Attachment and Infedility in Romantic Relationships

The Relation of Attachment to Infidelity in Romantic Relationships: An Exploration of Attachment Style, Perception of Partner's Attachment Style, Relationship Satisfaction,
Relationship Quality and Gender Differences in Sexual Behaviors
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty

of
The Gordon F. Demer Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies Adelphi University
In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
by Alexis B. Cohen December, 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3213084 Copyright 2006 by Cohen, Alexis B.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3213084 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
11
Morris Eagle, Ph.D. Mark Hilsenroth, Ph.D. Janice Steil, Ph.D......... Dorothea Hays, Ed.D. -
Dissertation Committee Chairperson Committee member Committee member ........... Reader
HI
Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my family. Thank you for all of your love and support. Without you, this would not have been possible. I love you very much. I would like to thank Morris Eagle for his many insights into the nature of attachment theory. I would also like to acknowledge my committee for all of their feedback and willingness to help me develop this study to its fullest potential. Many thanks to Jeff, for seven years of mentoring and support. Infinite thanks for your statistical help and "pirated" copy of SPSS. This project truly would not be what it is without you. Your unwavering faith in me and my potential have been inspirational. You really are my biggest fan. To "the best class in fifteen years" (you know who you are), for sharing this amazing journey with me. Your kindness, brilliance and diversity have brought so much to my life. You are my home away from home. To my dear friend Darshana Lele, whose love and support have carried me through this program. A person could not ask for a better friend. You have been my sanity, my sounding board, my shoulder to cry on, my friend and my sister. I love you in ways for which there are no words. Finally, to Nat, for all of your love, patience and consistent encouragement. I never would have made it through without you. Thank you.
IV
Table of Contents Dissertation Committee Acknowledgements List of Tables I. Abstract II Statement of Purpose . Il . Review of the l Literature I . Research Questions V V Methods . Subjects Procedure Measures V . Results I 35 27 33 33 35 35 40 VII. Discussion and Conclusions Limitations to Study and Future Research Clinical Applications References Appendices A. Informed Consent B. Close Relationships Questionnaire C. Dyadic Adjustment Scale 72 82 83 86 95 ii iii vi-vii 1
D. Inventory of Interpersonal Problems - 32 E. Marlowe-Crowne Scale F. Scale of Relational Infidelity (SORI)
VI
List of Tables 2) Coefficient Alphas and Item-to-Scale Correlations for the SORI 3) Means and Standard Deviations for 23 Scales 4) Relationships between Social Desirability and 25 Variables 5) Mean Differences in Infidelity Among the Four Attachment Groups 46 39 41 43-44
6) Relationships (Partial Correlations) between Infidelity Subscales and Total Score and Attachment Subscales 7) Relationships (Bivariate Correlations) between Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score and Infidelity Subscales and Total Score 50 47
8) Relationships (Partial Correlations) between Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score and Infidelity Subscales and Total Score 51
9) Means and Standard Errors for Four Attachment Groups on Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score 10)Relationships between Total and DAS Subscales and Anxiety and Avoidance Partialing out Social Desirability 55 53
11)Means and Standard Errors for Men and Women on Infidelity Subscales and Total Score 12)Means and Standard Errors for Perception of Partner's Attachment Style on the Four SORI Variables and Total 60 57
vii. 12. Means and Standard Errors of Infidelity for Self Attachment Groups by Perception of Partner's Attachment Style (Partialing Social Desirability) 62
13)Relationships between Infidelity Subscales and IIP Subscales Partialing out Social Desirability 64 14)Relationships between Attitudes toward Infidelity and Actual Infidelity Partialing out Social Desirability 66 15)Relationships between IIP Subscales and Dyadic Adjustment and IIP Subscales and Dimensions of Attachment 69
1 Abstract The following study explored the link between one's attachment style and infidelity. Participants for the study consisted of 154 male and female undergraduate and graduate students at Adelphi University, enrolled in a psychology course. Students were administered the following self report measures: Experiences in Close Relationships, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems and Scale of Relational Infidelity, to assess attachment style, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality and infidelity, respectively. Additionally, participants were given a measure of social desirability (Marlowe Crowne) to assess the extent to which they might give socially acceptable responses rather than responses authentic to their experience. A series of univariate analyses of covariance, bivariate and partial correlations and t-tests were used to analyze the data. Findings show that securely attached cheat less and are more satisfied in their relationships than their insecurely attached counterparts. Being more satisfied in a romantic relationship was also linked with less likelihood toward infidelity. Four types of infidelity (fantasy, foray, emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity) were examined in this study. The only significant difference between men and women in type of infidelity they chose to commit was sexual infidelity, which men tended to engage in more than women. Moreover, men and women held similar views about what constituted infidelity and the more freedom they gave their partner to engage in unfaithful behaviors, the more likely they were to engage in those same behaviors. In a similar vein, all four attachment groups (secure, enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive, avoidant-fearful) tended to engage in the same types of infidelity. Also, participants cheated most often when perceiving partners to be enmeshed-preoccupied or avoidant-fearful. Finally, relationship quality was not predictive of infidelity. Findings suggest that helping the couple to explore their maladaptive cyclical relational patterns, or how what occurred in their families of
origin is being re-enacted with one another can help partners to communicate and work through their hurts, anxieties and disappointments rather than turning to another for comfort.
Chapter 1 Statement of the Purpose The primary thrust of this study was an exploration of the linkage between attachment pattern and infidelity. The relation between the two is important for several reasons. As far as adult attachment pattern is concerned, one might expect a relationship between attachment style and various aspects of a romantic relationship (longevity, satisfaction). Infidelity poses a threat to the longevity of a romantic relationship, as well as to the ability to form a meaningful romantic relationship. If individuals with particular kinds of attachment patterns are more predisposed to behaving unfaithfully, attachment pattern too, becomes an indirect threat to the longevity of the relationship. Additionally, attachment style is important to explore, as it reflects an aspect of the individual's comfort in a romantic relationship. The amount of comfort or discomfort one experiences may well be linked to his or her decision to behave unfaithfully. Finally, there is a wealth of literature supporting the relation between attachment style and sexuality. As a result, it is not unlikely to expect that one's attachment pattern may in some way be linked to the proclivity towards infidelity. Therefore, a study of this nature can help predict the fate and limitations of an adult attachment bond. The purpose of this study was to explore the relation between attachment style and infidelity in the context of a monogamous relationship. Fidelity refers to the commitment to be romantically involved exclusively with one's partner in both a physical and emotional sense. Conversely, infidelity refers to a breach of this promise. This study proposed to measure infidelity on a continuum, running the gamut from fantasy, to temptation, to forays, to physical and sexual behaviors. An important aspect of this study is that rather than treating infidelity as a discrete event, it was viewed as a continuum of behavior. A self-report measure of attachment was given,
in order to ascertain whether there is a link between one's attachment style and the likelihood of engaging in romantic extradyadic behavior. Relationship satisfaction and relationship quality, (which will be defined and discussed further at a later point), was also measured, in order to assess whether satisfaction and quality of the relationship are predictors of relational infidelity. These measures not only add an element of interest, but also are a vital part of the study. It makes intuitive sense that more securely attached individuals will have higher quality relationships, as well as experience greater relationship satisfaction. Given this, it is important to show that what is driving infidelity is not only the satisfaction with or the quality of the relationship alone, but perhaps attachment style, as well. Sex differences, in likelihood as well as types of infidelity (I.e. fantasizing about, having sex with or dating someone other than one's current partner) were also examined. Finally, participants' assessment of their partner's attachment style were determined via completion of the same self-report measure of attachment they were given, but this time, answering questions as though they were their partner. This was done in order to assess whether the perception of one's partner's attachment style is in any way linked to the decision to behave unfaithfully. It may well be that perceiving one's partner's attachment style in a particular way may be conducive to being unfaithful.
5 Chapter 2 Review of the Literature What is attachment? Attachment was initially studied by John Bowlby, and later, further elaborated by Mary Ainsworth. Bowlby was responsible for the development of attachment theory, and Ainsworth is credited with creating the methodology to test some crucial tenets of Bowlby's theory (Bretherton, 1992). Bowlby had opened a research unit, where he was able to study the effects that early separation from the mother had on the child. Several years later, Bowlby had read all of the available literature on separation and maternal deprivation and had traveled extensively, in order to gather information for a report eventually published by the World Health Organization. At the same time, Ainsworth found herself interested in the topic of childhood security. She developed her dissertation, which was an examination of the extent to which a person was securely versus insecurely attached. By 1950, the two elected to join forces, in an attempt to study the separation process in young children. What they observed was that when separated from the mother, a young child would pass through the stages of distressed protest, despair and detachment. When reunited with the caregiver, however, the child appeared to be anxious (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). Unable to support his findings via psychoanalytic theory, Bowlby turned to an ethological paradigm, in the hopes of developing his theory. Bowlby eventually published The Nature of A Child's Tie to the Mother (Bowlby, 1958), where he espoused the notion that attachment was the result of genetically based behaviors that mature at various times in the young infant's development. Such behaviors include crying, sucking, smiling, clinging and following. He also addressed the issue of dependence versus attachment behavior. According to Bowlby, the former is passive, whereas the latter is an active attempt by the child to seek out the attachment figure.
6 In his theory, Bowlby posits that the infant experiences anxiety in the absence of his or her caregiver. Anticipatory anxiety can also occur when a dangerous situation or the absence of the attachment figure is apparent or impending. If attachment behavior is frustrated (I.e. the mother is rejecting or the child is separated from the mother for long periods of time), the child may experience hostility toward the mother. When frustration is intense or frequent, primitive defensive processes may be activated, and the child appears indifferent to the mother (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). Today, such an observation would be referred to as avoidant attachment. While Bowlby was deriving his theory, Ainsworth traveled to Uganda, where she studied babies, and observed that they actively sought contact with the mother, as well as appeared to use the mother as a secure base for exploring the environment. From this study, she divided the babies into three attachment categories. The securely attached babies were those who cried very little, unless separated from their mother. The insecurely attached babies cried often, even in the presence of the mother. Lastly, Ainsworth spoke of a group of babies, who were left alone for long periods of time by unresponsive mothers. She referred to this group as nonattached. What she noted was that all three types reflected the mother's availability and responsiveness to infant behavioral signals (Ainsworth, 1967). Shortly thereafter, Ainsworth and Wittig (1969) conducted the Strange Situation research. The Strange Situation is a twenty-minute experiment, involving eight episodes. In the Strange Situation, the mother and infant are placed in a lab playroom, where they are shortly, joined by a stranger. While the stranger plays with the baby, the mother leaves briefly and then returns. In the next scenario, the baby is left completely alone. Following, the stranger returns, and in a later episode, the mother returns. The purpose of such research was to observe the balance of attachment and exploratory behavior during periods of high and low stress. Another unique piece
of the strange situation is that in addition to identifying secure and insecure infants, the experiment further divided insecure attachment into avoidant attachment, defined as an appearance of indifference toward the caregiver, and ambivalent-resistant attachment, described as a vacillation between clinging attachment behaviors and noticeable anger toward the caregiver. Further research has demonstrated that mothers who consistently and appropriately responded to infant's cries, had secure infants, as rated at one-year of age (Ainsworth & Bell, 1969). Moreover, secure babies responded positively not only to being comforted, but also to being put down. These babies also tended to use their mother as a secure base for exploring the environment (Bell & Ainsworth, 1972). Although after one-year, separation anxiety is noticeable, secure babies cry less over time upon separation from the caregiver, indicating that they have built an internal working model of their mothers, from which to draw upon when stressed. These same infants respond happily when reunited with their mothers (Stayton, Ainsworth, & Main, 1973). Attachment in the Infant-Caregiver Dyad Over the next few decades, mother-infant attachment and the manner in which this attachment style could be applied to adult attachment became topics that were widely studied. By just a brief observation of child-parent reunion at age six, attachment style of the infant to the mother from infancy could be largely predicted. This study took place over the course of several years. In the first year of life, infant-caregiver attachment was assessed. A team of independent judges were brought in five years later to observe the reunion between mother and child and to rate the style of attachment they perceived to be present in the dyadic interaction. Among the findings, all children who were rated as secure at one-year of age were judged to be secure at age six, six of eight avoidant children were rated as avoidant at age six, and eight of twelve insecure-
disorganized/disoriented children were evaluated as controlling at age six (Main & Cassidy, 1988). Researchers Hazan and Shaver (1988) took Ainsworth's attachment patterns and created adult equivalents, using questionnaires and developing attachment types to correlate with Ainsworth's categories of attachment style. Much like in Ainsworth's theory, the labels secure and avoidant were maintained. The anxious-ambivalent, however, are classified as enmeshed-preoccupied, speaking to their desire to merge completely with another and the constant ruminations about being abandoned by their partner. Hazan and Shaver maintain that there exists a connection between infancy attachment and exploration and adult love and work, respectively. As expected, with respect to work, secure attachment was shown to be positively correlated with job satisfaction, security with coworkers and opportunities for learning. While high job security and opportunities for learning through one's work was positively correlated with avoidant attachment, avoidantly attached individuals also evidenced dissatisfaction with their coworkers. This finding is not surprising, as avoidantly-attached individuals, by definition, avoid closeness with attachment figures. Therefore, it is plausible that this avoidant style of attachment may spill over into other interpersonal relationships. Anxious-ambivalent, or enmeshed-preoccupied adults experienced low job security and feelings of being under-appreciated, consistent with their attachment style. Findings regarding romantic love were also consistent among the attachment styles, with secures valuing love over work, avoidants valuing work over love and enmeshed-preoccupied experiencing love concerns as interfering with work and as causing them more pain than work (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Another piece of John Bowlby's theory was that children internalize experiences with their attachment figures, such that early attachment relations form a prototype for later relationships
outside of the family. Two features of this internal working model are the image of the self and the image of other. The former taps whether the self is the type of person to whom the attachment figure would be inclined to respond, whereas the latter concerns whether that attachment figure is likely to respond to calls for help and support. Based upon these two aspects of this internal working model, attachment theory could be expanded to include four styles. Individuals who have a positive image of self and others are classified as securely attached. Those who have a positive view of others, but negative view of the self are deemed preoccupied. Avoidant attachment is further teased apart to encompass two styles: avoidant-dimissing (those who have a positive view of self, but negative image of others), and avoidant-fearful (individuals who view self and others negatively) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). When the existence of these four categories was tested, results showed that there were indeed, four separate categories. Securely attached rated high on warmth, balance of control in friendships, level of involvement in romantic relationships, coherence, intimacy and self-confidence. Dismissing individuals displayed high self-confidence, low emotional expressiveness, low frequency of crying and little warmth. Preoccupied persons scored opposite results of the dismissives in almost every respect, which is understandable, as the two types are polar opposites. (Dismissives view self positively and others negatively, and preoccupieds view self negatively and others positively). Lastly, fearfuls scored lower than secures and preoccupieds on intimacy, self-disclosure, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others and use of others as a secure base when upset (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Some research has sought to incorporate the role of the father into attachment theory, in order to ascertain whether the attachment figure is solely the mother, or if the infant-father dyad can affect the child's attachment style. Findings seem to indicate that while the role of the mother tends to be central in the attachment relationship, attachment style can be predicted from the
10
infant-father relationship. In one study, slightly more clearly secure infant-mother dyads than infant-father dyads were observed. A secure child at one-year of age was best predicted by a positive infant-father dyad at three months of age, a positive father report about the infant and positive attitude about the parental role. With respect to the infant-mother dyad, physical affection and more time spent with the infant at three months, was most predictive of a securely attached child at one-year (Cox, Owen, Henderson, Margand, 1992). In another study by Levy, Blatt, and Shaver (1998), attachment style was correlated with undergraduates' descriptions of their parents. Securely attached participants represented mothers and fathers as more benevolent and less punitive than any other attachment style. Ambivalence expressed toward mothers was higher in anxious-ambivalent men than in men of any other attachment style. Interestingly, ambivalence in women was highest in the avoidant subtype, followed by the anxious-ambivalent subgroup and finally, by the securely attached. Additional research has explored child fearfulness and attachment, mother's representations of their relationships with their infants and emotional availability and attachment representations. At 13 to 15 months of age, child security versus insecurity can be predicted from observing the interactions that take place in the mother-infant dyad (maternal sensitivity, responsiveness to the infant, etc.). However, what was most predictive of infant insecure attachment was whether or not the child displayed fear in the strange situation, as well as the level of arousal (high or low) present in the child. Results demonstrated that resistant, highly aroused children were more fearful than avoidant, less-aroused children (Kochanska, 1998). On the Adult Attachment Interview [AAI] (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984) a semi-structured interview of parent-child attachment, mothers classified as autonomous, or independent and secure, scored highest on the joy-pleasure- coherence dimension of the Parent Development Interview [PDI] (Aber, Slade,
11 Berger, Bresgi, & Kaplan, 1985), measuring the mother's ability to experience her interactions with her child as pleasurable as well as her capacity to coherently describe rich, positive and flexible representations of her relationship with her child. This contrasted with those mothers categorized as dismissing, who scored highest on the anger dimension of the PDI. Mothers scoring high on the former dimension displayed more positive and less negative mothering (Slade, Belsky, Aber, Phelps, 1999). In a Kibbutz study of the mother-infant dyad, secure infants more so than insecure infants were more responsive to and involving of mothers in play interaction and had more sensitive and more secure mothers. Further, an insecure mother-infant dyad was shown to be linked to poorer emotional availability. Finally, home-sleeping infants tended to have both more sensitive mothers and received more maternal structuring than did infants living on a kibbutz (Aviezer, Sagi, Joels, & Ziv, 1999). Such research lends credibility to the existence of the infant -caregiver attachment relationship. However, additional literature is required, in order to demonstrate that a similar mechanism may be operative in adult romantic relationships. Attachment in Adult Romantic Relationships The idea of continuity between childhood attachment and adult attachment has been postulated by theorists, though is still in debate (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). From a theoretical standpoint, however, there is a large body of research that suggests that one's attachment style and the impulse to behave unfaithfully may well be inextricably intertwined. John Bowlby was the first theorist to suggest that attachment and the sexual systems were related. The sexual system is involved in the act of mating and reproduction. Although the simple sexual act may be enough to ensure the production of progeny, clearly it does not guarantee that the offspring will thrive and flourish. The notion of transmittal of one's genes to successive generations not only entails the production of offspring, but also caring for them to
12 ensure that they survive to reproductive age. The likelihood of this occurring is increased when the parents of the progeny remain together (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Further, research has suggested that while sex and romantic infatuation are driving forces that bring partners together initially, attachment is responsible for the maintenance of that bond (Hazan & Diamond, 2000). While Bowlby wrote primarily about attachment, he intimated that the both sex and attachment were intermingled, opening the door for subsequent theorists to explore such an idea. In the early twentieth century, Freud spoke to the problematic relation between love and sex in individuals who today would be termed avoidantly attached, who appeared to be able to desire where they could not love and love where they could not desire (Freud, 1912). Until more recently, this relation has not been studied in any great detail. In the last decade, however, there has been a virtual explosion in the field of attachment and sexual behavior (Camelley, et al., 1996; Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Feeney & Raphael, 1992; Hazan & Diamond, 2000; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Simpson, 1990). According to Bullough and Bollough (1994), sexuality is present in childhood, and infants who have been carefully and tenderly held in infancy respond favorably to later bodily contact. Moreover, infants who have received appropriate intimate attention from caregivers are more likely to masturbate than those raised by inattentive parents (Spitz, 1949). Numerous researchers have shown that the attachment mechanism present between infant and caregiver operates in much the same way as in the romantic dyad. When a child is separated from the caregiver and an adult is separated from his or her romantic partner, the sequence of protesting, experiencing despair and finally, detaching can be observed. What is of notable importance is that this sequence of affect is present almost exclusively in these two relationships (Hazan & Diamond, 2000, Fraley & Shaver,
13 2000). Additionally, both dyads engage in large amounts of mutual physical face-to-face and skinto-skin contact. Perhaps, however, one of the greatest pieces of evidence in support of the hypothesis that sex and attachment are closely related is the presence of oxytocin exclusively in sexual interactions and the infant-caregiver dyad. Oxytocin is a chemical present during sexual contact that increases along with excitation and is responsible for fostering attachment. Similarly, oxytocin will induce labor in a pregnant mother, and is also responsible for milk letdown in a nursing woman (Hazan & Diamond, 2000). Beyond the scope of attachment and sexuality in children, many have elected to examine the relation between attachment and adult romantic relationships. In a study by Hazan and Shaver (1987), subjects were given three descriptions of attachment style (avoidant, secure and enmeshedpreoccupied). They were then asked to reflect upon their previous romantic relationships and to indicate which of the three styles best characterized their past relationships. Securely attached adults reported relationships with parents, who they described as affectionate, caring and accepting. In another study by Davis, Kirkpatrick, Levy, and O'Hearn (1994), partner pairing and choice, predictors of relationship satisfaction and predictors of relationship stability were examined. Over the course of three years, three interviews were conducted with 354 couples. The first interview entailed completion of several measures concerning attachment and the nature of the relationship, whereas the latter two consisted of telephonic interviews assessing stability and status of the relationship. What was demonstrated is that secure partners typically end up together. On the other hand, anxiously attached individuals tend to report issues with dependability, trust and commitment, whereas avoidant individuals report being uneasy with intimacy and commitment (Davis, Kirkpatrick, Levy, & O'Hearn, 1994; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson,
14
1990). Simpson conducted a longitudinal study of 144 dating couples. In the initial phase of the study, couples were asked to fill out a plethora of measures assessing attachment style, interdependence, level of commitment, trust and satisfaction. Six months later, participants were contacted via telephone in order to ascertain whether they remained together, and if not, were assessed as to the degree of emotional distress experienced subsequent to the dissolution of their relationship. The anxious and avoidantly attached individuals reported fewer positive and greater negative emotions in their relationships, whereas the reverse was true among those securely attached. Furthermore, the avoidantly attached are likely to have experienced childhood separation from the mother and those who are anxiously attached tend to perceive a lack of paternal support. This contrasts with the securely attached, who have a tendency to report positive early family relationships (Feeney & Noller, 1990). These findings were the result of a series of measures including but not limited to: attachment style, relationship beliefs, loving, love addiction, selfesteem and attachment history, that were administered to 374 undergraduates. Another study by Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Findings of this study suggest that avoidantly attached participants are more likely than any other attachment group to report never having been in love, having low ideals surrounding love and romance and being inclined towards playing games in their relationships. In contrast, anxiousambivalents tended to report more obsessive preoccupation with and emotional dependence upon their partners. Securely attached persons, more so than persons of any other attachment category, reported the highest levels of self-confidence and the lowest levels of unfulfilled hopes with respect to their romantic relationships.
15 A study by Hazan and Shaver (1987), also sought to conceptualize romantic love as an attachment process. In this study, participants were asked to speak to their most "intense" relationship. Securely attached individuals described their love experiences as happy, friendly and trusting, and also reported longer-term relationships than any other attachment type. Avoidants described relationships characterized by a fear of closeness, emotional highs and lows and jealousy. Anxious-ambivalent people reported relationships punctuated by periods of jealousy, obsession and extreme sexual attraction. The findings suggest that secures experience love as something that waxes and wanes, but can remain constant and return to a previous level of intensity after some time. For avoidants, storybook love never happens, and it is difficult to find someone with whom to fall in love. Lastly, the anxious-ambivalents fall in love easily and frequently, but rarely find true love. One other noteworthy finding of the study was that the best predictors of adult attachment were the participants' perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their parents and the quality of the parents' relationship with each other. A study examining romantic jealousy and adult attachment found that anxiously attached individuals report significantly more jealousy than securely attached individuals, with avoidantly attached individuals falling somewhere in between. Further, across the range of jealous emotions (anger, sadness, fear, etc.), secures rank their emotions as less intense than their insecurely attached counterparts. Finally, this study suggested that men experience more intense jealousy than women (Sharpsteen, & Kirkpatrick, 1997).
Attachment and Sexuality In addition to the connection between attachment and adult romantic relationships, a plethora of studies have confirmed that there does exist a lawful relationship between attachment and
16 sexual behavior. Individuals who are avoidantly attached are more likely than those of other attachment styles to endorse statements of having multiple partners and engaging in sexual activity solely for fun (Feeney & Raphael, 1992). In one study by Bogaert and Sadava (2002), a relation
was established between sex and attachment style in women. Participants (327 men and 465 women) completed numerous measures of sexual behavior, as well as a measure of adult attachment, erotophilia and a self-report measure of physical attractiveness. Results showed that securely attached women were more likely to have fewer sexual partners and to be older at age of first intercourse. Conversely, anxiously attached women were more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners, as well as a younger age of first intercourse. In a study of 125 ethnically diverse undergraduate women, those who were securely attached women were also less likely to consent to unwanted sex (Impett & Peplau, 2002). These women were given measures of attachment style, commitment to their relationship, perception of their partners' attachment style and likeliness to consent to unwanted sex in a hypothetical scenario. Anxiously attached women were most likely to consent to unwanted sex, out of concern that their partner might lose interest in them for failure to comply with the request for sex. Similarly, avoidantly attached women were also more likely than securely attached women to consent to unwanted sex, in order to fulfill relationship obligations and to avoid conflict. Attachment style has also been shown to be correlated with the kinds of sexual activities in which a person will engage, with the securely attached engaging in a wide array of activities, the anxiously attached favoring "cuddly" aspects of intimacy and the avoidantly attached preferring genital contact. Furthermore, the securely attached individuals were more likely than their insecure counterparts to enjoy sexual activity in the context of a long-term, monogamous relationship. (Hazan, Zeifman, & Middleton, 1994).
17
Lastly, attachment style has also been linked to one's approach in adult romantic relationships. Participants were given a measure of attachment style, as well as a measure of sexual approach in a relationship. The eight sexual approaches defined are as follows: passionate- romantic, gameplaying, companionate- friendship, pragmatic, possessive-dependent, selfless-all-giving, sensitivecaring and exchange-quid pro-quo. The findings suggest that the securely, anxiously, and avoidantly attached have companionate-friendly, possessive-dependent and game-playing approaches, respectively (LeGrand, Snell, & Zlokovich, 2002). There has been at least some argument for the sexual and attachment systems as functionally distinct and possibly even independent systems (Diamond, 2003; Diamond, 2004). Evidence for this argument is several-fold. In terms of etiology, desire evolved out of mating, whereas love and pairing evolved out of the infant-caregiver attachment. Moreover, there are different neurochemicals involved in love and desire. Gonadal estrogens and androgens will mediate desire, but not affectional bonds. By contrast, the neurochemicals associated with love include endogenous opioids, catecholaamines and neuropeptides, particularly, oxytocin. These regulate affective, behavioral, biological and cognitive processes that facilitate social bonding by linking conditioned associations between specific partners and intrinsic feelings of reward. Finally, different regions in the brain are activated in response to sexual arousal than in response to viewing images of a romantic partner. As a result, it is suggested that one can fall in love with someone in the absence of desire and vice versa. Moreover, Diamond posits that people can develop preoccupying affections for another, irrespective of attractiveness, arousal or sexual preference. Nevertheless, even though the sexual and attachment systems may be functionally distinct and possibly independent for specific individuals, for many people, they are clearly interconnected in some way.
Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction One important aspect of a romantic relationship that may be affected by attachment style is relationship satisfaction. Securely attached individuals report higher rates of relationship satisfaction than their insecure counterparts (Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). In the former study, attachment style and self-disclosure to one's partner and to a stranger were assessed via questionnaire and behavioral measures. Self-disclosure to one's partner was more intimate and extensive than to a stranger among those securely attached. This finding was not observed among the other attachment styles. Results suggest that self-disclosure mediates the relation between attachment style and relationship satisfaction. In the latter study, 73 married women were asked to rate the extent to which they endorsed secure, avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles. These were then correlated with their report of marital satisfaction. What was demonstrated is that psychological distress mediated the relation between secure attachment and marital satisfaction, such that while securely attached persons were likely to be satisfied with their marriage, the presence of psychological distress contributed to a decline in their subjective report of marital satisfaction. Additionally, social support mediated the relation between avoidant attachment and marital satisfaction, suggesting that while the avoidantly attached individuals tended to experience less marital satisfaction than those who were securely attached, when the avoidant individuals had good social support systems they reported their marriages to be more satisfying. Additionally, secure individuals have caregiving qualities similar to their parents, particularly to parents of the same sex. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that these qualities are correlated with current relationship functioning (Camelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996). In their study,
19 participants were administered measures of caregiving, and results suggested that attachment and caregiving are basic aspects of romantic love. Lastly, relationship satisfaction has been shown to be linked with closeness and self-disclosure. Both securely and anxiously attached individuals tend to display greater comfort than those who are avoidantly attached ( Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998). Moreover, marital satisfaction has been correlated with secure attachment and spouse behavior. In her study, Feeney (2002) assessed marital satisfaction, attachment and spouse behavior in 193 married couples via questionnaire and diary methods. Results indicate that the insecurely attached were more reactive to negative spouse behavior and experienced less satisfaction than individuals who were securely attached. Finally, in a study of attachment and relational functioning, securely attached individuals experienced greater overall adjustment in their romantic relationships than members of any other attachment group. The secure group also reported greater relationship satisfaction than the avoidant-dismissive and avoidant-fearful individuals, as well as greater expressed affection than their enmeshed-preoccupied and avoidant-fearful counterparts. When the dimensions of attachment were assessed, those high on anxiety reported less consensus, cohesion, affectional expression and overall adjustment in their relationships. Similarly, those high on avoidance reported less consensus, cohesion, satisfaction and overall adjustment in their relationships (Cohen & Eagle, 2005). Attachment and Relationship Quality Attachment style has also been linked with relationship quality (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In a study administering the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), it was demonstrated that secure attachment was correlated with the overly expressive and autocratic scales, or the warm side of the IIP scale. Dismissive attachment tended to be correlated with the
20
