Running Head: INFIDELITY IN RELATIONSHIPS

Infidelity in Committed Relationships: Attachment Theory, Behavioral Perspective and Self-Regulation Daniella Morga and Nanie Narciso Loyola Schools Ateneo De Manila University

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Purpose of the paper Twos company; threes a crowd or so the saying goes for exclusive monogamous relationships. Individuals involved in romantic relationships usually have a mutual unwritten

understanding of the extent of their involvement in the relationship and the acceptable behaviors between the partners (McAlister, Pachana, & Jackson, 2005). According to Ruza and Ruza (2010), while monogamy and exclusivity is the prevailing belief, sexual, emotional, and other kinds of infidelity more often than not afflict many romantic relationships. Infidelity can be attributed as a prime cause of relational distress and dissolution between married and unmarried couples (Ciarocco, Echevarria, & Lewandowski, 2012; Allen & Baucom, 2004; Schmitt, 2004). It negatively affects individuals involved, leading them to feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt and betrayal. It also causes a myriad of intense feelings like insecurity, anxiety, anger and depression in individuals victimized with it (Munsch, 2012). Many more effects of infidelity are reported on the families, particularly the children and their consequent perception of ideas such as love, marriage and relationships that would eventually persist into adulthood (Kioski, 2001). Given the breadth and depth of infidelitys effect on society as well as its dynamic nature, the authors were inspired to take a scholarly look into infidelity. The paper will first deconstruct infidelity (definition, types, and motivations) then, second, it will describe the societal factors that exacerbate it (factors and Philippine context) and finally, it will attempt to decipher the roots of this phenomenon through three perspectives, namely Attachment Theory, Behavioral Perspective and Self-Regulation.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Infidelity in Committed Relationships Exclusive relationships are a social norm in most countries throughout the world. This norms exclusivity exists not only within the context of marriage but extends to include cohabiting and dating couples (McAlister et al., 2005). A romantic monogamous relationship involves two people with a strong bond and an understood commitment. Gough adds that, ideally these people are bonded to each other emotionally, physically and intimately. The relationship implies safety and trust, where there is a healthy connection of oneness based on exclusivity (Gough, 1999). Fisher (1992) explains there is a general presumption in all human societies that an individual romantically committed to another, will confine sexual activities solely to that relationship. Many cultures frown upon involvement of one partner with someone outside the

exclusive relationship (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). In countries like the United States, couples expect their relationships to be monogamous, and many oppose sexual relationships outside their own (also called extra dyadic activities) (Abolfazl, Elham, Zahra, & Masoomeh, 2011). Despite reporting negative attitudes towards extra dyadic activity, a majority of people actually engage in acts of infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Infidelity is a major cause for divorce and collapse of marital life in the United States (Abolfazl et al., 2011). Likewise in the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country where monogamy is the social norm, infidelity has ripped numerous families apart (Karedan, 2003). Even with laws, norms and social pressures restricting involvement in certain kinds of relationships, there is considerable amount of research from studies and accounts from therapists dealing with the problem of infidelity and affairs (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). Infidelity is discouraged and viewed negatively throughout most

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

cultures yet is a pervasive phenomenon in both marriage and dating partnerships (Ciarocco et al., 2012).

Defining Infidelity Glass (2002) defines infidelity as a secret sexual, romantic, or emotional involvement that violates the commitment to an exclusive relationship. Infidelity is a violation of the couples assumed or stated agreement regarding emotional and or sexual exclusivity (Weeks, Gambescia, & Jenkins, 2003). According to Peterman (2009), extra dyadic involvement refers to physical or emotional intimacy that takes place outside an existing romantic relationship, it happens when the involvement violates the socially approved standards of exclusivity. The exclusion of others makes relationships safe and secure, and engaging in affairs breaches this exclusivity. In the book by Gough (1999), she defines an affair as an illicit liaison verging on the scandalous or the notorious; a betrayal; a relationship between two people who should not be having one, at least according to the acceptable norms of society; a breach of trust that is further compounded by deceit. Essentially, definitions of infidelity points to a crux, to a breach of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship - a breach of faith or a betrayal of core shared values - where the integrity of the relationship is ultimately anchored (Ruza & Ruza, 2010). Vaugh (2002) explains, affairs happen in both non-marital, "committed" relationships as well as within marriage, and most of the studies and research deal with affairs in the context of marriage. While there are differences between dating and marital infidelity due to the difference in the level of commitment and unique factors influencing relational behaviors, some of the variables are related and similar. Fundamental to this is the concept that relationship practices

