Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity

Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) N.J.), 2017-09, Vol.36 (3), p.434-446
Hauptverfasser: Guitar, Amanda E., Geher, Glenn, Kruger, Daniel J., Garcia, Justin R., Fisher, Maryanne L., Fitzgerald, Carey J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 446
container_issue 3
container_start_page 434
container_title Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)
container_volume 36
creator Guitar, Amanda E.
Geher, Glenn
Kruger, Daniel J.
Garcia, Justin R.
Fisher, Maryanne L.
Fitzgerald, Carey J.
description Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitions and understanding of different types of infidelity. The current research used a mixed-methodology approach to explore the epistemological nature of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 1, 379 participants provided open-ended definitions of what they believe constitutes sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 2, responses were then coded by a different group of outside raters to examine overall themes in the definitions provided and how prototypical these definitions were for each type of infidelity. Results identified and examined the definitions with the highest mean ratings in terms of how well they represented emotional infidelity or sexual infidelity . Overall, both men and women had more consistency in their definitions of what constituted sexual infidelity than on what constituted emotional infidelity, suggesting that emotional infidelity is a more vague and complex concept than sexual infidelity. Additionally, when asked to define sexual and emotional infidelity, many participants focused on specific behaviors (including deception), but when asked to consider the types of infidelity as distinct from each other, participants focused on feelings. By exploring how individuals actually define these constructs, these data provide a more accurate and rich depiction of how individuals define acts of infidelity than currently exists in the relationship literature.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1931551587</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A501633170</galeid><sourcerecordid>A501633170</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-101260083e84b2c8cdee042a0f2808f8e295f7685ab8201b9d6f3383ff625a753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl9rFDEUxQdRsFY_QN8KguBD6r35M5PBp9rWulAQ2vocsjM3symzmZpkoP32zbpCu7CC5CE3N78TkpNTVUcIJwjQfEnIUUoGWLNWCs7kq-oAW1Ez2QjxutQga4YC4W31LqU7AGzqtj2ovp6T88GH4diG_vjcp1zq2afVpnVDD7Md_-xcrKfsp1BWi-B8T6PPj--rN86OiT78nQ-rX98vbs9-sKufl4uz0yvWKQ6ZISCvAbQgLZe8011PBJJbcFyDdpp4q1xTa2WXmgMu2752QmjhXM2VbZQ4rD5uz72P0--ZUjZ30xzLXZIpT0SlUOnmmRrsSMYHN-Vou7VPnTlVxRchsIFCsT3UQIGiHadQzCjtHf5kD19GT2vf7RV83hEUJtNDHuycklncXP8_--1yl_30gl2RHfMqTeO8-ZW0C-IW7OKUUiRn7qNf2_hoEMwmK2abFVMUZpMVI4uGbzWpsGGg-MLhf4qeAHesulQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1931551587</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity</title><source>SpringerLink</source><creator>Guitar, Amanda E. ; Geher, Glenn ; Kruger, Daniel J. ; Garcia, Justin R. ; Fisher, Maryanne L. ; Fitzgerald, Carey J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Guitar, Amanda E. ; Geher, Glenn ; Kruger, Daniel J. ; Garcia, Justin R. ; Fisher, Maryanne L. ; Fitzgerald, Carey J.</creatorcontrib><description>Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitions and understanding of different types of infidelity. The current research used a mixed-methodology approach to explore the epistemological nature of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 1, 379 participants provided open-ended definitions of what they believe constitutes sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 2, responses were then coded by a different group of outside raters to examine overall themes in the definitions provided and how prototypical these definitions were for each type of infidelity. Results identified and examined the definitions with the highest mean ratings in terms of how well they represented emotional infidelity or sexual infidelity . Overall, both men and women had more consistency in their definitions of what constituted sexual infidelity than on what constituted emotional infidelity, suggesting that emotional infidelity is a more vague and complex concept than sexual infidelity. Additionally, when asked to define sexual and emotional infidelity, many participants focused on specific behaviors (including deception), but when asked to consider the types of infidelity as distinct from each other, participants focused on feelings. By exploring how individuals actually define these constructs, these data provide a more accurate and rich depiction of how individuals define acts of infidelity than currently exists in the relationship literature.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1046-1310</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adultery ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Geriatric psychology ; Infidelity ; Interpersonal relations ; Psychological aspects ; Psychology ; Social aspects ; Social Sciences ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2017-09, Vol.36 (3), p.434-446</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Springer</rights><rights>Current Psychology is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-101260083e84b2c8cdee042a0f2808f8e295f7685ab8201b9d6f3383ff625a753</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-101260083e84b2c8cdee042a0f2808f8e295f7685ab8201b9d6f3383ff625a753</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guitar, Amanda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geher, Glenn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Justin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Maryanne L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzgerald, Carey J.