hostile side of the scale, in particular the introversion and cold/distant subscales. Preoccupied attachment was negatively associated with the cold side of the scale, and mostly correlated with the overly expressive subscale. Finally, fearful attachment was linked with the passive side of the scale, namely the subscales addressing lack of assertiveness and social inhibition. Infidelity As a result of the abundance of recent literature that has surfaced surrounding the nature of attachment and sexual behavior, psychologists have begun to narrow the scope of their study. One question that arises is the connection between a proclivity toward behaving unfaithfully and attachment pattern. Some research has begun to emerge in this field. Knox (1984) reports that 50 percent of men and 20-40 percent of women have had an affair at some time in their marriage. A study by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994) found that the rate of marital affairs was 20 percent for women and double (40%) for men. Wiederman (1997) reports that 34% of men and 19% of women admitted to at least one incident of extramarital sex, whereas among college undergraduates in a serious dating relationship, 49% of men and 31% of women endorsed having engaged in extradyadic intercourse. Thompson (1983) also reviewed the incidence of extramarital behavior in men and women across twelve different studies. Results suggested that anywhere from 20-66% of men and 10-69% of women engage in extramarital sexual or romantic behavior. Infidelity, marriage and satisfaction Likewise, poor marriage and low sexual satisfaction have been linked with sexual infidelity (Thompson, 1983). A study exploring the relationship between marital satisfaction and extramarital sex (EMS) suggested that this relationship is variable depending upon the length of the marriage and the different patterns for men and women. According to this study, the divorce
21
rate tends to be higher for women in shorter marriages when there has been EMS than when EMS has not occurred. People tended to be more dissatisfied in their marriage when their was EMS than when there was no EMS. The exceptions to this rule were women in shorter marriages and men in longer marriages, who tended to feel very satisfied, irrespective of whether EMS had occurred (Glass & Wright, 1977). According to Blumstein and Schwartz (1983), men seek casual sex and have more extradyadic partners, whereas women seek emotional attachment and have fewer outside partners. Thompson (1984) explored three types of infidelity (sexual, emotional and combined) in a population of 378 married and cohabiting individuals and found that at least 43% indicated engaging in at least one type of the aforementioned infidelity. Women perceived men to engage in more sexual infidelity than women and indeed, their perceptions were validated by the findings of this study. However, when infidelity type was not specified, men and women tended to engage in equal amounts of infidelity. Further, sexual infidelity has been shown to be highest among individuals with the following characteristics: strong sexual interest, more permissive sexual values, decreased satisfaction with one's relationship, weaker ties to one's partner and greater sexual opportunity. In fact, when all of these variables were controlled, sex differences in infidelity were not apparent (Treas & Giesen, 2000). Another study on infidelity explored sex differences in jealousy surrounding the infidelity (Sagarin, Vaughn, Guadagno, Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003). In this study, both continuous, as well as forced-choice measures of jealousy were utilized. The results were such that men were more jealous over a woman's physical infidelity and women were more jealous over a man's emotional infidelity when the infidelity was committed with an opposite-sex partner. Jealousy was significantly decreased for both men and women when the infidelity was engaged in with a same-
22
sex partner. The authors hypothesize that this difference is evident, as infidelity with a same-sex partner poses no threat to reproductive outcome. Alternatively, Levy (2005) found that sex differences in jealousy disappear when individuals are securely attached. That is, both secure men and women experience equal amounts of sexual and emotional infidelity. Moreover, only avoidant dismissively attached men displayed more sexual jealousy than women. A study drawing data from the General Social Surveys conducted at the University of Chicago found that men reported having extramarital sex (EMS) more than women. Findings also suggested that men in the age bracket of 55-65 and women between the ages of 40-45 were the most likely to report EMS. There was, however, no difference in EMS reported among men and women under the age of 45. This study also confirmed that marital satisfaction and the attending of once weekly religious services were both negatively correlated with EMS, while education level and past divorce were both positively correlated with EMS (Atkins, Jacobson, & Baucom). Attitudes toward infidelity Attitudes toward infidelity have also been a recent topic of exploration. A study of 321 undergraduate students found that the majority disapproves of extramarital sex, while condoning various nonsexual extramarital behaviors (going to dinner, a movie or taking a vacation) with someone other than one's partner (Weis & Slosnerick, 1981). Results from this study also suggest that those most inclined toward extramarital activity were men who dissociated sex, love and marriage and who were permissive in their views regarding premarital coition. In another study, 200 middle-aged, middle-class Japanese and American women were surveyed with regard to EMS attitudes and behavior. While women in the United States were more approving of EMS and more aware of opportunities for EMS than their Japanese counterparts, women in Japan were more inclined to become emotionally engaged in an extramarital
23
relationship once the opportunity presents itself. This same study found that 32 percent of American women and 27 percent of Japanese women between the ages of 35 and 40 engaged in extramarital sex at least once (Maykovich, 1976). Attachment and Infidelity "The only way that attachment theory has been applied to extradyadic involvement (EDI) is to examine the likelihood of EDI" (Allen & Baucom, 2004). Some research reports that there are no attachment style differences in the likelihood to cheat or be cheated on. Weisgerber (2000) administered four attachment scripts to 286 college undergraduates and asked them to assess the extent to which each style was indicative of them. Additionally, all were interviewed about whether or not they had ever cheated or been cheated on, and what kind of outcome the infidelity had on the relationship (break up, stay together, break up and get back together). Results suggested that there were no differences among the attachment styles in the likelihood to behave unfaithfully or to be involved with someone who had behaved unfaithfully. However, a number of studies suggest that attachment style is, indeed correlated with infidelity (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Knox, 1984; Thompson, 1983). Allen & Baucom (2004) conducted a study investigating whether attachment theory would provide a meaningful way to understand the motivations behind EDI. They posit two competing hypotheses. The mental models perspective suggests that one's attachment style will carry over into one's extradyadic relationships, such that secure, enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive and avoidant-fearful persons will experience extradyadic relationships that are close and comfortable, obsessive, casual and ambivalent, respectively. The compensatory model, by contrast, suggests that insecurely attached individuals will experience intimacy and closeness with extradyadic partners not experienced in their primary relationship, because there is a safety in the
24
limitations to how far an extradyadic relationship can go. Results indicate that avoidantdismissives reported engaging in EDI in response to a need for space and freedom in their primary relationship, whereas enmeshed-preoccupied and avoidant-fearfuls reported engaging in EDI out of feelings of neglect and a desire to be cared for. Avoidant-dismissive men reported more infidelity than any other group, and overall, men cheated more than women. Finally, enmeshedpreoccupied women reported more infidelity over the prior two years than securely attached women. While most studies investigating infidelity typically make use of a list of questions pertaining to the infidelity (frequency, type, duration), the authors of the aforementioned study developed a measure called the Extradyadic Experiences Questionnaire (EEQ). This measure included 93 items, cutting across 22 scales, and demonstrated good reliability. Responses are made on a sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from "not at all true" to "very true." The following topics were among those covered in the 22 scales: patterns of EDI onset, reactions to the EDI, attitudes toward EDI, motivations for the EDI, characteristics of the relationship with the extradyadic partner and characteristics of the relationship with the primary partner prior to the EDI. Three scales tapped autonomy versus intimacy motivations for EDI and five scales examined the quality of the extradyadic relationship (ambivalent, close, obsessive). Why Study Attachment and Infidelity? Understanding and being knowledgeable about the linkage between attachment style and infidelity is important, as behavioral patterns of infidelity in dating may extend into marriage (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). While research in the field is burgeoning, there is still much to uncover. There are unanswered questions and controversial findings concerning who cheats and what type of cheating occurs. While Knox (1984) suggests that men cheat more than
25 women, Drigotas, Safstrom, and Gentilia (1999) report that with respect to composite infidelity (physical and emotional infidelity combined), women are the less faithful of the two. Their study includes three types of infidelity subsumed under the general topic of infidelity (physical, emotional, composite). In this study, 84 heterosexual individuals involved in relationships completed questionnaires exploring their level of commitment to their partner. Commitment to one's partner at the beginning of the semester successfully predicted later emotional and physical infidelity. However, this study, as well as others in the field, fails to examine infidelity on a continuum, by not speaking to the range of individual acts of infidelity in which one may engage. A study of this nature that also explores sex differences in frequency and type of infidelity, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality and the perception of one's partner's attachment style would be the first of its kind, as well as one that would further clarify what has already been established, while expanding the already existing research in a new direction. Sex differences in frequency and type of infidelity would be an important variable to explore, as research has shown differences in the types and frequency of sexual behaviors in which men and women engage (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). For their study, Oliver and Hyde conducted a metaanalysis of 177 sources, exploring 21 different classes of sexual behaviors and attitudes. The two most significant findings were the differences in attitudes toward casual sex and the incidence of masturbation, both of which were substantially higher for men than for women. The perception of one's partner's style of attachment seemed plausible to include, as enmeshedpreoccupied individuals have been shown to have a distorted perception of the self versus others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Given this, there is no way of knowing whether enmeshedpreoccupied individuals tend more to select avoidantly-attached object choices, or whether their report of their partners as being avoidantly- attached are the result of distorted
perception. As a result, the enmeshed-preoccupied individual may experience decreased relationship satisfaction as a result of not achieving the level of intimacy and closeness he/she desires, and may be more inclined toward seeking out extradyadic romantic relations.
27
Chapter 3 Research Questions This investigation explored several hypotheses. A. Attachment Pattern & Infidelity Several studies have explored the relation between attachment style and infidelity (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999; Weisgerber, 2000). With the exception of the Weisgerber (2000) study, the others have been able to demonstrate a lawful relationship between attachment and infidelity. Consistent with this literature, it seems likely that this study will also reflect a significant relationship between attachment and infidelity, as described below.
HI: Individuals who are securely attached will show significantly lower levels of overall infidelity than individuals who are insecurely attached (enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive and avoidant-fearful).
Relationship satisfaction has been shown to be negatively correlated with infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Moreover, marital satisfaction has been demonstrated to be positively correlated with secure attachment and negatively correlated with avoidant and anxious-ambivalent attachment (Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). From this line of reasoning, it is logical to conclude that securely attached individuals may be less inclined to cheat on their significant others than their insecurely attached counterparts.
H2: Enmeshed-preoccupied persons and avoidant-dismissive individuals will have different patterns of infidelity from each other.
28
In a study of attachment style and sexual behaviors and attitudes, avoidantly attached individuals endorsed statements, including "I have multiple sexual partners" and "Sex is just for fun" more so than individuals of any other attachment style (Feeney & Raphael, 1992). Furthermore, avoidants are typically uncomfortable with commitment (Davis, Kirkpatrick, Levy, & O'Hearn, 1994) and tend to dislike the intimate aspects of a romantic relationship (Hazan, Zeifman, & Middleton, 1994). Given this, it seems plausible that avoidantly attached individuals may be more inclined toward sexual infidelity than others of a different attachment style.
Hypothesis one assumes that securely attached participants will have the lowest rate of overall infidelity, encompassing both physical and emotional forms of infidelity. Assuming there is not enough evidence to reject this hypothesis, insecurely attached individuals will have to rate higher on measures of emotional fantasy and foray than securely attached individuals. As the avoidantlyattached prefer sex with multiple partners (Raphael & Feeney, 1992), and are not comfortable with emotional intimacy (Davis, Kirkpatrick, Levy & O'Hearn, 1994), it seems more likely that enmeshed-preoccupied will rank highest on emotional fantasies and forays. Further, enmeshedpreoccupied attachment by definition entails a desire to merge completely with another (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). As this desire is not present as intensely in any other form of attachment, enmeshed preoccupied individuals who are not with enmeshed-preoccupied partners, or who perceive their partner as not being as emotionally connected as they would like, may be inclined to look elsewhere for emotional gratification.
29 B. Relationship Satisfaction & Infidelity H3: Relationship satisfaction will be inversely related to infidelity. This hypothesis has been investigated and supported in numerous studies (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Drigotas, Safstrom & Gentilia, 1999; Simpson, 1990). C. Relationship Satisfaction & Attachment Pattern H4: Those who are securely attached are more likely to experience relationship satisfaction than individuals who are insecurely attached.
Research has shown that securely attached persons tend to report higher levels of satisfaction in their romantic relationships than members of any of the insecure attachment categories (Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998). Additionally, anxious and avoidantly attached individuals report fewer positive and more negative emotions in their romantic relationships than do securely attached individuals (Simpson, 1990). Finally, marital satisfaction has been positively correlated with secure attachment and negatively correlated with anxious-ambivalent attachment (Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). Given these findings, I posit a similar relation will exist between attachment pattern and relationship satisfaction.
D. Sex Differences in Infidelity H5: Hypothesis five concerns the qualitative (type) and quantitative (frequency) differences in infidelity between the two sexes. Current literature findings on this topic are conflictual. Knox (1984) maintains that only 20-40 percent of women as compared to 50 percent of men have had an
30
affair at some point in their marriage. Drigotas, et al. (1999), however, suggest that with respect to composite infidelity, women are the less faithful of the two genders. A meta-analysis on sex differences in sexuality supports the idea that men more than women have both a greater number of partners and engage in intercourse more frequently. Consistent with this finding, I suggest that men will exhibit a greater incidence of infidelity than women. Moreover, this infidelity will be more of a sexual nature, rather than of an emotional or composite (sexual and emotional combined) state. However, in line with the findings of Drigotas, et al. (1999), women will display a greater frequency of extradyadic romantic forays and emotional infidelity.
E. Sex, Relationship Satisfaction, Attachment Style & Infidelity H6: There will be a four-way interaction effect among sex, relationship satisfaction, attachment style and infidelity, such that among men, who are low in levels of relationship satisfaction, those who display avoidant-dismissive attachment rather than other types of attachment security will show the highest rates of sexual infidelity, specifically.
According to a study by Oliver and Hyde (1993), men reported more permissive attitudes concerning casual and extramarital sex, as well as lower levels of anxiety, fear or guilt than did females. Moreover relationship satisfaction has shown to be negatively correlated with both infidelity and insecure attachment style (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999, Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). Additionally, avoidantly attached men endorse statements about having sex for fun and report having multiple partners more than members of any other attachment style (Feeney & Raphael, 1992). Avoidantly attached individuals also tend to experience greater
31 discomfort with commitment than individuals of any other attachment category (Davis, Kirkpatrick, Levy, & O'Hearn, 1994). In line with this research it seems likely that avoidantlyattached men who are also dissatisfied with their relationship will report the highest rates of sexual infidelity.
F. Perception of Partner's Attachment Style and Infidelity H7: I do not have specific predictions about how perception of partner's attachment style will be linked with infidelity, but rather I propose a link between the two as a general question for exploration.
The current literature does not seem to reflect a difference in the likelihood to behave unfaithfully as a result of the perception of one's partner's attachment style. Impett and Peplau (2002) have suggested that those who are enmeshed-preoccupied, and more specifically, those who rate higher on a measure of anxiety as assessed per the ECR-R, are more likely to perceive their partners as less committed to the relationship, or more avoidantly attached. However, the aforementioned study does not examine perception of partner's attachment style as it relates to infidelity, nor does the study explore the perception of partner's attachment style independent of one's own attachment style.
H8: Individuals who are enmeshed-preoccupied and who perceive partners to be avoidantdismissively attached will be more likely to behave unfaithfully than any other combination of self and perception of other attachment style.
32
The enmeshed-preoccupied style of attachment is characterized by a desire to merge completely with another, a fear of being abandoned, and the general sense that one's partner does not desire the level of closeness and intimacy in the relationship that the enmeshed-preoccupied craves (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Again, it is not apparent whether this type of person generally chooses avoidant partners or whether this experience of one's partner as avoidantly attached is the result of distorted perception. As a result of having such a strong need and similarly, experiencing that need as unfulfilled, it seems plausible to assume that these conditions may lead to greater rates of infidelity than would be observed in an individual who perceives his or her partner to be avoidant, but who is not enmeshed-preoccupied.
33
Chapter 4 Methods Subjects Participants consisted of 154 male and female undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in a college or master's level psychology course at Adelphi University. An "n" of this size was necessary to achieve good statistical power, and appropriate, as six variables were examined in this study (attachment style, perception of partner's attachment style, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality, social desirability and gender differences). As a good rule of thumb, when dealing with correlational analyses and when unable to estimate effect sizes from the prior literature, it is plausible to conclude that a correlation of .30 is a reasonable correlation to hope to find. Sample sizes of approximately 80 yield a power of .8 against these simple correlations. As the number of variables increases, and/or the focus of the study is on interactions, the appropriate sample size should be increased substantially (Cohen, 1988). Requirements for the study included currently being involved or having previously been involved in a heterosexual steady romantic relationship of at least three months. Married individuals were treated separately. Participants ranged in age from 17-50 (Mean = 23.29, S.D. = 6.87), and 51 (33.1%) were male, whereas 103 (66.9%) were female. Fifteen participants (9.7%) were married, versus the other 139 (90.3%), who were single, and 54 chose to refer to a past relationship (35.1%), where 100 (64.9%) elected to use a current relationship. The ethnic make-up of the study included: 121 Caucasian(78.6%), nine African American (5.8%), eight Hispanic (5.2%), one Native American (.6%) and six Asian (3.9%) participants. Additionally, nine individuals (5.8%) endorsed belonging to an ethnic minority other than the aforementioned categories. Fifty-nine individuals (38.3%) reported having broken up and gotten back together over the course of their relationship
34
versus the other 95 (61.7%), who had not evidenced a break up. Further, 42 participants (27.3%) had broken up with their partner one or two times, and only 16 (10.3%) had experienced three or more break ups. Sixty-one of the participants (39.6%) had been involved in a relationship lasting three months to a year, with 30 (19.5%) having been involved in a one to two year relationship and 63 (40.9%) having been involved in a relationship lasting longer than two years. Finally, 144 (93.5%) had previously been involved in zero to five romantic relationships and ten (6.4%) had had more than five serious relationships. Attachment styles for the participants were as follows: 84 (55%) were securely attached, 38 (25%) were enmeshed-preoccupied, 16 (10%) were avoidant-dismissive, and the remaining 16 (10%) were avoidant-fearful. This is roughly commensurate with the attachment distribution found in other studies, where the percentage of securely attached people range from about 50 -60%, the proportion of enmeshed-preoccupied participants range from 15 -19% and the avoidantly attached group comprises anywhere from 20 -30% (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Noller, 1998). Few studies flesh out the avoidant category into two subgroups (avoidant-dismissive and avoidant-fearful). However, a study by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) looking at all four attachment groups found the following distribution: secure (47%), enmeshed-preoccupied (14%), avoidant-dismissive (18%) and avoidant-fearful (21%). The distribution for perception of partner's attachment style was such that 77 participants (50%) perceived their partner to be securely attached, 36 (23%) perceived their partner as enmeshedpreoccupied, 19 (12%) believed their partner to be avoidant-dismissive and 22 (14%) felt that their partner was avoidant-fearful.
35
Procedure Participants were given a packet of questionnaires to complete, including the following: two copies of a self-report measure of attachment (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1996), a questionnaire concerning relationship satisfaction (Spanier, 1976), a measure of relationship quality (Horowitz, Rosenberg, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1998), a measure of social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), and a measure of relational infidelity developed by the author. Participants were instructed to complete the self-attachment questionnaire from their own perspective. Following, they were asked once again to go through and answer all of the questions on the same questionnaire, as though participants were their partners. This may or may not have yielded an accurate assessment of participants' partners' style of attachment, but has illustrated participants' perceptions of their partners' attachment style. Participants were subsequently asked to fill out all remaining questionnaires, as truthfully as possible, remembering that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained. Upon completing the packet of questionnaires, participants were asked to return their questionnaires to a box placed in their psychology class, and to place their signed informed consent sheets in a separate envelope, also located in their classroom. Participants were compensated for their part in the study by receiving extra course credit, to be used in the class from which they were recruited. Measures Attachment/Perception of Partner's Attachment Style The Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R), a multi-item measure of romantic attachment, was used to assess participants' attachment styles (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1996). Participants responded to a thirty-six-item scale, indicating how much they endorse each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 disagree strongly to 7 agree strongly). All questions
36 pertain to the manner in which one might experience a romantic relationship, not simply currently, but in general. Questions are broken down such that half of the questions on the scale tap anxiety in a romantic relationship (Cronbach's alpha = .91), and the other half measure avoidance in a romantic relationship (Cronbach's alpha = .94). Both anxiety and avoidance were placed in a twoby-two model, in order to ascertain an individual's attachment style. According to this model, those who rank low on both anxiety and avoidance (at or below the 3.50 cutoff) are securely attached, those who experience high anxiety (above 3.50), but low avoidance (at or below 3.50) are enmeshed-preoccupied, those experiencing low anxiety (at or below 3.50) but high avoidance (above 3.50) are avoidant-dismissive, and those who are both highly avoidant and anxious (above 3.50) constitute the fearful avoidant subgroup (Bartholomew, 1990). Both the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment were examined continuously, as well, in order to maximize the statistical power that might get lost in a categorical analysis. Upon completing this measure, participants filled out a second copy of the same questionnaire. This copy was identical to the first, however, this time participants responded to the questions as though they were their partners. This particular attachment measure was utilized, as it is one of the most widely used self-report attachment measures, and has been shown to have good internal consistency. Social Desirability One of the shortcomings of providing self-report questionnaires, particularly those with face validity, is that participants may be inclined to respond with the "socially desirable" answer, as opposed to an answer that is authentic to their experience. For this reason, participants were given the Marlowe-Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) Scale of Social Desirability in order to assess the degree to which a participant may be inclined to give an answer that is socially desirable. Questions on this scale are also counterbalanced, so it will also be possible to examine whether
37
participants are actually reading and responding to questions or randomly checking responses as they go. This is important, because if the latter is occurring, it may well be that participants are responding in the same manner to subsequent questionnaires. Hence, such data may not be an accurate assessment of one's experience. With respect to data analysis, social desirability was used as a covariate, such that one is able to observe what happens to a relationship when social desirability is partialed out. Participants responded to this thirty-three-item questionnaire by circling "T" for true or "F" for false, in response to each question asked. Relationship Satisfaction Spanier's (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) was used to measure participants' relationship satisfaction. The DAS is a 32-item measure that taps global and specific elements of relationship satisfaction (Cronbach's alpha = .96). The 32 questions break down to form four subscales: Dyadic Consensus (how much agreement there is between partners in a relationship), Dyadic Satisfaction (how satisfied one is in the relationship), Affectional Expression (how often partners show emotion for one another) and Dyadic Cohesion (how closely partners stick by one another). Participants respond to the items on this measure vis-a-vis a six-point scale ranging from 0 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree). This widely used scale has proven to be a reliable and
valid tool of measurement, with Cronbach's alpha of .96. Relationship Quality Relationship quality was assessed via the Interpersonal Inventory of Problems (IIP-32). Horowitz, Rosenberg, Ureno, & Villasenor (1998) devised this scale, consisting of thirty-two items that address numerous problems the individual may experience in the context of an interpersonal relationship. Questions are divided into two categories. The first speaks to things that the individual finds it difficult to do with others, whereas the latter set of questions involve
38 qualities or behaviors that the participant feels he/she possesses or engages in excessively. The thirty-two questions on the scale break down to form eight separate subscales, measuring different facets of personality that can contribute to the experience of interpersonal difficulties. The subscales are as follows: domineering/controlling, vindictive/self-centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, nonassertive, overly accommodating, self-sacrificing and intrusive/needy. Participants rate their responses on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Infidelity Infidelity was measured using the Scale of Relational Infidelity [SORI]. This name was changed to read "SORI" on the copy distributed to participants, so as not to appear too threatening. This twenty-six-item scale requires participants to respond to a number of questions concerning physical and emotional acts in which they have engaged with someone other than their significant other, while in a monogamous relationship. Participants are asked to mark their response by placing a checkmark next to one of the answers listed beneath the question that best fits. There are four sections to this scaleconstituting thirteen questionsaddressing physical forms of infidelity, romantic extradyadic forays (I.e. cyber sex, dating, flirting, etc.), extradyadic sexual fantasies and extradyadic emotional fantasies. The questions in each section comprise four spectrums, each of which begins with the most benign form of infidelity and gradually increases to more overt forms of infidelity. Four psychologists and one doctoral candidate conferred on this point. They were then given the same five-point scale, but asked, "Imagine that your partner had engaged in the aforementioned acts with someone other than you. At what point would you feel that your partner had been unfaithful?" For each of the four sections, there are four or five responses that the participant may endorse, ranging from never (0) to very frequently (4). The response endorsed is then multiplied by a point value assigned to each question. As the questions
39 in each section increase in severity of infidelity, the first question in the section gets assigned a point value of one, with each subsequent question being assigned one point higher than the last. When the scores have been calculated for all questions in a given section, those numbers are added to form a section score. When all sections have been calculated, the section scores are added to form an overall score. Two additional questions on the SORI address attitudes toward infidelity. To assess what men and women considered cheating, and also the degree of freedom they would give themselves as compared to their partner, with respect to engaging in extradyadic romantic behavior, participants were asked on a five point scale (1 = fantasizing, 2 = going on a date, 3 = kissing/necking, 4 = >kissing/necking, but < intercourse, 5 = sexual intercourse), "Imagine that you had engaged in the aforementioned acts with someone other than your partner. At what point would you feel that you had been unfaithful?" Additionally, there are eleven questions that address demographic information, as well as background on the nature of participants' former relationships. As this measure was developed for this particular study, reliability has not been established. Most other studies conducted on infidelity have made use of a list of questions developed by the authors (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999; Weisgerber, 2000; Atkins, Eldridge, Baucom, & Christensen, 2005; Atkins, Jacobson, & Baucom, 2001; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004; Thompson, 1984; Glass & Wright, 1977; Maykovich, 1976; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981), and thus, there does not appear to be a widely validated measure of infidelity in circulation. Moreover, to the author's knowledge, this is the first study to examine infidelity on a continuum, calling for a measure that treats infidelity as existing along a spectrum. The aforementioned measure does so. Additionally, as the questions on this measure tap into a person's direct behavior, the measure does have face validity. Psychometric properties of this measure are explored and discussed further in the "Results" section of this paper.
40
Chapter 5 Results Preliminary Results Scale of Relational Infidelity (SORI) To determine whether there was a relationship between SORI subscales (emotional infidelity, fantasy, foray, sexual infidelity) and the overall scale, coefficient alphas were calculated for each of the aforementioned. The coefficient alphas were as follows: .63 (emotional infidelity), .63 (fantasy), .76 (foray), .90 (sexual infidelity) and .72 (overall infidelity), suggesting that all measures of infidelity and overall infidelity reasonably converged and thus, the scale measures what it purports to measure. Additionally, item-to-scale correlations for each item with its parent scale were examined to provide an estimate of the convergence between each item and the rest of the items in its subscale. Table one (page 39) presents the coefficient alphas for the SORI and the item-to scale correlations.
41
Table 1 Coefficient Alphas and Item-to-Scale Correlations for the SORI Infidelity Subscales Coefficient Alphas Emotional Infidelity 0.63 Fantasy 0.63 Forays 0.76 Sexual Infidelity 0.9 Overall Infidelity 0.72 Item-to-Scale Correlations Emotional Infidelity Have you ever fantasized about having a romantic relationship with somebody other than your partner? Have you ever had a crush on somebody other than your romantic partner? Have you ever fallen in love with somebody other than your romantic partner? Fantasy Have you ever fantasized about someone other than your partner sometime other than while you were having sex with your partner? Have you ever fantasized about someone other than your partner while having sex with your partner? Forays Have you ever flirted with someone other than your partner? Have you ever had an intimate conversation (romantic in tone, but not sexual) with someone other than your partner? Have you ever gone on a date or spent "romantic" time with someone other than your partner? Have you ever engaged in cyber/phone sex with someone other than your partner without masturbating? Have you ever engaged in cyber/phone sex with someone other than your partner while masturbating? Sexual Infidelity Have you ever gotten physically involved (kissing/necking) with someone other than your partner? Have you engaged in sexual behaviors short of intercourse, but beyond kissing with someone other than your partner? Have you had sexual intercourse with someone other than your partner?
0.57 0.50 0.28 0.46 0.46 0.56 0.59 0.54 0.55 0.41 0.79 0.9 0.73
42
Basic Descriptive Statistics This study makes use of five measures (ECR-R, DAS, SORI, IIP-32, MarloweCrowne), comprised of 23 scales (subscales and total.) The 23 subscales are as follows: self anxiety and self avoidance (from the ECR-R, in order to assess self attachment), dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, affectional expression, dyadic cohesion and dyadic adjustment (from the DAS), domineering/controlling, vindictive/self-centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, nonassertive, overly accommodating, self-sacrificing and intrusive/needy (from the IIP-32), perception of partner's anxiety and perception of partner's avoidance (from the ECR-R, in order to assess perception of partner's attachment), social desirability (Marlowe-Crowne), and emotional infidelity, fantasy, forays, sexual infidelity and total infidelity (from the SORI). Total, male and female means and standard deviations for each of the aforementioned scales are presented in Table 2 (page 41).
43
Table 2 - Means and Standard Deviations for 23 Scales (N = 154)
Attachment Style (Secure: n - 84; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 38; Dismissive: n - 16; Feaful: n - 16) Perception of Partner's Attachment (Secure: n - 77; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 36; Dismissive: n - 19; Fearful: n - 22)
SEX Total Mean Self Anxiety Self Avoidance Dyadic Consensus Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Adjustment Domineering / Controlling Vindictive/Sel fCentered Cold/Distant Socially Inhibited Nonassertive Overly Accommodat ing Self-Sacrifici ng Intrusive/Nee dy Perception of Partner's Anxiety Perception of Partner's Avoidance Social Desirability Emotional Infidelity Fantasy Forays Sexual Infidelity Total Infidelity 51.84 55.03 52.08 11.683 11.672 12.762 49.31 55.88 53.55 11.050 9.717 13.774 53.10 54.61 51.35 11.837 12.550 12.234 2.9849 2.4902 47.05 36.64 9.17 16.93 109.66 47.38 42.08 43.36 47.05 49.49 Std. Deviation 1.21110 1.05483 8.774 7.186 2.275 4.107 18.650 12.893 11.617 11.891 13.047 10.466 Mean 2.9047 2.4763 48.80 36.27 9.22 16.88 110.98 49.88 41.69 43.71 48.20 48.35 male Std. Deviation 1.15482 .99530 7.787 5.706 1.869 3.439 14.818 13.795 8.325 10.819 14.283 9.385 Mean 3.0247 2.4971 46.18 36.82 9.15 16.95 109.00 46.14 42.27 43.19 46.48 50.06 female Std. Deviation 1.24161 1.08778 9.136 7.836 2.459 4.416 20.318 12.303 12.974 12.435 12.424 10.962
3.0559
1.28596
2.9782
1.35403
3.0944
1.25591
2.7411 14.86 4.07 1.81 5.08 1.64 12.60
1.15609 4.890 3.557 2.507 6.708 3.649 12.920
2.6984 14.63 4.53 2.20 5.80 2.55 15.08
1.14495 4.214 3.512 2.728 8.681 4.282 15.739
2.7622 14.98 3.84 1.62 4.73 1.18 11.38
1.16656 5.207 3.575 2.381 5.492 3.220 11.153
44
Social Desirability as a Covariate In order to rule out social desirability as a confound to subsequent analyses, bivariate correlations were run between each of the following variables (sex, self anxiety, self avoidance, self attachment style, dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, affectional expression, dyadic cohesion, dyadic adjustment, domineering/controlling, vindictive/selfcentered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, nonassertive, overly accommodating, selfsacrificing, needy/intrusive, perception of partner's anxiety, perception of partner's avoidance, perception of partner's attachment style, emotional infidelity, fantasy, forays, sexual infidelity and total infidelity) and social desirability. Statistically significant negative correlations were found between social desirability and each of the following: self anxiety (p = .01), domineering/controlling (p = .01), intrusive/needy (p = .05), perception of partner's anxiety (p = .01), perception of partner's avoidance (p = .05), perception of partner's attachment (p = .01), emotional infidelity (p = .01), fantasy (p = . 05), forays (p = .01), sexual infidelity (p = .05), and total infidelity (p = .01). Statistically significant positive correlations were found between social desirability and each of the following: dyadic consensus (p = .01), dyadic satisfaction (p = .01), affectional expression (p = .01), dyadic cohesion (p = .01), dyadic adjustment (p = .01), nonassertive (p = .01), overly accommodating (p = .05). There was no statistically significant relationship between social desirability and any of the following: sex, self avoidance, self attachment style, vindictive/self-centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited and self sacrificing. Correlations between the 25 variables and social desirability are presented in Table 3 on pages 43 - 44.
Table 3 Relationships between Social Desirability and 25 Variables (N = 154)