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS and beliefs learned or developed during dating and courtship are carried over into marriage (Peterman, 2009). According to Wiederman and Hurd (1999), it is while dating that people first advocate or disregard exclusivity expectations. They further mentioned that infidelity during dating may affect future marital expectations and result to the same behavior within the marriage. Types of Infidelity Fish, Pavkov, Wetchler, and Bercik (2012), classify infidelity into three categories: an emotional affair (emotional infidelity), a sexual affair and the combined type where both are present. A relationship where the partner spends emotional resources like love, time and attention on another individual is said to be an emotional affair. Early indicators of emotional infidelity can include acceptance of invitations to go out on dates (whether coffee, lunch, dinner or movie dates) and extending to offering of a personal telephone number. It is explained that these are considered emotional infidelity since time, attention and other emotional resources are being redirected to someone outside the partnership (Ciarocco et al., 2012). A sexual affair or physical infidelity happens when one enters into a sexual activity with another individual other than the primary partner. Physical infidelity is considered to include sexual intercourse, along with other perhaps less intimate behaviors, such as oral sex, petting, kissing and intimate hand-

holding or caressing (Karedan, 2003). The combined type encompasses both and has been shown to have the greatest threat to marriage than either emotional or sexual involvement alone (Glass & Wright, 1985). Studies have found that there are differences in attitudes toward infidelity between genders. Roscoe, Cavanaugh and Kennedy (1988) conducted a study on a group of undergraduate males and females. Their results suggest that men and women have different

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS views of infidelity. One example of the difference is the view of females about secrets and that keeping them is indicative of cheating (Roscoe et al., 1988). Males, on the other hand, believe that engaging in sexual interactions is more indicative of cheating (Roscoe et al., 1988). Albeit

differing in the lines that define infidelity, according to Thompson (1983), most men and women agree that both sexual and emotional involvement outside marriage is most unacceptable and constitute infidelity. Emotional and sexual infidelity are not mutually exclusive and are often perceived as a signal that the other type of infidelity is occurring, or will happen in the near future (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). Classification of Infidelity According to Alano (1995), the degree of involvement determines the classification of an affair. The most prevalent affair is that of having sexual relations where the liaison is not seriously considered (taken lightly) and no long term commitment is expected. Another affair is one that involves a long term relationship where a paramour is maintained and his or her housing, as well as material and emotional needs are provided (Alano, 1995). In the research of Leigh in 1985, he classified infidelity further into three. First of which is termed the hit-and-run or more commonly called the one night stand affairs (Leigh, 1985). The second type involves commercial sex (Leigh, 1985) and employs a sexual service provider in whatever form or cipher (i.e. prostitute , G.R.Os, personal service providers, massage therapists, etc). The third is when a secondary relationship is present, where there is a long term extra relational involvement with only one person (Leigh, 1985). Motives, Factors and Situations Drigotas, Safstrom, and Gentilia (1999) identifies five motives for infidelity, namely sexuality, emotional satisfaction, social context, attitudes-norms, and revenge-hostility. The