</creatorcontrib><title>Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity</title><title>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Curr Psychol</addtitle><description>Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitions and understanding of different types of infidelity. The current research used a mixed-methodology approach to explore the epistemological nature of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 1, 379 participants provided open-ended definitions of what they believe constitutes sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 2, responses were then coded by a different group of outside raters to examine overall themes in the definitions provided and how prototypical these definitions were for each type of infidelity. Results identified and examined the definitions with the highest mean ratings in terms of how well they represented emotional infidelity or sexual infidelity . Overall, both men and women had more consistency in their definitions of what constituted sexual infidelity than on what constituted emotional infidelity, suggesting that emotional infidelity is a more vague and complex concept than sexual infidelity. Additionally, when asked to define sexual and emotional infidelity, many participants focused on specific behaviors (including deception), but when asked to consider the types of infidelity as distinct from each other, participants focused on feelings. By exploring how individuals actually define these constructs, these data provide a more accurate and rich depiction of how individuals define acts of infidelity than currently exists in the relationship literature.</description><subject>Adultery</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Geriatric psychology</subject><subject>Infidelity</subject><subject>Interpersonal relations</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1046-1310</issn><issn>1936-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl9rFDEUxQdRsFY_QN8KguBD6r35M5PBp9rWulAQ2vocsjM3symzmZpkoP32zbpCu7CC5CE3N78TkpNTVUcIJwjQfEnIUUoGWLNWCs7kq-oAW1Ez2QjxutQga4YC4W31LqU7AGzqtj2ovp6T88GH4diG_vjcp1zq2afVpnVDD7Md_-xcrKfsp1BWi-B8T6PPj--rN86OiT78nQ-rX98vbs9-sKufl4uz0yvWKQ6ZISCvAbQgLZe8011PBJJbcFyDdpp4q1xTa2WXmgMu2752QmjhXM2VbZQ4rD5uz72P0--ZUjZ30xzLXZIpT0SlUOnmmRrsSMYHN-Vou7VPnTlVxRchsIFCsT3UQIGiHadQzCjtHf5kD19GT2vf7RV83hEUJtNDHuycklncXP8_--1yl_30gl2RHfMqTeO8-ZW0C-IW7OKUUiRn7qNf2_hoEMwmK2abFVMUZpMVI4uGbzWpsGGg-MLhf4qeAHesulQ</recordid><startdate>20170901</startdate><enddate>20170901</enddate><creator>Guitar, Amanda E.</creator><creator>Geher, Glenn</creator><creator>Kruger, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Garcia, Justin R.</creator><creator>Fisher, Maryanne L.</creator><creator>Fitzgerald, Carey J.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IBG</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170901</creationdate><title>Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity</title><author>Guitar, Amanda E. ; Geher, Glenn ; Kruger, Daniel J. ; Garcia, Justin R. ; Fisher, Maryanne L. ; Fitzgerald, Carey J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-101260083e84b2c8cdee042a0f2808f8e295f7685ab8201b9d6f3383ff625a753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adultery</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Geriatric psychology</topic><topic>Infidelity</topic><topic>Interpersonal relations</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guitar, Amanda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geher, Glenn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Justin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Maryanne L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzgerald, Carey J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale in Context : Biography</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guitar, Amanda E.</au><au>Geher, Glenn</au><au>Kruger, Daniel J.</au><au>Garcia, Justin R.</au><au>Fisher, Maryanne L.</au><au>Fitzgerald, Carey J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity</atitle><jtitle>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</jtitle><stitle>Curr Psychol</stitle><date>2017-09-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>434</spage><epage>446</epage><pages>434-446</pages><issn>1046-1310</issn><eissn>1936-4733</eissn><abstract>Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitions and understanding of different types of infidelity. The current research used a mixed-methodology approach to explore the epistemological nature of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 1, 379 participants provided open-ended definitions of what they believe constitutes sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 2, responses were then coded by a different group of outside raters to examine overall themes in the definitions provided and how prototypical these definitions were for each type of infidelity. Results identified and examined the definitions with the highest mean ratings in terms of how well they represented emotional infidelity or sexual infidelity . Overall, both men and women had more consistency in their definitions of what constituted sexual infidelity than on what constituted emotional infidelity, suggesting that emotional infidelity is a more vague and complex concept than sexual infidelity. Additionally, when asked to define sexual and emotional infidelity, many participants focused on specific behaviors (including deception), but when asked to consider the types of infidelity as distinct from each other, participants focused on feelings. By exploring how individuals actually define these constructs, these data provide a more accurate and rich depiction of how individuals define acts of infidelity than currently exists in the relationship literature.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1046-1310
ispartof Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2017-09, Vol.36 (3), p.434-446
issn 1046-1310
1936-4733
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1931551587
source SpringerLink
subjects Adultery
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Geriatric psychology
Infidelity
Interpersonal relations
Psychological aspects
Psychology
Social aspects
Social Sciences
Studies
title Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T08%3A33%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Defining%20and%20Distinguishing%20Sexual%20and%20Emotional%20Infidelity&rft.jtitle=Current%20psychology%20(New%20Brunswick,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Guitar,%20Amanda%20E.&rft.date=2017-09-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=434&rft.epage=446&rft.pages=434-446&rft.issn=1046-1310&rft.eissn=1936-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA501633170%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1931551587&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A501633170&rfr_iscdi=true