Attachment Style (Secure: n - 84; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 38; Dismissive: n - 16; Feaful: n - 16) Perception of Partner's Attachment (Secure: n - 77; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 36; Dismissive: n - 19; Fearful: n
Social Desirability Sex Self Anxiety Self Avoidance Self Attachment Style Dyadic Consensus Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Adjustment Domineering / Controlling Vindictive/ Self-Centered Cold/Distant Socially Inhibited Nonassertive Overly Accommodating Self-sacrificing Intrusive/ Needy .034 -.329(") -.078 -.144 .346(")
.271(")
.258(")
.256(") . 356(") -.234(")
.102 .104 .126 . 180(*) 172C) .117 -.205(*)
46
Perception of Partner's Anxiety Perception of Partner's Avoidance -.234(") Perception of Partner's Attachment Style Emotional Infidelity Fantasy Forays Sexual Infidelity Total Infidelity -.273(") -.186C) -.262(")
-.305(") -.182(*)
-.194(*) -.302(")
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
47
Primary Results Hypothesis 1A: Attachment style rated categorically Individuals who are securely attached will show significantly lower levels of overall infidelity than individuals who are insecurely attached.
For this hypothesis, 84 participants (55%) were secure, whereas the other 70 (45%) were enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive or avoidant-fearful, constituting the insecurely attached group. A 2 (sex) x 4 (attachment style) Univariate Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test this hypothesis. For this particular analysis, social desirability was used as a covariate, as it was found to be correlated with overall infidelity. As predicted, there was a statistically significant main effect of attachment style, F = (3, 145) = 3.06, p = .03, with securely attached individuals exhibiting less overall infidelity than enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant dismissive and avoidant fearful individuals. Means differences in overall infidelity for each of the attachment groups are presented in Table 4 on page 46.
Hypotheses IB: Attachment style rated continuously As an alternative to the categorical approach, a partial correlation was used to explore hypothesis one continuously, using the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment. After controlling for social desirability, infidelity was statistically significantly positively correlated with avoidance, r = .17, p = .03, and correlated with anxiety at the trend level, r = .14, p = .08. Correlations between the four subscales and overall scale of the SORI and the subscales of the ECR-R are presented in Table 5 on page 47.
48
Table 4
Mean Differences in Infidelity Among the Four Attachment Groups (N =154)