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

yearning for variety and the dissatisfaction with the current sexual relationship can be motives of sexuality (Ruza & Ruza, 2010). Emotional satisfaction motives can be dissatisfaction on aspects of the relationship, the need to boost ones ego and or attachment to the partner (Ruza & Ruza, 2010). Additionally, the presence of opportunities or the absence of the partner can be attributed to social context. Attitude-norms include permissive mindsets and beliefs (Ruza & Ruza, 2010). Infidelity that occurs as a form of retaliation for a perceived insult can be revenge-hostility (Ruza & Ruza, 2010). A number of factors can be related to ones decision to engage in infidelity. Factors such as low self-esteem, high narcissism, and weak religious belief are related to infidelity (Ciarocco et al., 2012). Relationships that frequently argue about trust, have high levels of marital dissatisfaction and have insufficient opportunities for self-expansion are also situations that may lead to infidelity (Ciarocco et al., 2012). External or situational factors may also influence infidelity such as social support, or the lack of it, from friends and family, as well as higher levels of disposable income, amount of time couples spend apart, and sexual opportunities. Mass media may even be largely influential in creating a culture of sexual permissiveness and infidelity (Alano, 1995). Barta and Kiene (2005) even suggested that from the partners standpoint infidelity may be associated to antisocial behavior. Additionally, McAlister, Pachana, and Jackson (2005) theorized that a person with underdeveloped abilities to foresee consequences (forethought) of their actions and decisions are more likely become involved in affairs. Changing Demographic Researchers are consistent in their findings that men are more likely to engage in extra dyadic relationships than women (Seal et al., 1994; Wiederman & Hurd, 1999, as cited in Lewandodowski & Ackerman, 2006). However, recent studies show a shift in women,

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS narrowing the gap and rapidly approaching the male rates (Ali, Miller, Juarez, Peterson, Springen, Sulmers, Adams, & Kelly, 2004). According to Pope (2008), a detailed analysis of

data from 1991 to 2006 shows shifts in the lifetime rate of infidelity for men and women over the age of 60. For men, the increase is from 20 percent in 1991 to 28 percent in 2006 and for women, the increase is even more significant from 5 percent to 15 percent. Further, women are bridging the adultery gap and younger women are committing adultery as often as their spouses (Pope, 2008). More women are now out of the home and into the workplace from 40 percent in 1964 to 60 percent (Ali et al., 2004). In 2010, for the first time in U.S. history, the nations jobs now employ women (Bolick, 2011). In colleges and universities, three out of the five Bachelors degrees will be awarded to women (Rosin, 2010). In 1980, 26.1% of women hold managerial and professional jobs. Currently that number has risen to 51.4% (Rosin, 2010). Out of the 15 growth job categories, 13 is projected to be occupied primarily by women (Rosin, 2010). These are nursing, child care, food preparation and home health assistance. The advancement of women is not only true in the U.S. but can be seen in India as well, where more are learning English faster to keep by with the growing demands of call center jobs. More and more of these call center managers are females (Rosin, 2010). The implications of gender economic parity are

staggering. It is now inconsequential for women to marry for financial security (Bolick, 2011). Marriage is now an alternative rather than essential for survival or comfort. As a result more men and women across the economic spectrum remain single for longer than they used to (Bolick, 2001). The Census Bureau reports that in 1950 only 33 % of the adult population is single but in 2010 that has risen to 50 % (Bolick, 2011). The reduced dependency of women due to the increasing financial powers renders them less risk-adverse (Marano et al., 2012). According to Glass (2003), todays workplace is the most fertile breeding ground for affairs

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS and that 50 % of women and 62 % of men who are unfaithful developed their affairs from plain office relationships. Psychologist and sociologists point at this increased opportunity as

significant a factor for the increase in infidelity (Marano et al., 2012). It is not only opportunity that allows for the rise of infidelity but money and power are additionally a contributing factor (Ali et al., 2004). Influence of the Internet Social networking sites, email, instant messaging, video and photo sharing sites and comment posting are all tools that help people to communicate and socialize with each other (Das & Sahoo, 2011). From 1997 to 2010 there are some 1.5 billion users of social networking websites (as cited in Das & Sahoo, 2011). These include Twitter with 8 million users, Facebook with 200 million users and 100 millions of which of on daily and My Space with 76 million users (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010) and this number is growing exponentially (Cooper, Scherer & Mathy, 2001). With the passage of time, the demographics of internet users is becoming closer to the general population including individuals with varied social economic background, race, sexual beliefs and inclinations (Cooper et al., 2001). Several studies show that online relationships are common. Young, Shelley, Cooper, OMara, and Buchanan (2000), characterize cyber affairs as a romantic and or sexual relationship that starts with an online contact and progresses, mostly, through electronic exchange of email and in virtual communities such as chat rooms, interactive games and newsgroups. It is reported that 61% of respondents who used the internet at home maintained some interpersonal relationship via internet (Pauley & Emmers-Sommer, 2007). The internet allows people to connect with each other in the virtual world of online social networking sites such as Facebook.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS The popularity of internet use has facilitated acts of infidelity (Wysocki & Childlers, 2011). What is perceived to be a tool to unite people around the world and facilitate new

