual pleasures that range from viewing nude photographs to masturbating
while chatting. The article shows a very interesting finding regarding intergroup and out group
double standards that men will tend to judge the opposite sex more harshly and vice versa that
women tend to judge men more harshly. Jones et al. (2012) discussed four major dimensions and
how each one can lead to infidelity occurring on line: Looking for someone, the amount of time
spent on the internet, speed and accessibility and finally exposure to it. In the article by
Schneider et al. (2012) it discusses the emotional reactions of those affected by Internet, text and
other forms or social mediated infidelity. This article is unique because it analyzes 35 different
stories of infidelity and how the people affected by it are coping with it and moving forward.
Some of the stories show that the partners are trying to work through the issues while some have
ended and move on.
Literature Review

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

Communicative infidelity is the easiest and most simplistic form of infidelity because it
does not require individuals to engage in physical contact and can hide behind the mask of ideal
selves. Childres (2011) showed the findings of the study showed that females are more likely to
engage in sexting and communicative infidelity behavior on the internet than males are. The
second finding suggests that older males are more prone to engage in this behavior than younger
males. This corresponds with Hackathorn (2011) study showing the harsher reaction towards
females than males in response to computer mediated infidelity because of the stereotypes that
exist in our culture. This study is important because it provides not only statistics on how many
people are engaging in infidelity but the reactions and how society is judging these behaviors
which I believe has an impact on the future deciding whether to engage in this activity because
of the consequences associated with it. The study also mentions that with nearly one third of our
population engaging in the participation of visiting sexual websites, as accessibility to these sites
becoming easier and easier not only to teenagers and the younger demographic but to middle
aged married men and women as seen by the findings in Childres (2011). What can help explain
this troubling growing trend is in Jones (2012) study describing his 4 categories. These are very
interesting because it attempts to say not everyone who engages in communicative infidelity on
the internet starts down the path by seeking it. Two of his dimensions: the amount of time spent
on the internet and exposure to infidelity look to show how people may not be seeking these
actions but because of time and resources the internet provides could progressively start
triggering curiosity and lead to these actions. I believe this article helps me to further understand
the driving force behind computer mediated infidelity and how it originates as well as possible
ways to avoid it for people not intentionally seeking it. Cravens (2013) the sample size of 90
people is not overwhelming yet a broad enough range considering the difficulty in getting true

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

accurate accounts of infidelity on social media. Their findings through the diagram shows
sufficient evidence that their 4 part questionnaire is accurate. I feel as though this article can
provide vital evidence for communicative infidelity due to the fact that infidelity that takes place
over social media is communicative. It also shows how people begin to engage, how they
attempt to keep these affairs secret and how they are ultimately caught in the end. The trouble
with trying to keep these affairs a secret and leads to them being caught is the growing trend of
snooping. Derby (2012) provided the findings revealed that 66% of the questioned students have
participated in snooping and that nearly 20% of those who havent have debated it but not had
the opportunity, couldnt gain access or decided against it. Other findings from this survey
showed that as a result of snooping nearly twice as many relationships worsened, 28%, than
improved, 18%. Schneider (2012) showed regardless if the relationship is terminated or
continued some of the lasting consequences all the stories have in common are that they can lose
trust in their loved ones, feel the need to seek assistance and identify themselves as victims of
trauma.
I believe that reviewing these findings will help illustrate my belief that as technology
advances it will only provide more and more opportunities for infidelity to occur in couple and as
a result be the driving force of more divorces and lower marriage rates in the future. To limit
these cases we need to strive to lower the amount of hours we spend on line outside or work so
we are not exposed to these opportunities. Make access to these sites more difficult to gain entry
discouraging users away from them. As a community gain a common unbiased view of people
who engage in infidelity. And finally, put a stop to the snooping trend which leads to paranoia
and deteriorates relationships. I believe that the combination of these steps will drive
communicative infidelity down.

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

Common Themes
Childres (2011) was the starting point of my research because it analyzed data to show the
growing trend of infidelity and how they find their partners. From there I found an article by
Jones (2012) which broke down the starting point of infidelity categorically into four
dimensions: Looking for someone, the amount of time spent on the internet leading to infidelity,
speed and accessibility to find infidelity and finally exposure to it. Because infidelity is on such a
rise it has lead to several phenomenons like Darbys (2011) snooping which shows the
publics awareness of growing infidelity problems and belief that the opposite sex is composed
of more cheaters than their own. Very similar to this was Hackathorn (2011) study which showed
the double standard, when members of one sex tend to judge the opposite sex more harshly than
their own, and how the study went on to show that people also tend to hold a negative image of
the opposite sex believing that they cheat more frequently than their own. All of these articles
hold a direct cause and effect relationship with one another leading from one to the other. The
similarities included all articles showing an increase in infidelity in our society, the image of the
opposite sex engaging in infidelity more than their own which leaves us wondering if we are in
fact in a relationship involving infidelity. The four categories in Jones (2012) article are the
gateway to infidelity behavior which occur in the other articles and is what ties them all together.
Works Cited
Childers C., Wysocki D. (2011). let my fingers do the talking. sexting and infidelity in
cyberspace, 15(3), 217-239. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9091-4
Cravens J., Leckie K., Whiting J., (2013). Facebook infidelity: When poking becomes
problematic. 35(1), 74-90. doi: 10.1007/s10591-012-9231-5
Derby K., Easterling B., Knox D. (2012). Snooping in romantic relationships. 46(2), 333-343.
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uky.edu/ehost/detail?
vid=12&sid=c72dd56e-657f-4f74-92fd-

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

7113f4852aff@sessionmgr15&hid=12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT
1zaXRl
Hackathorn J., Harvey R. (2011). Sexual double standards: Bias in perceptions of cyberinfidelity. 15(1), 100-113. doi: 10.1007/s12119-010-9082-x
Jones K., Herylein k. (2012). Four key dimensions for distinguishing internet infidelity from
internet and sex addiction: Concepts and clinical application. 40(2), 115-125. doi:
10.1080/01926187.2011.600677
Schneider J., Samenow C., Weiss R. (2012). Is it really cheating? Understanding the emotional
reactions and clinical treatment of spouses and partners affected by cybersex infidelity.
19(1/2), 123-139. doi: 10.1080/10720162.2012.658344
Spitzberg, B. (2011). The dark side of close relationships ii. New York City: Taylor & Francis.