Attachment Style (Secure: n - 84; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 38; Dismissive: n - 16; Feaful: n - 16)
Secure Emotional Infidelity Fantasy Forays Sexual Infidelity Total Infidelity 3.62 (.40) 1.63 (.29) 4.15 (.73) 1.25 (.41) 10.66(1.38)
Enmeshed Preoccupied 4.51 (.62) 2.34 (.45) 5.28(1.13) 2.33 (.63) 14.46(2.16)
Avoidant Dismissive 5.59 (.92) 1.51 (.67) 6.48(1.69) 2.27 (.95) 16.14(3.23)
Avoidant Fearful 5.05 (.89) 2.48 (.64) 9.14(1.63) 3.30(91) 19.97(3.10)
Degrees of Freedom 3, 145 3, 145 3, 145 3, 145 3. 145
ns ns 0.04 ns 0.03
1.82 0.88 2.82 1.81 3.06
***Numbers outside of parentheses are means; numbers in parentheses are standard errors
49 Table 5 Relationships (Partial Correlations) between Infidelity Subscales and Total Score and Attachment Subscales (N = 154)
Anxiety
Emotional Infidelity .069 Fantasy 0.58
Forays
Sexual Total I Infidelity ' Infidelity

.147 i .139
.125
Avoidance
.221(")
.133
.100
.114
.174(*)
50 Hypothesis 2: Enmeshed-preoccupied persons and avoidant-dismissive individuals will have different patterns of infidelity from each other.
Four 2 (sex) x 4 (attachment style) univariate ANCOVAS, one for each type of infidelity (emotional, fantasy, forays, sexual), were used to address potential differences in infidelity type between enmeshed-preoccupied and avoidant-dismissive individuals. This analysis controlled for social desirability, as there was a correlation between social desirability and each of the infidelity subscales. This ANCOVA did not yield an interaction between infidelity type and attachment style, F (3, 145) = 1.82, ns, suggesting that enmeshed-preoccupied participants and avoidant-dismissive participants did not evidence significant discrepancies in the types of infidelity in which they choose to engage. More broadly, however, this finding also suggests that none of the four attachment groups (secure, enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive, avoidant-fearful) differed markedly from each other in their pattern of infidelity. These findings are also presented in Table 4 on page 46.
Hypothesis 3: Relationship satisfaction will be inversely related to infidelity.
The relationship between the overall and the four subscales (dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, affectional expression, dyadic cohesion) of the DAS, and the overall and the four subscales (emotional infidelity, fantasy, forays, sexual infidelity) of the SORI were examined using a series of bivariate correlations. Table 6 (page 50) presents these correlations. As shown, each of the five DAS variables was statistically significantly
51 negatively correlated with four of the SORI variables. However, none of the DAS variables correlated with the sexual infidelity scale. Therefore, with the exception of sexual infidelity, hypothesis three was supported. However, because high relationship satisfaction and each of the infidelity subscales were correlated with social desirability, the preceding bivariate correlations were re-run to examine these links after partialing out social desirability. After controlling for social desirability, most correlations weakened somewhat. As a result, a few previous statistically significant correlations were now significant only at the trend level. However, on the whole, controlling for social desirability did not importantly alter the previous conclusions. Partial correlations between the DAS and SORI scales are presented in Table 7 on page 51.
52
Table 6 Relationships (Bivariate Correlations) between Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score and Infidelity Subscales and Total Score (N = 154)
Dyadic Consensus
Emotional Infidelity -.219(") Fantasy -.231(") \
Sexual Infidelity -066 I
'
j
Total Infidelity -.217(")
Forays i -.180(*) :
Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion
.259(") |
-.292(") i
-.232(") '
-.108 :
-.279(")
-.2000
-.2050 i
-.257(")
.101
-.257(")
.198(*) :
-.1900
-.203(*)
-.086 '
-.221 (")
Dyadic Adjustment
.262(")
-.280(") :
-.246(")
-.101
.282(")
' Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
53
Table 7 Relationships (Partial Correlations) between Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score and Infidelity Subscales and Total Score (N = 154)
Dyadic Consensus
Emotional i Infidelity -.130
j Fantasy i -181(*) j
Forays -.094 !
Sexual | Total Infidelity I Infidelity .001 ! -.126
Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion
-.200(")
-,256(")
-.173(*)
-.059
-.215(")
-.140 !
-.166(*) .
-.203(")
-.054 |
-.194(*)
.138
.150
.146
-.039
-156(*)
Dyadic Adjustment
.183(*) j
-.233(")
-.169(*)
-.034
.196(*)
" Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
54
Hypothesis 4A: Attachment style rated categorically Those who are securely attached are more likely to experience relationship satisfaction than individuals who are insecurely attached.
For this hypothesis attachment style was examined both categorically and on a continuum. In this categorical analysis, five one-way univariate ANCOVAS (one for each of the four DAS subscales and the overall scale) with four levels of attachment style (secure, enmeshed-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive, avoidant-fearful) were used. Social desirability was partialed out, as it was statistically significantly positively correlated to each of the DAS subscales and the overall scale. Consistent with hypothesis four, there was a statistically significant main effect of attachment style, such that securely attached individuals evidenced the highest mean rate of satisfaction on all measures of the DAS (dyadic consensus [F (3, 149) = 5.71, p = .001], dyadic satisfaction [F (3,149) = 11.55, p = .000], affectional expression [F (3,149) = 5.21, p =.002], dyadic cohesion [F (3,149) = 5.94, p = .001], dyadic adjustment [F (3,149) = 11.57, p = .000]), relative to any other attachment group. Means and standard errors for the four attachment groups on the four DAS variables and total are presented in Table 8 (page 53).
55
Table 8
Means and Standard Errors for Four Attachment Groups on Dyadic Adjustment Subscales and Total Score (N =154)
Attachment Style (Secure: n - 84; Enmeshed-Preoccupled: n - 38; Dismissive: n - 16; Feaful: n - 16)
Secure Dyadic 49.35
Enmeshed Preoccupied
Avoidant Dismissive
Avoidant Fearful
Degrees of Freedom
Consensus Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Adjustment
(87) 39.02 (70) 9.79 (23) 18.02 (.42) 116.19 (178)
45.40(1.31) 35.80(1.04) 8.59 (.35)
43.88(1.98) 30.59(1.58) 8.29 (.53)
42.07(1.98) 32.15(1.58) 8.17 (.53)
3, 149 3, 149 3. 149
.001 .000 .002
5.71 11.55 5.21
16.34 (.63)
14.46(95)
15.08(95)
3, 149
.001
5.94
105.58(2.63)
97.21 (3.98)
97.46 (3.98)
3,149
.000
11.57
56 Hypothesis 4B: Attachment style rated continuously In the continuous analysis, partial correlations were computed between the overall and four subscales of the DAS and the anxiety and avoidance attachment subscales. Social desirability was partialed out, as there was a significantly negative correlation between social desirability and anxiety and social desirability and all DAS subscales and total score. These correlations are presented in Table 9 (page 55). As shown, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between all five DAS variables and the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment. In short, both categorical and continuous analysis confirmed hypothesis four.
57 Table 9
Relationships between Total and DAS Subscales and Anxiety and Avoidance Partialing out Social Desirability (N = 154)
Dyadic Consensus
Anxiety -.360(*")
Avoidance -.404(*")
Dyadic Satisfaction
.308(***) :
-,507("*)
Affectional Expression
.296(***)
-.284("*)
Dyadic Cohesion
-.270("') '
-.357("*)
Dyadic Adjustment
-.397("*) ;
-.515("*)
I
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
58 Hypothesis 5: Men will exhibit a greater incidence of infidelity than women. Moreover, this infidelity will be more of a sexual nature, rather than of an emotional or composite (sexual and emotional combined) state. Additionally, women will display a greater frequency of extradyadic romantic forays and emotional infidelity.
Five one-way univariate ANCOVAS (one for each of the four SORI subscales and the overall scale) with two levels of gender were used for this analysis. Social desirability was partialed out, as it was shown to be statistically significantly negatively correlated with all subscales and the overall scale of the SORI. This analysis did produce a main effect of sex with respect to sexual infidelity, F (1,151) = 4.68, p = .03, suggesting that, in line with hypothesis five, men did engage in more sexual infidelity than women. However, there was no main effect of gender with respect to emotional infidelity, F (1,151) =1.10, ns, forays, F (1,151) = .73, ns, or overall infidelity, F (1,151) = 2.64, ns, suggesting that the sexes did not differ with respect to how often they engaged in the aforementioned forms of infidelity. Thus, hypothesis five was partially supported. Means and standard errors for men and women on the four SORI variables and total are presented in Table 10 (page 57).
59
Table 10 Means and Standard Errors for Men and Women on Infidelity Subscales and Total Score (N = 154)
Men Emotional Infidelity Fantasy Forays Sexual Infidelity Total Infidelity 4.48 (.41) 2.17 (.35) 5.72(91) 2.52 (.50) 14.89(1.72)
Women
Degrees of Freedom
3.87 (.34) 1.63 (.24) 4.77(64) 1.20 (.35) 11.47(1.21)
1, 151 1, 151 1. 151 1, 151 1, 151
ns ns Ns .03 ns
1.10 1.64 .73 4.68 2.64
"Numbers outside of parentheses are means; numbers in parentheses are standard errors
60 Hypothesis 6: There will be a four-way interaction effect among sex, relationship satisfaction, attachment style and infidelity, such that among men, who are low in levels of relationship satisfaction, those who display avoidant-dismissive attachment rather than other types of attachment security will show the highest rates of sexual infidelity.
Only three males in the sample were dissatisfied with their relationships and avoidantdismissive. Because of this limit, estimates of the mean sexual infidelity for this group would have been unreliable. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not pursued further.
Hypothesis 7: I do not have specific predictions about how perception of partner's attachment style will be linked with infidelity, but rather I propose a link between the two as a general question for exploration.
To explore the relation between perception of partner's attachment style and infidelity, five one-way univariate ANCOVAs (one for each of the four SORI subscales and overall scale) with four levels of perception of partner's attachment style (secure, enmeshed preoccupied, avoidant dismissive, avoidant fearful) were used for this analysis. Social desirability was covaried, because it was statistically significantly negatively correlated with all SORI subscales and overall scale. There was a statistically significant main of effect of perception of partner's attachment style, such that individuals exhibited more emotional infidelity, F (3,149) = 5.09, p =.00, fantasy, F (3,149) = 3.01, p =.03, forays, F (3,149) = 3.57, p = .02, sexual infidelity, F (3,149) = 3.64, p = .01, and overall infidelity, F (3,149) = 6.37, p = .00 when they perceived their partner to be enmeshed preoccupied
61 or avoidant fearful, rather than secure or avoidant dismissive. Means and standard errors for perception of partner's attachment style on the four SORI variables and total are presented in Table 11 (page 60).
62
Table 11
Means and Standard Errors for Perception of Partner's Attachment Style on the Four SORI Variables and Total (N =154)
Perception of Partner's Attachment (Secure: n - 77; Enmeshed-Preoccupied: n - 36; Dismissive: n - 19; Fearful: n - 22)
Secure Emotional Infidelity Fantasy Forays Sexual Infidelity Total Infidelity 3.08 (3.04) 1.30(1.97) 3.23 (3.73) .92(2.71) 8.53 (8.27)
Enmeshed Preoccupied 5.86 (4.22) 2.89 (3.40) 8.03(8.21) 2.75(4.16) 19.53 (16.01)
Avoidant Dismissive 3.05(2.12) 1.21 (1.58) 4.26 (6.85) .37(1.38) 8.89 (7.47)
Avoidant Fearful 5.50(3.61) 2.36(2.61) 7.45 (9.55) 3.41 (5.60) 18.73(17.28)
Degrees of Freedom 3, 149 3, 149 3, 149 3,149 3, 149
.00 .03 .02 .01 .00
5.09 3.01 3.57 3.64 6.37
63
Hypothesis 8: Individuals who are enmeshed-preoccupied and who perceive partners to be avoidant-dismissively attached will be more likely to behave unfaithfully than any other combination of self and perception of other attachment.
A 4 (attachment style) x 4 (perception of partner's attachment style) univariate ANCOVA was used to assess the interaction effect of attachment style and perception of partner's attachment style on overall infidelity. Social desirability was controlled for, due to the statistically significant negative correlations between perception of partner's attachment style and social desirability and total infidelity and social desirability. There was a statistically significant interaction effect between attachment style and perception of partner's attachment style, F (9,122) = 3.38, .001, suggesting that certain combinations of self and perception of other attachment were more likely to behave unfaithfully than others. Follow-up analysis of this two-way interaction is shown in Table 12, which presents the estimated marginal means and standard errors for all 16 combinations of self attachment style and perception of partner's attachment style. As shown in Table 12, results did not confirm that people who were enmeshed-preoccupied and who perceived partners as avoidant-dismissive had the highest rates of infidelity. On the contrary, enmeshed-preoccupied persons who perceived partners to be avoidant-dismissive evidenced the lowest rate of infidelity (M = 4.90; S.E. 5.98). By contrast, avoidantdismissive individuals who perceived partners to be enmeshed-preoccupied actually exhibited the most infidelity (M =36.00; S.E. 6.26).
64
Table 12
Means and Standard Errors of Infidelity for Self-Attachment Groups by Perception of Partner's Attachment Style (Partialing Social Desirability)
Attachment Style (Secure: n - 84; Enmeshed-Preoccupled: n - 38; Dismissive: n - 16; Feaful: n - 16) Perception of Partner's Attachment (Secure: n - 77; Enmeshed-Preoccupled: n - 36; Dismissive: n - 19; Fearful: n - 22)
Perception of Partner's Attachment Style Self Secure EnmeshedAvoidantAvoidantAttachment Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful Style____________________________________ Secure 9.02(1.359) 14.33(2.95) 10.36(3.72) 34.08(7.13) Enmeshed11.39(3.18) 27.15(3.89) 4.90 (5.98) 9.85 (3.40) Preoccupied Avoidant10.23(5.06) 36.00(6.26) 5.53(6.18) 18.80(4.11) Dismissive 19.43(5.82) Avoidant11.76(6.20) 15.35(5.05) 28.46 Fearful (4.66) ***Numbers outside of parentheses are means; numbers in parentheses are standard errors
65 Additional Analyses Relationship Quality and Infidelity A series of partial correlations between each of the eight IIP subscales (domineering/controlling, vindictive/self centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, nonassertive, overly accommodating, self-sacrificing, intrusive/needy) and overall scale and the four subscales and overall scale of the SORI (emotional infidelity, fantasy, forays, sexual infidelity, total infidelity) were used to assess whether there was a relationship between any of the aspects of interpersonal relating and the likelihood to engage in a particular type of infidelity. All SORI subscales and the overall scale were statistically significantly negatively correlated with social desirability. The domineering/controlling and intrusive/needy subscales of the IIP were statistically significantly negatively correlated with social desirability, and the nonassertive and overly accommodating subscales of the IIP were statistically significantly positively correlated with social desirability. Therefore, social desirability was used as a covariate. There were no statistically significant findings, suggesting that the extent to which a person endorsed the aforementioned dimensions of interpersonal relating was not indicative of whether he or she would engage in any of the aforementioned types of infidelity. (See Table 13 on page 64).
66 Table 13
Relationships between Infidelity Subscales and IIP Subscales Partialing out Social Desirability (N =154)
Emotional Infidelity Domineering/ Controlling Vindictive/ SelfCentered j
Sexual Fantasy I .069 | Forays -.027
Total
-.053 i ii .005
Infidelity Infidelity .016 -.010
-.046
-.029
-.017
-.028
Cold/Distant
-.076
.007
-.078
.050
-.046
Socially Inhibited
-.085
-.071
.007
-.091
-.061
Nonassertive
.000 028 :
i.
.013
.071
.033
Overly Accommodating
-.009 :
-.007
-.040
-.091
-.051
Self-sacrificing
-.075
-.025 !
-.041
-.099
-.077
Intrusive/ Needy
i .045 j
.038
.004
.007
.024
Total Interpersonal Difficulty
I
-.106 -.003 -.080 -.070 -.092
67 Attitudes toward Infidelity T-tests were performed to assess what men and women considered cheating, and also the degree of freedom they would give themselves as compared to their partner with respect to engaging in extradyadic romantic behavior. This analysis showed no statistically significant differences for men and women, t (152) = .06, ns. Men (Mean = 2.31; S.D. = .65) and women (Mean = 2.32; S.D. = .73) held highly similar views about what constituted infidelity, believing that they would be crossing the line into unfaithful behavior somewhere between the point of going on a date and kissing someone other than their partner. Likewise, men (Mean = 2.31; S.D. = .71) and women (Mean = 2.24; S.D. = .72) were also similar in their views of what would constitute infidelity in their partners, t (152) = .58,ns. Attitudes toward infidelity were also examined in conjunction with all four types of infidelity and overall infidelity, using correlational analyses that partialed social desirability. (Social desirability was statistically significantly negatively correlated with all SORI subscales and the overall scale.) These correlations appear in Table 13 (page 65). As shown in Table 14, attitudes about both self and partner infidelity were statistically significantly positively correlated with the likelihood of engaging in emotional infidelity, sexual infidelity and forays and overall infidelity. Self and partner attitudes were not correlated with fantasy. In other words, the more freedom a person gave the self and partner to engage in emotional infidelity, forays and sexual infidelity, the more likely he or she was to actually engage in these acts.
68
Table 14
Relationships between Attitudes toward Infidelity and Actual Infidelity Partialing out Social Desirability (N =154)
i Emotional Infidelity Fantasy .190(') ' .116 |
i
Point at which one considers the self to have cheated Point at which one considers the partner to have cheated
Forays | .283(")
Sexual Infidelity .245(")
Total Infidelity .296(")
.138
.032 ;
.107
i
.196(")
158(*)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
69 Relationship Quality, Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment Style Though this study was not specifically focused upon investigating a relation among relationship quality, relationship satisfaction and attachment style, a relation between or among the variables would assist in further understanding the broader findings of this study. A series of partial correlations were used to assess the relation between relationship quality and relationship satisfaction. Social desirability was covaried, as there was a statistically significant positive correlation between all four subscales and the overall scale of the DAS and social desirability. Partial correlations using social desirability as the covariate were run between the anxiety dimension of attachment and all IIP subscales and overall scale, as anxiety was statistically significantly negatively correlated with social desirability. Partial correlations using social desirability as the covariate were also run between avoidance and the following IIP subscales: domineering/controlling, intrusive/needy, nonassertive and overly accommodating. This was done because the former two subscales were statistically significantly negatively correlated with social desirability and the latter two, statistically significantly positively correlated with social desirability. Bivariate correlations were run between social desirability and the remaining four IIP subscales (vindictive/self-centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, selfsacrificing) and total score, as none of the aforementioned was statistically significantly correlated with social desirability. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between each of the following: domineering/controlling subscale and anxiety, vindictive/self-centered subscale and anxiety, vindictive/self-centered subscale and avoidance, cold/distant subscale and anxiety, intrusive/needy subscale and avoidance, IIP total and anxiety and IIP total and avoidance. There was a
70
statistically significant positive correlation between each of the following: vindictive/selfcentered subscale and dyadic consensus, vindictive/self-centered subscale and dyadic satisfaction, vindictive/self-centered subscale and affectional expression, vindictive/selfcentered subscale and dyadic cohesion, vindictive/self-centered subscale and dyadic adjustment, cold/distant subscale and dyadic satisfaction, cold/distant subscale and dyadic cohesion, cold/distant subscale and dyadic adjustment, and IIP total and all DAS subscales and overall scale. These correlations are presented in Table 15 on page 69.
71
Table 15 Relationships between IIP Subscales and Dyadic Adjustment and IIP Subscales and Dimensions of Attachment (N =154)
Dyadic Consensus
Domineering/ Controlling Vindictive/ SelfCentered
Dyadic Satisfaction -.034 .311(")
Affectional Expression .129 .195C)
Dyadic Cohesion .025 158C)
Dyadic Adjustment .061 .281(")
Anxiety -.160(*) -.234(")
Avoidance -.138 -.222(")
.110 ! .201(")
Cold/Distant
.149
.199 (")
.137
.172(*)
.203(")
-.245(")
.010
Socially Inhibited
.004
.126
.033
.034
.061
-.012
.011
Nonassertive
-.101
.081
-.102
.015
-.021
-.003
-.130
Overly Accommodating
-.069
.088
-.057
.013
.008
.085
-.137
Self-sacrificing
.045
-.015 I
i
.105
.045
.023
-.028
-.133
Intrusive/ Needy Overall Interpersonal Relating
.085
-.087 |
.003
.054
-.008
-.049
-.252(")
184C)
272(") ;
.190(*)
.166(*)
.253(")
-.271 (")
-.401(")
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ***AII correlations are partial correlations, unless bold-faced
72
Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions Preliminary analyses did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between men and women on a measure of social desirability. Similarly, one's level of avoidance in romantic relationships and one's attachment style was not significantly linked with the desire to present in a socially acceptable way. Additionally, social desirability was not linked in any significant way with the extent to which a person was vindictive/selfcentered, cold/distant, socially inhibited or self-sacrificing. However, there was a significant discrepancy in social desirability between people reporting low versus high anxiety, consensus, satisfaction, affectional expression, cohesion and adjustment in one's relationship, with those reporting low levels of anxiety scoring higher on a measure of social desirability and those reporting higher levels of consensus, satisfaction, affectional expression, cohesion and adjustment in a romantic relationship scoring higher on a measure of social desirability. This suggests that participants' reports of high levels of relationship satisfaction (as evidenced by consensus, satisfaction, affectional expression, cohesion and adjustment) and low levels of anxiety may not be authentic to their experience, but rather a product of the wish to present in a socially desirable manner. Significant differences were noted in social desirability between people reporting lesser and greater degrees of being domineering/controlling, nonassertive, overly accommodating and intrusive/needy. Those who reported being less domineering/controlling and intrusive needy scored higher on a measure of social desirability than those who reported being more domineering/controlling and intrusive/needy. Conversely, who reported being more nonassertive and overly
73
accommodating scored higher on a measure of social desirability than those who reported being more assertive and less accommodating. This finding may again speak to a desire to present oneself in a socially acceptable way rather than reflecting participants' true experiences. Individuals who reported perceiving greater degrees of anxiety and avoidance in their partner scored lower on a measure of social desirability than those who reported perceiving lesser degrees of anxiety and avoidance in their partner. These findings may also either be an accurate reflection of participants' experiences or a product of wanting to present to others in a socially desirable manner. Finally, individuals who reported engaging in less emotional infidelity, fantasy, foray, sexual infidelity and overall infidelity scored higher on a measure of social desirability than those people who reported engaging in more of the aforementioned. This too, should be cautiously interpreted. As infidelity is generally not regarded by society as a positive behavior, individuals who wish to present in a socially appropriate way may have purposefully underreported the extent to which they have been unfaithful to their partner. The first hypothesis that securely attached people would exhibit lower levels of infidelity than their insecurely attached counterparts when controlling for social desirability was confirmed. Moreover, when the dimensions of attachment (anxiety and avoidance) were examined in conjunction with infidelity, there was a significant positive relationship between the avoidance dimension of attachment and infidelity, as well as a correlation between anxiety and infidelity at the trend level. Secure attachment has been conceptualized in at least two ways. First, secure attachment has been conceptualized in
74
terms of low levels of anxiety and avoidance in one's intimate relationships (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1996). Moreover, secure attachment is thought to be defined as an internal working model of the self as lovable and worthy of being responded to, with others viewed as available and responsive caregivers (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Given that, the results of hypothesis one suggest that the less anxiety one experiences in one's romantic relationships and the less avoidant behavior one engages in with respect to that relationship, the less inclined one will also be to behave unfaithfully. Additionally, positive feelings about self and other may contribute to a trust in the stability of the relationship to endure and to meet one's expectations, which in turn, may be responsible for the inclination to be faithful. Hypothesis two, that enmeshed-preoccupied persons and avoidant-dismissive persons would display different patterns of infidelity when controlling for social desirability was not confirmed. In addition, findings suggest that none of the four attachment groups differed significantly with respect to the types of infidelity in which they chose to engage. While there were differences among the four groups with how much infidelity they tended to commit, this finding suggests that in contrast to the author's speculation, different patterns of attachment are not linked to different types of infidelity. Hypothesis three, that relationship satisfaction, controlling for social desirability, would be inversely related to infidelity was mostly supported. The results suggest that people who do not experience consensus, satisfaction, affection, cohesion and a sense of overall adjustment in their relationships are more inclined towards emotional infidelity, romantic forays with and fantasies about someone other than their partner, as well as more overall infidelity than those individuals who do experience the aforementioned
75 aspects of relationship satisfaction with their partner. The only aspect of infidelity that was not significantly linked with any of the aspects of relational functioning was sexual infidelity. One plausible explanation for this finding is that there was a reluctance among participants to report sexual infidelity. As this tends to be considered the most severe form of infidelity, participants in general may have felt hesitant about disclosing that they had engaged in such behaviors. Consequently, the amount of sexual infidelity reported, if any, may not have been enough to yield a significant finding. It may also be that while dissatisfaction in a relationship may be linked with infidelity, this alone may not be enough to prompt a person to cheat in such a drastic way. Sexual infidelity, if discovered, may have the most devastating consequences, leading to immediate termination of a relationship. By contrast, a partner may be more inclined to forgive emotional infidelity or a less threatening foray that has not led to sexual activity. Hypothesis four, securely attached people are more likely to experience relationship satisfaction than individuals who are insecurely attached, when controlling for social desirability, was also confirmed. This indicates that individuals who report high anxiety and/or avoidance behavior in their attachment to significant others tend to experience low levels of consensus, cohesion, affection, satisfaction and overall adjustment in their romantic relationships. The finding that relationship satisfaction would be positively linked with secure attachment is not surprising, given that both are negatively linked with the decision to behave unfaithfully. Hypothesis five posited that after controlling for social desirability men would exhibit a greater incidence of infidelity than women, and that this infidelity would be sexual in
76 nature. It was proposed that women, by contrast, would display a greater frequency of romantic forays and emotional infidelity. This hypothesis was only partially supported. Men did report engaging in more sexual infidelity than women, in line with the literature (Knox, 1984; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Wiederman, 1997; Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). However, women did not report engaging in more emotional infidelity or forays than men, nor did the sexes differ in the overall amount of infidelity they committed. This begs the question, how are the sexes engaging in equal amounts of infidelity, when men have engaged in more sexual infidelity than women, but women have not engaged in more emotional infidelity or forays than men? The one type of infidelity that was not explored in this hypothesis was fantasy. Therefore, it may well be that men engage in more sexual infidelity than women, women engage in more fantasy than men and the two engage in equal amounts of foray, leading the sexes to cheat equally as much as one another. Another explanation for this seemingly discrepant finding may lie in the design of the infidelity scale. For this measure, the sexual infidelity subscale and the foray subscale produced relatively good coefficient alphas (.90 and .76, respectively). The emotional infidelity subscale, by contrast, yielded a lower coefficient alpha (.63), rendering it a relatively less unitary measure. Therefore, if the questions in the scale had been reworked to provide a more accurate and unitary measure of emotional infidelity, women might have potentially reported engaging in more emotional infidelity than men. Hypothesis six, that there would be a four-way interaction effect among sex, relationship satisfaction, attachment style and infidelity, such that dissatisfied avoidant
77
dismissively attached men would display more sexual infidelity than dissatisfied men of other attachment styles was not able to be pursued due to an inadequate sample size. The results of hypothesis seven, which explored the linkage between perception of partner's attachment style and infidelity, controlling for social desirability, suggested that people who perceive their partners to be enmeshed-preoccupied or avoidant-fearful cheated more than those who perceived partners to be secure or avoidant-dismissive. The common thread between the former two attachment styles is that high levels of anxiety about one's romantic relationships characterize both. This perceived anxiety in one's partner might get overwhelming or frustrating to the other partner in the dyad, isolating that partner and ultimately resulting in infidelity. Conversely, the difference in infidelity when people perceive their partner to be enmeshed preoccupied or avoidant fearful rather than secure or avoidant dismissive may be due to rationalization, rather than causality. For instance, an individual who is looking for a way to manage his guilt over being unfaithful may justify this behavior telling himself that because he experiences his partner as clingy, anxious and jealous that he felt overwhelmed by his partner, isolated and needed to seek out another with whom he could be comfortably close. Hypothesis eight, predicting the highest level of infidelity in dyads where the individual was enmeshed-preoccupied and perceived the partner to be avoidantdismissive, was disconfirmed. This dyad was actually less likely than any other dyad to experience infidelity. This makes sense in lieu of the results from hypothesis seven, suggesting that people who perceived partners to be avoidant dismissive cheated less than when they perceived partners to be enmeshed preoccupied or avoidant fearful. Interestingly, avoidant-dismissive individuals who perceived partners to be enmeshed-
78