10

relationships and maintain existing ones can also damage traditional relationships (Hertlein and Stevenson, 2010). Affairs online can include a one to one relationship with a specific individual or with multiple users in a random erotic and titillating exchange (Mao & Raguram, 2009) Cybersex, as it is called, is the private exchange of sexual fantasies usually with sexual self stimulation (Young et al., 2000). The consequences of an emotional infidelity through the Internet could have disastrous effect on long term face to face commitment and may lead to discord, separation and even divorce (Young et al., 2000). Young et al. (2000) developed the ACE (Anonymity, Convenience, Escape) model to describe how cyberspace encourages a culture of permissiveness to support and affirm infidelity and promiscuous virtual behavior (Young et al., 2000). The veil and distance of an online relationship allows individuals the anonymity to be less restricted and more in control of the content tone and nature of the interchange.(Young et al., 2000). It is possible to transform into any persona or role that you would want your partner to envision (Glass 2003). The ease and convenience that an online affair makes is a safe and tempting alternative to an actual in-person relationship. A cyber affair is not labor and cost intensive. A virtual partner may not be as demanding as a wife and husband. The escapism allure of the virtual world, from the stress and monotony of daily life, is a powerful impulse to resist. Escapist fantasies can progress and be pathological and addictive (Young et al., 2000). According to Ben-Zeev (2004), the virtual world is a kind of mentally nude commune where people often strip off their masks. What nudity leaves undone, imagination finishes. Imagination, which paints cyberspace in

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

11

more intense and seductive colors, also helps people satisfy some of their most profound desires. Relationships online can be all consuming and blinding, filled with fantasy and deceit. Reconnecting to old flames can make one vulnerable and susceptible to infidelity. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) conducted a survey which reveals Facebook is the main reason behind one out of every five divorces in the United States (Das & Sahoo, 2011). The same survey reports that the social networking site is even used to gather evidence by divorce lawyers.

Philippine Context of Infidelity In the Philippines, infidelity is a topic of many conversations, but for the most part, done behind other peoples back and in secret (Alano, 1995). The commonness of infidelity is visible in pop culture, written about in books and magazines and even in local television series and movies (Alano, 1995). In 1977, a survey conducted in Metro Manila by Rojo et al. found that 87.5% of the respondents could see themselves as having an affair. Another study in 1977 by Abarquez found that 66.7% of his male subjects had no sense of remorse in engaging in affairs and that 80% said they are entitled to such a relationship for as long as they do not neglect their responsibilities. De Veras 1978 study revealed that especially in Metro Manila, infidelity is not something to be ashamed of. Even in a 1978 study by Bulatao, revealed that among his Metro Manila respondents, 47% felt that keeping of queridas is common. In the study done by Vancio in 1980 on the state of Filipino marriages, 36% of the men and 2% of the women admitted to engaging in sexual affairs, where 4% of the men reported keeping a paramour or querida, as termed in the vernacular. Temptations abound and Karedan (2003) mentions

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS opportunities of infidelity in places such as in jobs and offices, with secretaries or fellow workers, with women they meet while traveling, in the community, within social groups or

12

recreational organizations and along the road, going to work or home and even in the home, with house help. Even within families and within peer groups, the idea of infidelity and having multiple partners is considered commonplace. Male machismo is valued and is the reason for fathers encouraging their young sons to chase after and court many different women at the same time (Alano, 1995). According to Alano (1995), as men mature, they are encouraged to love more than one woman, as proof of their dominance over them (Alano, 1995). Alternatively, a man who seems less dominant or dominated by his wife is regarded by his peers as less of a man, earning him mockery and taunts.