preoccupied cheated the most. Given the avoidant-dismissive's natural proclivity toward casual sex and multiple partners (Feeney & Noller, 1992) and the inherent clingy and jealous nature of the enmeshed-preoccupied who is constantly seeking connection and reassurance from his partner, it is not surprising that the avoidant-dismissive individual who is paired with an enmeshed-preoccupied partner might be particularly prone toward dalliance. Since many aspects of relationship functioning have been linked with infidelity, it seems plausible that there might be a connection between one's interpersonal style of relating to others and the decision to behave unfaithfully. Results, however, did not support a statistically significant relationship between any of the eight styles of interpersonal relating and infidelity, suggesting that prediction of infidelity from one's interpersonal style alone, is not possible. Statistically significant negative relationships were noted between the anxiety dimension of attachment and the domineering/controlling, vindictive/self-centered and cold/distant subscales of the IIP. Since anxiety was only linked with infidelity at the trend level (p = .08), the implications of these relationships are likely minimal. However, statistically significant negative relationships were found between the avoidance dimension of attachment and the vindictive/self-centered and intrusive/needy subscales of the IIP. Since avoidance is linked with the decision to behave unfaithfully and the more avoidant one is, the less vindictive/self-centered and intrusive/needy s/he is, being less vindictive/self-centered and intrusive/needy may in some way indirectly be linked with decision to cheat. Someone who is intrusive/needy is not going to behave in an avoidantly-attached fashion to his or her partner. By contrast, this type of person might
79 be inclined to display higher levels of clinginess, more pathognemonic of someone more anxiously attached. This type of person tends to worry more about losing his/her partner's love and thus, would not be inclined to cheat. Therefore, it makes sense that a less intrusive/needy person would avoid his partner more and perhaps be more inclined to turn to another to have his needs met. The vindictive-self centered link seems more difficult to interpret, as someone who is vindictive and self-centered sounds like the type of person who might be inclined to cheat. However, if being vindictive/self-centered is linked with lower levels of avoidance, this type of person might be more likely to aggressively confront her partner when dissatisfied, rather than avoiding the conflict and turning to another romantic partner to meet her needs. Statistically significant negative relationships were also noted between anxiety and overall level of interpersonal relating and avoidance and overall level of interpersonal relating. This suggests that the more anxiety an individual experiences with another, the less comfortable interpersonal relating may become for him or her. Similarly, an avoidant person is going to have difficulty relating well interpersonally, as he or she may avoid important topics of discussion that may be uncomfortable but are necessary to move a relationship forward, or may avoid genuine interpersonal contact with another altogether. Clearly, if someone is experiencing significant anxiety when relating and tends to avoid real connection or contact with his or her partner, he or she may be more inclined to behave unfaithfully than someone with less anxiety and avoidant defenses around interpersonal relating. There was also a statistically significant positive relationship between the vindictive/self- centered scale of the IIP and all measures of relationship satisfaction
80 (dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, affectional expression, dyadic cohesion and dyadic adjustment). As relationship satisfaction was linked with less of a likelihood to behave unfaithfully and also with the vindictive/self-centered scale of the IIP, being vindictive and self-centered may indirectly translate to less of a proclivity toward infidelity. One possible explanation for this may be that this type of person insists on having his way in the relationship and being self-centered, only chooses partners who mirror a positive image of him and dote on him. Being catered to in such a way may facilitate satisfaction with the relationship, leaving him less disposed to behaving unfaithfully. Also noted, was a statistically significant positive relationship between the cold/distant scale of the IIP and relationship satisfaction as measure by the following factors: dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohesion and dyadic adjustment. To reiterate, relationship satisfaction was linked with less of an inclination toward infidelity. Given this, and the connection between relationship satisfaction and the tendency to behave in a cold and distant manner, there is a possible indirect link between being cold and distant and cheating less. One potential interpretation of this finding is that with a cold and distant partner, a person really has to work to draw her out and offer a great deal before the cold/distant person is willing to connect or concede. Being pursued in this way or given so much attention may bring about a sense of satisfaction in the cold/distant person, leading her to cheat less. Another explanation may be that a cold and distant person resorts to icy behavior and silent treatment until s/he gets what s/he wants. In this way, s/he may be successful in winning arguments and getting his or her way leading to satisfaction with the relationship, and less of a likelihood to cheat.
81 Statistically significant positive relationships were noted between all aspects of relationship satisfaction and the ability to relate well interpersonally suggesting that either satisfied individuals are more comfortable and relaxed when relating to another or the ability to relax and feel comfortable in one's interpersonal relations has a spillover affect to one's romantic relationship, leaving him or her satisfied. This has important implications for this study as relationship satisfaction is linked with less of a likelihood to behave unfaithfully. Therefore, helping an individual to develop good interpersonal skills may be a first step in helping him to create a satisfying relationship, which may act as a buffer against infidelity. Finally, with respect to attitudes toward infidelity, results suggest that men and women held similar views about what constitutes self infidelity, believing that unfaithful behavior occurs somewhere between the point of going on a date and kissing someone other than their partner. Men and women were also similar in their views of what would constitute infidelity in their partners. Additionally, attitudes about self and partner infidelity were both linked with emotional infidelity, sexual infidelity, forays and overall infidelity, such that the more freedom a person gave the self and partner to engage in these types of infidelity, the more likely s/he was to have engaged in these acts. Fantasy was the only form of infidelity not linked with attitudes about self and other infidelity. It is plausible that fantasy proved to be the exception, as having fantasies about someone other than one's partner is largely common (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001), and thus, many may not consider fantasy to be a form of infidelity.
82 Limitations of Study and Future Research While this study attempted to minimize the amount of confounding variables, as with any study, it is not without limitations. One major limitation to this study is that the subject pool was drawn from a college population of psychology students, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. It may be that this particular population was homogenous, and that there are certain characteristics of university students, specifically those drawn to the field of psychology, which may account for the findings. Future research may attempt to replicate the results of this study with either a clinical population or a population of individuals drawn from myriad settings, other than a four-year university. Another shortcoming of this study is that the number of married participants is minimal compared to the number of single participants. In terms of dating relationships, it may be that infidelity is not judged as harshly as in marital relationships, because dating relationships require a much smaller commitment than that of a marital relationship. Also, with respect to dating relationships, there is room for ambiguity. The unfaithful partner may suggest that s/he did not interpret the relationship to carry such a level of commitment whereas in a marriage, both partners take vows to spend a lifetime together, forsaking all others. Consequently, another area for future research would be a study of marital infidelity, observed on a continuum, as in this study. A potential problem with this study is related to the psychometric properties of the infidelity measure developed for the study's use. The infidelity measure encompassed four infidelity subscales (emotional infidelity, fantasy, forays, sexual infidelity) and an overall scale. Three of these subscales (forays, sexual infidelity and overall infidelity),
83 produced reasonably reliable coefficient alphas (.76, .90, and .72, respectively.) Relatively weaker, however, were the coefficient alphas for the emotional infidelity and fantasy subscales (both at .63). As a result, these subscales may have been less unitary measures of emotional infidelity and fantasy. Therefore, reworking the subscales, either by eliminating certain questions or adding additional questions that might increase the coefficient alpha might have rendered this a better measure of infidelity. One final limitation to this study was the use of self-report measures. Self-report measures, particularly those with face validity, tend to give the respondent a sense of what s/he is endorsing. A measure of social desirability was given to assess the extent to which participants were engaging in impression management, however, use of less direct and more projective measures (The Adult Attachment Inventory rather than the ECR-R), may be used in future studies, to limit participants' ability to respond in a socially desirable manner. Clinical Applications In contrast to the various aforementioned limitations, this study also carries with it several applications and implications for clinicians. The findings suggest a link between attachment style and infidelity. In particular, securely attached persons cheat less than their insecurely attached counterparts. Additionally, previous research has demonstrated that attachment style can change over time (Davila, Burge & Hammen, 1997). Therapy helps to increase secure attachment by providing the patient with an available, reliable and responsive caregiver (the therapist). That said, individual therapy can help more insecurely attached persons, particularly those with high anxiety, to first relax in the context of an intimate therapeutic relationship, and eventually in the context of an
84
intimate romantic relationship, thereby decreasing the likelihood of infidelity occurring. Additionally, given the link between insecure attachment style and infidelity, it is plausible that those who are insecurely attached are either anticipating being responded to poorly by their partner or are getting into situations with their partner where their partner is not responding to their needs, leading them to behave unfaithfully. Helping the couple to explore their maladaptive cyclical relational patterns, or how what occurred in their families of origin is being re-enacted with one another can help partners to communicate and work through their hurts, anxieties and disappointments rather than turning to another for comfort. One other important finding of this study is the connection between the various aspects of relationship satisfaction and decreased levels of infidelity. If experiencing satisfaction, showing affection, being able to agree and functioning together as a unit are all buffers against infidelity, then couples therapy can act as a preventive measure against initial or subsequent infidelity, by helping the couple to work together, be more playful, express and respond to one another's needs and engage in more physical and emotional intimacy. Research suggests that affect-focused therapy tends to be highly effective in increasing satisfaction, consensus, cohesion and overall adjustment in a marital relationship (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985). However, one's attachment pattern can present obstacles to an individual's ability to play and to be expressive of one's feelings and communicative about one's needs. A more subtle implication of this study is to alert clinicians to deal with the attachment patterns of the patients with whom they are working, as early attachment patterns and
85 internal working models need to be addressed before couples can achieve the capacity to play, work well together and to communicate their needs to one another effectively.
86 References Aber, J.L., Slade, A., Berger, B., Bresgi, I., & Kaplan, M. (1985). The Parent Development Interview. Unpublished manuscript. Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bell, S.M. (1969). Some contemporary patterns of motherinfant interaction in the feeding situation. In A. Ambrose (Ed.), Stimulation in early infancy (pp. 133-170). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341. Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Wittig, B.A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss(Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 111-136). London: Methuen. Allen, E.S., & Baucom, D.H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement. Family Process, 43, 467-488. Atkins, D.C., Jacobson, N.S., & Baucom, D.H. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 735-749. Aviezer, O., Sagi, A., Joels, T., & Ziv, Y. (1999). Emotional availability and attachment representations in kibbutz infants and their mothers. Developmental Psychology. 35(3). 811-821. Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.
87 Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 7 . 147-178. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244. Bell, S.M., & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child Development. 43. 1171-1190. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow. Bogaert, A.F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships. 9(2). 191-204. Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of a child's tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis. 39. 350-373. Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1996). Development of a new multi-item measure of adult romantic attachment: A preliminary report. In J. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bremerton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology. 28(5). 759-775. Bullough, V., & Bullough, B. (Eds). Human sexuality: An encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing Co., 1994.
88 Carnelley, K.B., Pietromonaco, P.R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3, 257-277. Cohen, A., & Eagle, M. (2005). Prediction of relational functioning from attachment in adult romantic relationships. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53, 1331-1333. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2na ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cox, M.J., Owen, M.T., Henderson, V.K., & Margand, N.A. (1992). Prediction of infant-father and infant-mother attachment. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 474-483. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale "English. " A new scale of social desirability independent ofpsychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 826-838. Davis, K.E., Kirkpatrick, L.A., Levy, M.B., & O'Heam, R.E. (1994). Stalking the elusive love style: attachment styles, love styles, and relationship development. In Erber, R., & Gilmour, R. (1994), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 179210). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Diamond, L.M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110(1), 173192. Diamond, L.M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and sexual desire. American Psychological Society, 13(3), 116-119.
89 Drigotas, S.M., Safstrom, C.A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3). 509-524. Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58(2). 281-291. Feeney, J.A., & Raphael, B. (1992). Adult attachment and sexuality: Implications for understanding risk behaviors for HIV infection. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 26. 399-407. Feeney, J.A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships. 9(1). 39-55. Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology. 4(2). 132-154. Freud, S. (1912). On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love. (Contributions to the psychology of love II) Standard Edition. Vol. XI, London: Hogarth, pp. 177-190. George, C, Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). The Berkeley Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Psychology. Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1977). The relationship of extramarital sex, length of marriage, and sex differences on marital satisfaction and romanticism: Athanasiou 's data reanalyzed. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 39. 691-703. Hazan, C, & Diamond, L. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review of General Psychology. 4(2). 186-204.
90 Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Hazan, C, & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 151178). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hazan, C, Zeifman, D., & Middleton, K. (1994). Adult romantic attachment, affection, and sex. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Personal Relationships, Groningen, the Netherlands. Hicks, T.V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one's partner versus someone else: Gender differences in incidence and frequency. The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 43-50. Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V.S. (1998). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Barber, J.P., Foltz, C, & Weinrup, R.M. The central relationship questionnaire: Initial report. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 131142. Impett, E.A., & Peplau, L.A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 360-370. Johnson, S., & Greenberg, L.S. (1985). Differential Effects of Experiential and Problem-Solving Interventions in Resolving Marital Conflict. Journal of Consultine and Clinical Psychology. 53(2). 175-184.
91 Keelan, J.P.R., Dion, K.K., & Dion, K.L. (1998). Attachment style and relationship satisfaction: Test of a self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 30(1). 24-35. Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Atatchment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123-142. Knox, D. (1984). Human sexuality: The search for understanding. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. Kochanska, G. (1998). Mother-child relationship, child fearfulness, and emerging attachment: A short-term longitudinal study. Developmental Psycholgy, 34(3), 480-490. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S. (1994). The social organizationof sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LeGrand, A.K., Snell, W.E., Jr., & Zlokovich, M. (2002). Chapter 16: Psychological attachment and human sexuality. In W.E. Snell, Jr. (Ed.). (2002). Student research in psvchologyat Southeast Missouri State University. Cape Girardeau, MO: Snell Publications. WEB: http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/snell/books/intimate/intimate.htm. Levy, K. (2005 December). An attachment perspective on understanding sex differences in jealousy. Paper presented at Attachment Symposium at Adelphi University, Garden City, NY. Levy, K.N., Blatt, S.J., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 407-419.
92 Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age six: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 415-426. Maykovich, M.K.(1976). Attitudes versus behavior in extramarital sexual relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 693-699. Meyers, S.A., & Landsberger, S.A. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 159-172. Oliver, M.B., & Hyde, J.S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29-51. Sagarin, B.J., Vaughn Becker, D., Guadagno, R.E., Nicastle, L.D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 17-23. Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 627-640. Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501. Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280. Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5), 971-980.
93 Slade, A., Belsky, J., Aber, J.L., & Phelps, J.L. (1999). Mothers' representations of their relationships with their toddlers: Links to adult attachment and observed mothering. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 611-619. Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1528. Spitz, R.A. (1949). Autoerotism: Some empirical findings and hypothesis on three of its manifestations in the first year of life. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 3(4), 85-120. Stayton, D.J., Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Main, M. (1973). The development of separation behavior in the first year of life: Protest, following, and greeting. Developmental Psychology, 9, 213-225. Thompson, A.P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1-22. Thompson, S. (1983). Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality. New York: Monthly Review Press. Thompson, A.P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 35-42. Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48-60. Weis, D.L., & Slosnerick, M. (1981). Attitudes toward sexual and nonsexual extramarital involvements among a sample of college students. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 43. 349-358.
94 Weisgerber, C. (2000, March). Infidelity in Dating Relationships: Examining The Impact Of Attachment Style Differences On Infidelity. Paper presented at the Annual SSCA Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.
95 Appendix A INFORMED CONSENT Behaviors, Attitudes and Patterns in Romantic Relationships You are being asked to participate in a research study that focuses on behaviors, attitudes and patterns in adult romantic relationships. You were selected as a prospective participant, as you are enrolled in an introductory psychology class at Adelphi University. Please read over this form carefully and ask any questions that you may have prior to agreeing to participate in this study. Also, please note that you must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. If you are under age 18, please inform the experimenter. Background Information: The purpose of this study is to learn more about the nature of romantic relationships. In particular, how do such things as relationship quality, relationship satisfaction and attitudes and behaviors in a relationship affect the decisions a partner may make over the course of the relationship? Procedures: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be given a small packet of questionnaires, and asked to complete and return them to a box placed in your psychology classroom, when you have finished. Participation is expected to take no longer than 30 minutes to one hour. Your participation in the study will be complete after turning in the questionnaires. Risks and Benefits to Being in the Study: As part of this study, you will be asked to answer several questions concerning sexual behaviors and attitudes that you may or may not hold in a relationship. Though these questions are few, they are personal and sensitive in nature, and may elicit mild feelings of discomfort in the person responding to them. However, responses are anonymous, and there will be no identifying information connected with the questionnaires, which should minimize or alleviate discomfort. As a participant in this study, you will have the chance to experience first-hand what it is like to participate in a psychological study, while also assisting the university and a doctoral candidate in generating new research. As remuneration for your participation in this study, you will receive extra credit to be used toward your grade in your psychology class. Confidentiality: Every effort will be made to ensure that the data collected in this study will be kept strictly confidential. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a participant. Additionally, when returning your competed packet and informed consent sheet, the consent form will be returned to an envelope separate from the packet, so that it will not be possible to
96 match a name with any data. Such data will only be made accessible to researchers working specifically on this study. Voluntary Nature of the Study: Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary, and your refusal to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the University. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw at any time. However, if you are participating for extra credit, you will not receive full credit, due to early withdrawal from the study. Contacts and Questions: The researchers conducting this study are Alexis Cohen and Dr. Morris Eagle. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact Alexis Cohen at 877-3999 (ext. 750917). You will be a given a copy of this form to keep for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information and understand that my decision to participate in this study is strictly voluntary, and will not affect my standing with the university. I also understand that responses are confidential and anonymous, and if uncomfortable, I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I have been given a contact number if I have any questions about my participation in the study, and understand that I will be given extra credit to be used toward my psychology class, upon completion of the study. Signature of Participant:_________________________________ Date:___________ Name of Participant (Printed):_____________________________ Date:___________
97 Appendix B Close Relationships Questionnaire The 36 statements below concern how you generally feel in emotionally close romantic relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree with it. Check a single category next to each item.
Strongly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Agree Disagree 16) I'm afraid thai I will lose my partner's love. SD
MD MD MD SA SA NAND NAND SA SA SA MA MA MA SA SA
17) I often worry thai my partner will not want to SD stay with me. 18) I often worry that my partner doesn't really SD love me. SD
SA
NAND NAND NAND NAND
SA
4.1 worry that romantic partners won't care about me as much as I care about them.
MD
SA
SA
SA SA SA
MA
SA
5. I often wish that my partner's feelings for me SD were as strong as my feelings for him or her.
6. I worry a lot about my relationships.
MD
MA
SA SA
SD
MD
SA
MA
7. When my partner is out of sight. I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else. 8 When I show my feelings for romantic partners
SD
MD MD MD MD
MD
SA
NAND
NAND NAND NAND NAND SA SA SA SA
SA
MA MA MA MA SA MA SA SA SA SA
MA
SA
I'm afraid they will not feel the same about me. SD 9 I rarely worry about my partner leaving me. 19) My romantic partner makes me doubt myself. 20) I do not often worry about being abandoned. SD SD SD
SA SA SA SA MD
SA
MD NAND SA MD NAND SA MD NAND SA
SD 21) I find that my partners) don't want to get as close as I would like. SD SD SD 22) Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason. SD 23) My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. 24) I'm afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who I really am. 25) It make me mad that I don't get the affection and support I need from my partner. 26) I worry that I won't measure up to other people. 27) My partner only seems to notice me when I'm angry. 19. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. SD
SD SD
NAND
SA
MA MA MA
SA SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
MD MD MD
SA SA SA
NAND NAND NAND
SA SA SA
MA MA MA
SA SA SA
MD
SA
NAND
SA
MA
SA
98
Strongly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Agree Disagree 20.1 feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. 21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. 22.1 am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. 23. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. 24. I prefer nol to be too close to romantic partners. 25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close. SD SD MD
SA SA
NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND NAND
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
SD SD SD SD
MD MD MD MD MD MD MD
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
26. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. SD 27. It's not difficult for me to get close to my partner. SD 28. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. SD 29. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. 28) I tell my partner just about everything. 29) I talk things over with my partner. 30) 1 am nervous when partners get too close to me. 33. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. SD SD SD SD
MD MD MD
SD
MD
MD MD
31) I find it easy to depend on romantic partners. SD 32) It's easy for me to be affectionate with my partner. SD SD
MD MD
36. My partner really understands me and my needs.
99 Appendix C Dyadic Adjustment Scale Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list.
Always Almost Always Occasionally Frequently Almost Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1. Handling family finances 2. Matters of Recreation 3. Religious Matters 4. Demonstrations of affection 5. Friends 6 Sex relations 7 Conventionally correct or proper behavior 8 Philosophy of life 9 Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws 10. Aims, goals and things believed important 11. Amount of time spent together 12. Making major decisions 13. Household tasks 14. Leisure time interests and activities 15. Career decisions 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 0 0 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
All the Time 16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation or terminating your relationship? 17. How often do you or your male leave the house after a fight?
Most of the More often Time than not
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
100
All the Most of the More often Time Time than not 33) In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? 34) Do you confide in your mate? 35) Do you ever regret that you married? (or lived
0
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
together?) 0 4 0 4 5 5
36) How often do you and your partner quarrel? 37) How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves?"
Even- Dav
Almost Every Dav
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
23. Do you kiss your mate? All of them Most of them Some of them 24. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? 4 3 2 Very few of them None of them
How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Never Less than once a month Once or twice a month Once or twice a week
3333
Once More a day often 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
38) Have a stimulating exchange of ideas 39) Laugh together 40) Calmly discuss something? 41) Work together on a project?
0000
There are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no.)
42) Being too tired for sex. 43) Not showing love.
Yes 0 0
No 1 1
101
31 The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, "happy", represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.
1 Extremely Unhappy
2 Fairly Unhappy
3 A Little Unhappy Happy Very Happy
Extremely
Perfect 32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship'.' 5 I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does. 4 1 want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. 3 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. 2 It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but / can t do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. 1 It would be nice if it succeeded, but / refuse to do any more than I am doing now to Weep the relationship going. 0 My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.
102 Appendix D Inventory of Interpersonal Problems - 32 People have reported having the following problems in relating to other people. Please read the list below, and for each item, consider whether it has been a problem for you with respect to any significant person in your life. Then fill in the numbered circle that describes how distressing that problem has been. The following are things you find hard to do with other people. It's hard for me to:
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ! 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Not at all 44) Say no to other people 45) Join in on groups 46) Keep things private from other people 47) Tell a person to stop bothering me 48) Introduce myself to new people 49) Confront people with problems that come up 50) Be assertive with another person 51) Let other people know when I am angry 52) Socialize with other people 53) Show affection to people 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A little bit
Moderately
Ouite a bit
Extremely
54) Get along with people 55) Be firm when I need to be 56) Experience a feeling of love for another person 57) Be supportive of another person's goals in life 58) Feel close lo other people 59) Really care about other people's problems 60) Put somebody else's needs before my own 61) Feel good about another person's happiness
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62) Ask other people to get together socially with me 0 63) Be assertive without worrying about hurting the other person's feelings 0
103 The following are things that you do too much.

Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
21.1 open up lo people too much. 64) I am too aggressive toward other people. 65) I try to please other people too much. 66) I want to be noticed too much. 67) I try to control other people too much. 68) I put other people's needs before my own too much. 69) 1 am overly generous to other people. 70) I manipulate other people loo much to gel whal I want. 71) 1 tell personal things lo other people too much. 30.1 argue with other people too much. 31.1 let other people take advantage of me too much. 32. 1 am affected by another person's misery too much.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
104 Appendix E Marlowe-Crowne Scale Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you.
T F T F T F
T F
1. Before voting. I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all of the candidates. 2.1 never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if 1 am not encouraged.
4.1 have never intensely disliked anyone.
T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F TF TF TF TF TF TF TF
5. On occasion 1 have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. 8. My table manners at home are as good as when 1 eat out in a restaurant. 9.111 could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen. I would probably do it. 10. On a few occasions. 1 have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. III like to gossip at times. 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. 13. No matter who I'm talking to. I'm always a good listener. 14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. 15. There have been occasions when I look advantage of someone. 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. 17. 1 always try to practice what 1 preach. 18. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loudmouthed, obnoxious people. 19. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. 20. When I don't know something. I don't at all mind admitting it. 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. 27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous o the good fortune of others. 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
105
T F T F T F 31.1 have never felt that I was punished without cause. 32.1 sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.
106 Appendix F
Scale of Relational Infidelity (SORI)