Perspectives on Infidelity The changing demographics in the workplace plus the greater accessibility afforded by the internet, combined with Philippine cultural context, further compounded by opportunity settings make for truly a slippery slope for individuals. In the next part well observe how psychological lenses can help us unravel and recognize underlying causes of infidelity.

Infidelity and Attachment The attachment theory, introduced by John Bowlby contains a comprehensive description of the nature and development of child-caregiver relationships that affect the quality of relationships later on in life (Del Guidice, 2009). Emotional bonds are formed at the earliest stages of life, specifically between a child and the mother or direct caregiver. This initial

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS relationship deeply affects and influences the kind of adult sexual or love relationship the individual in the future will develop. Basically, attachment patterns become individualized

13

manuals for determining relationships between the self and others on a social level (Furman & Flanigan, 1997 as cited in Duba, Kindsvatter, & Lara, 2008). Ainsworth, Bell, and Stayton (as cited in Prior & Glaser, 2006), specifically identified three distinct patterns in infant-caregiver relations: secure attachment, avoidant attachment, and anxious-ambivalent attachment. Infants who experience secure attachment are confident of

their primary caregivers presence and dependability (Prior & Glaser, 2006). These infants mature to be adults possessing the capacity of reciprocal physical closeness and affection and healthy engagement in emotional intimacy. Meanwhile, avoidant infants with mothers neglectful of their physical needs, rejects the infants natural desire for emotional closeness and nurturing (Prior & Glaser, 2006). These infants as adults exhibit behavior illustrative social inadequacy

and fear of intimacy and closeness. Anxious-ambivalent infants experience inconsistencies and unpredictability in their caregivers (Prior & Glaser, 2006). According to them, the dual experience of negligent and dismissiveness are coupled with overbearing and intrusive attention. The unreliability factor results in anxiousness and fear of emotional and physical closeness that experience has taught them to be undependable (Prior & Glaser, 2006). According to Duba et al., (2008), the last two attachment patterns, avoidant and anxiousambivalent, predispose an individual to relationship problems in the future that may progress to infidelity. In Allen and Baucoms (2001) research on attachment and infidelity they mentioned which personality attachment are most liable to be unfaithful, the driving force of the extra dyadic affair and the self emotions that they will experience due to their own act of betrayal towards their partner.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Hazan and Shaver (1987, as cited in Duba et al., 2008) proposed that adult romantic relationship styles can be conceptualized as being parallel to infant attachment patterns. They said that secure attached individuals are prone to develop strong physical and emotional bonds

14

with a higher probability to be faithful. These individuals have the potential to construct intimate trusting relationships, both on the physical and emotional plane with no abnormal fear of rejection or being overly involved. Intimacy and commitment to ones partner were also suggested to curb an individuals interests in alternatives and engaging in infidelity (DeWall, Lambert, Slotter, Pond, Deckman, Finkel, Luchies, & Fincham, 2011). Therefore these individuals normally are disinterested and discard possible opportunities for extra dyadic activities. Individuals who exhibit the avoidance attachment pattern tend to be uncomfortable with psychological closeness and intimacy and cope with these emotions by behaviorally distancing themselves from their partners (Fraley & Shaver, 2000, as cited in DeWall et al., 2010). DeWall et al. (2011) suggests avoidant attached individuals exhibit a strong desire for independent aloofness from their partner. Maintaining their distance limits their commitment and protects their sense of independence. They also suggest that avoidant personalities are likely to submit to behaviors that may endanger their relationship to avoid closeness and intimacy. Mistrust of their partners result subsequently to partial commitment to their relationships. Commitment is tied to feeling dependent on ones partner, which refers to feeling that one needs ones relationship and that ones well-being is tied closely to involvement in the relationship (Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978, as cited in DeWall et al., 2011) Avoidant attached individuals are discomforted by sharing and self disclosure (DeWall et al., 2011). Privacy, intimacy, loyalty are necessary ingredients to a fulfilling relationship is expected in long term relationships (Nelson, 2010).

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Intimacy involves confiding and sharing secret and deep personal feelings with the partner

15

(Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006). Individuals with avoidant attachment maintain distance and limit their commitment as a form of maintaining their sense of independence (Duba et al., 2008). On the other side of the spectrum, individuals involved with avoidant attached partners may find it difficult to receive or give intimacy for fear of being rebuffed therefore increasing the possibility of their seeking intimacy in a different relationship that will allow them the intimacy that they crave (Duba et al., 2008). Fish et al. (2012), proposed that preoccupied individuals (also referred to anxious avoidant), though fearful of abandonment, sought closeness and approval from others. When neglected, these individuals were likely to seek approval from extra dyadic experiences. Anxious-ambivalent individuals might seek inappropriate closeness in relationships or might demand dramatic expressions of affection in relationships to alleviate chronic anxiety of rejection or abandonment (Furman & Flanagan, 1997, as cited in Duba et al., 2008). This constant need for validation can be taxing to the partners in most relationships, since the anxiousambivalent individuals require constant, continual and excessive reassurance. With time, as the relationship progresses and the height of passion is reduced, the anxious-ambivalent individual might become involved in alternative relationships to satisfy the insatiable need for the intensity of passion (Duba et al., 2008). Given that more women are coming into the workplace and leaving primary care of their children to another, there is a looming threat that avoidant or anxious-ambivalent attachments may become more commonplace; thus, perpetuating the cycle of infidelity.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Infidelity and the Behavioral Perspective From a childs formative relationship with his or her caregiver, we now set our sights on how the external stimuli can mold ones belief of what society accepts and consequently what behavior is permissible. B.F. Skinner, the perpetuator of behavioral analysis, believed that human behavior (and human personality) is the product of three contingencies, namely natural selection, cultural practices and individuals history of reinforcement (Feist & Feist, 2003). Behaviors that are reinforcing tends to be repeated, while those that are not, are dropped and similarly, behaviors that were beneficial to the species tended to perpetuate (Feist & Feist, 2003). Feist and Feist

16

(2003) mentions that the importance of culture in shaping human personality was elaborated by Skinner in his later years. Social groups exercise control over their members through laws, rules and customs and includes influences of one individual over another (Feist & Feist, 2003). According to Alano (1995), there is a double standard in Philippine culture where a high value is placed by Filipino men on their pagkalalaki or machismo. At an early age, young men are encouraged to pursue the opposite sex, often not just one single girl. The father, usually the head of their primary social group the family, approves of his sons affairs with girls, priding himself with a son that can be called a mans man (Alano, 1995). These cultural beliefs, observed and communicated by parents, positively reinforce their very suggestible and impressionable children, particularly their sons. These types of actions imposes on the man a gamut of behaviors in order to prove his natural superiority over women, including sexual pursuits and the number of offspring (Alano, 1995). Being involved in affairs increases their sense of manliness or machismo as the man takes pride in being able to dominate and be loved by a multitude of women (Alano, 1995).

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

17

Alternatively, for fear of being less capable or appearing dominated by his wife and seen by his peers as effeminate, most men will submit to the pressures of committing adultery, if only to avoid the taunting and teasing of friends. The committal of infidelity then becomes negatively reinforced to evade the unpleasant mocking and the impression of being inferior in the eyes of his peers and fellow men. Peer pressure and the teasing coming from friends often drive the husband into taking a mistress (De Vera, 1978). Food, drugs, water, as well as sex, control behavior by acting as reinforcers (Flora, 2004). Alano (1995) cited that, according to some of his respondents, engaging in sexual infidelity helps in escaping from problems within the relationship. Another reason mentioned by Alano (1995) is boredom. When sex within the context of infidelity is used to escape from problems in the relationship, to reduce stress or boredom, to forget about lifes troubles, responsibilities and obligations, infidelity then acts as a negative reinforcement. Alano (1995) also cited yet another reason for infidelity is to satisfy the needs not met in the marriage. According to the respondents, they get a surge of stimulation and feel an intoxicating effect. Sex then, in this context, is used to feel good or achieve a pleasurable effect and is being used for positive reinforcement. Filipino men seem to enjoy sex more with women who are not their wives as they experience something liberating and uninhibiting about engaging in coitus with a woman to whom they have no obligation to (Alano, 1995). With the many changes in the past decades, as well as with the increasing convenience in the lifestyles of individuals, exclusivity as a social norm is challenged. As stated above, the change in societal landscape, greater reach and ease of the Internet and influence of social groups within a culture is constantly eroding the image of a relationship and the manner of commitment that it entails, essentially putting a person at risk of infidelity.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Acquired and Learned Behavior