This is a study meant to explore the nature of romantic relationships. We have designed this scale in order to gather information about people's patterns of behavior and attitudes in their romantic relationships. Please participate only if you have been involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship of at least three months or more. Please answer the following questions based upon time spent in your current romantic relationship or one significant steady romantic relationship in which you have previously been involved. A current steady romantic relationship is preferred, so please refer to a past relationship, only if you are not currently involved in a romantic relationship that meets the aforementioned criteria. Remember to choose just one relationship, and refer only to that one relationship when answering all questions. Mark your answers by placing an [x] on the line next to the option below each question that is appropriate to your relationship. Remember that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained, and please answer all questions as truthfully as possible. Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionnaire _____ 1) - What is the status of the relationship to which you will be referring throughout the questionnaire? ___past _____current 72)- Gender ______M ____F
73)- Age ______yrs. _____mos. 74)- What is your ethnicity? ____Caucasian _____African Am. _____ Hispanic_____ Asian _____Native Am. ____Other (Please specify)_________________ 5) - What is the duration of your relationship? ____< than 3 mos ____3-6 months _____6 mos. - 1 yr _____1 -2 yrs _____>2 yrs 6)- If more than 2 years, please specify how long in years and months. ____ number of yrs ____number of mos. 7) - Have you ever broken up and gotten back together during the course of your relationship? ____yes _____no
107 8)- If you have broken up and gotten back together during your relationship, please indicate how many times. ____just once ____two times ____three times _____> 3 times; (please specify # of times)____ 9) - How many serious romantic relationships have you been involved in prior to this relationship? ____0 _____1 ___2-5 _____5 - 1 0 _____> 10; (please specify # of relationships)____ 10) - In the space provided below, please specify approximately (in months and years), how long each relationship lasted? List each relationship length next to a letter, starting from A and going up through G, if necessary. a. b . c. d . e. f. g Please answer the following questions based upon a current or previous steady romantic relationship. These are personal questions and responses will be confidential and anonymous. Please answer as honestly as possible. Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionnaire_____ Section 1: During your romantic relationship... 11) - Have you ever fantasized about having a romantic relationship with somebody other than your partner? ____never _____only once _____occasionally ____often _____very frequently 12) - Have you ever had a crush on somebody else? ____never _____just one other person ____two other people _____>2 other people; (please specify # of people) ____ 13) - Have you ever fallen in love with somebody else? ____never _____only once _____twice _____> twice; (please specify # of times)____
108
Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionanire_____ Section 2: During your romantic relationship... 14) - Have you ever fantasized about someone other than your partner, sometime other than while you were having sex with your partner? ____never _____only once _____occasionally ____often _____very frequently 15) - Have you ever had sexual fantasies about someone other than your partner while having sex with your partner? ____never _____only once _____occasionally ____often _____very frequently Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionnaire _____ Section 3; During your romantic relationship... 16) - Have you ever flirted with anyone other than your partner? ____never _____only once _____occasionally _____often _____very frequently 17) - Have you ever had an intimate conversation (romantic in tone, but not sexual) with someone other than your partner? ____never _____only with 1 other partner ____with 2 other partners _____with > 2 other partners; (please specify # of partners) ____ 18) - Have you ever gone on a date or spent "romantic" time with someone other than your partner? ____never _____only with 1 other partner _____with 2 other partners _____with > 2 other partners; (please specify # of partners) ____ 19) - Have you ever engaged in cyber sex or phone sex with someone other than your partner without masturbating? ____never _____only once ____occasionally ____often _____very frequently 20) - Have you ever engaged in cyber sex or phone sex with someone other than your partner while masturbating? ____never _____only once _____occasionally ____often _____very frequently
109 Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionnaire _____ Section 4: During your romantic relationship... 21) - Have you ever gotten physically involved (I.e. kissing or necking) with someone other than your partner? ____never _____only with 1 other partner ____with 2 other partners _____with > 2 other partners; (please specify # of partners) ____ 22) - Have you ever engaged in sexual behaviors short of intercourse, but beyond kissing and necking with someone other than your partner? ____never _____only with 1 other partner ____with 2 other partners _____with > 2 other partners; (please specify # of partners) ____ 23) - Have you had sexual intercourse with someone other than your partner? ____never _____only with 1 other partner ____with 2 other partners _____with > 2 other partners; (please specify # of partners) ____
Section 5: This section will assess some attitudes people hold in a relationship. For the next two questions, please place an \x\ on the line above the response that you wish to endorse. Please write the initials of the person to whom you will be referring throughout the questionnaire _____ 24) - Imagine that your partner had engaged in the acts mentioned below with someone other than you. At what point would you feel that your partner had been unfaithful? 1________________2_______________3_____________4___________________5 fantasizing going on a date kissing/necking >kissing/necking, sexual but < sexual intercourse intercourse 25) - Imagine that you had engaged in the acts mentioned below with someone other than your partner. At what point would you feel that you had been unfaithful? 1________________2_______________3_____________4___________________5 fantasizing going on a date kissing/necking >kissing/necking, sexual but < sexual intercourse intercourse 26) - What is your marital status? (Please place an [x] on the line corresponding with your response.) single married