18

According to Gladwell (2000), even the most subtle and the most unexpected of factors can affect the way people act. Gladwell (2000) further said that people are very suggestible in terms of the things they encounter, as well as sensitive to even the smallest details of everyday life. The conventionally unacceptable behavior of engaging in affairs and committing adultery, because of the ease of opportunity, breadth of availability and widespread encouragement, become commonplace and then spreads to other circles, infecting other people just as ideas, products and messages spread like viruses (Gladwell, 2000). The behavior of infidelity is acquired from an array of sources and influences surrounding each individual, particularly from social groups within a society. Social learning is greatly credited to functions on adaptability as well as its role in the social or cultural transmission of behavior. Banduras Social Learning Theory (1977) suggests that by seeing other people, and observing their behaviors, a person tends to, then, imitate or match these behaviors (Lee & Koss, 2007). Humans learn and comprehend attitudes and behaviors as a result of the social interactions they have with other people. According to Bandura (1977) human nature is formed by the connections between the individual and stresses the impact of learning by observation and influence of others instead of solely from oneself. When repeated and rampant behaviors connected to infidelity are observed through ones peers, parents and family, co-workers, through the movies, television, books as well as through the Internet, one would inevitably deem such actions as acceptable, and eventually find themselves perpetrating the same behavior.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Infidelity and Self-Regulation

19

From the behavioral perspective, we looking into the drivers of self-regulation and how its misuse can lead to a failure in committed relationships. With the constantly changing culture and fast paced environment having influenced many into committing infidelity, it is crucial for individuals to understand more causes and influencing factors of infidelity. A study by Ciarocco et al. (2012) investigated involvement of transient situational factors, such as level of self-control and found that self-regulation or self-control played a part in infidelity. According to Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven and Tice (1998), self-regulation, or self-control, is the ability to overcome ones desires, feelings, and habitual patterns of behavior. As Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, and Oaten (2006) put it, a major purpose of self-regulation is to enable individuals to bring their behavior into line with socially desirable standards. According to Feist and Feist (2003), when a person has high levels of self-efficacy, is confident on the reliability of ones proxies and has solid collective efficacy, the person will have a greater ability to regulate behavior. Bandura believes that behavior is regulated by the reciprocal interaction of person, environment and prior behavior and that people have some capacity to regulate their own behavior (Feist & Feist, 2003). Further, self-regulation is said to be affected by both external and internal factors. External factors are a means for people to evaluate their own behavior by serving as a standard by which they can learn, experience and observe (Feist & Feist, 2003). Additionally, external factors aid self-regulation by providing means for reinforcement in the form of incentives such as money, encouragement, approval or praise (Feist & Feist, 2003). On the other hand, internal factors such as self-observation, judgment and selfreaction are requirements in the exercise of self-regulation.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