Attachment and Infedility in Romantic Relationships

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment and Infedility in Romantic Relationships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relation of Attachment to Infidelity in Romantic Relationships: An Exploration of Attachment Style, Perception of Partner's Attachment Style, Relationship Satisfaction,

Relationship Quality and Gender Differences in Sexual Behaviors

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty

The Gordon F. Demer Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies Adelphi University

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Alexis B. Cohen December, 2005

UMI Number: 3213084 Copyright 2006 by Cohen, Alexis B.

All rights reserved.

Dissertation Committee Chairperson Committee member Committee member ........... Reader

D. Inventory of Interpersonal Problems - 32 E. Marlowe-Crowne Scale F. Scale of Relational Infidelity (SORI)

2.7411 14.86 4.07 1.81 5.08 1.64 12.60

1.15609 4.890 3.557 2.507 6.708 3.649 12.920

2.6984 14.63 4.53 2.20 5.80 2.55 15.08

1.14495 4.214 3.512 2.728 8.681 4.282 15.739

2.7622 14.98 3.84 1.62 4.73 1.18 11.38

1.16656 5.207 3.575 2.381 5.492 3.220 11.153

Table 3 Relationships between Social Desirability and 25 Variables (N = 154)

.256(") . 356(") -.234(")

.102 .104 .126 . 180(*) 172C) .117 -.205(*)

Mean Differences in Infidelity Among the Four Attachment Groups (N =154)

Avoidant Fearful 5.05 (.89) 2.48 (.64) 9.14(1.63) 3.30(91) 19.97(3.10)

Degrees of Freedom 3, 145 3, 145 3, 145 3, 145 3. 145

1.82 0.88 2.82 1.81 3.06

Emotional Infidelity .069 Fantasy 0.58

Sexual Total I Infidelity ' Infidelity

Hypothesis 3: Relationship satisfaction will be inversely related to infidelity.

Emotional Infidelity -.219(") Fantasy -.231(") \

Sexual Infidelity -066 I

Total Infidelity -.217(")

Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion

Emotional i Infidelity -.130

Sexual | Total Infidelity I Infidelity .001 ! -.126

Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion

Secure Dyadic 49.35

Consensus Dyadic Satisfaction Affectional Expression Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Adjustment

(87) 39.02 (70) 9.79 (23) 18.02 (.42) 116.19 (178)

45.40(1.31) 35.80(1.04) 8.59 (.35)

43.88(1.98) 30.59(1.58) 8.29 (.53)

42.07(1.98) 32.15(1.58) 8.17 (.53)

3, 149 3, 149 3. 149

.001 .000 .002

5.71 11.55 5.21

*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

3.87 (.34) 1.63 (.24) 4.77(64) 1.20 (.35) 11.47(1.21)

1, 151 1, 151 1. 151 1, 151 1, 151

1.10 1.64 .73 4.68 2.64

Avoidant Fearful 5.50(3.61) 2.36(2.61) 7.45 (9.55) 3.41 (5.60) 18.73(17.28)

Degrees of Freedom 3, 149 3, 149 3, 149 3,149 3, 149

.00 .03 .02 .01 .00

5.09 3.01 3.57 3.64 6.37

Sexual Fantasy I .069 | Forays -.027

Infidelity Infidelity .016 -.010

Total Interpersonal Difficulty

Sexual Infidelity .245(")

Total Infidelity .296(")

Dyadic Satisfaction -.034 .311(")

Affectional Expression .129 .195C)

Dyadic Cohesion .025 158C)

Dyadic Adjustment .061 .281(")

Anxiety -.160(*) -.234(")

Avoidance -.138 -.222(")

Intrusive/ Needy Overall Interpersonal Relating

NAND NAND NAND NAND

.102 .104 .126 . 180() 172C) .117 -.205()