20

According to Baumeister, Heatherton and Tice (1994), self-regulation may be one of the most distinctively human traits. While human beings are more capable of self-regulation than other animals, their capacity is far less than what many would regard as ideal. Failures at selfregulation are most often the cause of majority of personal and social problems in the modern society (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), including addiction, crimes and even infidelity. Further, Baumeister, Vohs and Tice (2007) suggested that levels of self-regulation are actually finite and depletes after self-control tasks are performed, such as during decision making, suppressing and habit breaking, where resulting antecedent acts of self-control are made more difficult. They suggest that self-control is akin to a muscle which, when subjected to strenuous exercise, eventually becomes fatigued. When the levels of self-regulatory resources are low, it was found to have a negative effect on accuracy of intelligence tests as well as the ability for higher order cognition, emotion regulation, physical stamina, and perseverance in the face of difficult tasks, avoidance of negative behavior, food intake, as well as interpersonal behaviors (Ciarocco, Echevarria, & Lewandowski, 2012). Baumeister et al., (2006) pointed out the importance of the strength resource of self regulation. The level of strength of self-regulation is considered an important aspect of personality, especially for its long-term power to promote positive, desirable outcomes (Baumeister et al., 2006). While studies have evidenced the relative stability of self-regulation, there is some evidence that the power can be increased, so as to lessen the speed of depletion of self-regulation for the demands of everyday life (Baumeister et al., 2006). Research on selfregulation also suggests that every individual has unique dispositional and situational differences in self-regulatory capacities that shape the ability to control ones behavior (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007).

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

21

According to Gailliot and Baumeister (2007), people have different levels of abilities in exerting self-control. Further, they claim that humans are naturally sexual creatures and probably the strongest desire of the human psyche is the desire for sex and reproduction. Sexual desires arise spontaneously and sometimes uncontrollably (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). Righetti and Finkenauer (2001) suggests that people with high self-control are better at suppressing the urge of responding to seduction of alternative relationships. These individuals, since they are able to control their desires, enjoy consistency and cohesion of personal family relationships (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2001). Gailliot and Baumeisters (2007) study focused on how people with low self-control tend to violate social norms by indulging in their desire and impulses and they hypothesized that poor self-regulatory abilities would undermine sexual restraint and therefore increase sexual activity or indulgence. According to Ciarocco et al. (2012), to maintain a committed relationship, one must be able to resist the desire for alternative partners, which may be difficult when depleted of selfcontrol. In 2007, Gailliot and Baumeister discovered that in hypothetical scenarios where their participants were asked to imagine being in a relationship, those depleted of self-control reported a higher intent to engage in sexual infidelity. Additionally, Ciarocco et al. (2012), in their study, suggested that depleted levels of self-regulation significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both behavioral measures of infidelity in actual situations. Their finding supports the idea that infidelity is not about opportunity alone, rather it is the opportunity combined with weakened self-control which led to infidelity, regardless of specific relationship or personality factors of the participants. Anyone already depleted of self-control, perhaps by trying to control emotions, stopping unwanted thoughts, restricting eating, spending or some other urge, or engaging in any other activity requiring self-control is at a greater risk for engaging in infidelity.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Recommendations

22

Further studies can explore the interaction among the already studied causes that compel people to commit infidelity and how these interact with each other. Most of the research in infidelity uses cross-sectional data from convenience samples that mostly rely on self reporting and long term memories of the research participants. A longitudinal study native to a particular culture, such as in the Philippines, may provide further insight as to why people are compelled into infidelity. Also, there is little research conducted on the other people involved in the infidelity, particularly the other women or other men. Their accounts may shed light on additional causes and consequences of infidelity. (Munsch, 2012)

Conclusion Infidelity is a very complex phenomenon (Karedan, 2003). Infidelity is not simply about one person betraying another in the desire for more sexual encounters or sources of affection and validation. It may be about a person getting betrayed in early life through inconsistent or absent demonstration of affection and reliability of primary care givers; it may be being misled by its society and culture by promoting and encouraging incongruous values during the developmental years; or worse, betraying oneself by miscalculating and misallocating ones ability for selfregulation. According to Vaughan (1998), no one single reason explains the engagement in an affair. It is not caused by the presence of one or two risk factors, but arises from a combination of several (Karedan, 2003). Decisions to engage in infidelity are subject to influences of groups and the larger social structures within which one is immersed, as well as by parental experiences, societal and contemporary beliefs and ones ability to resist powerful instinctive desires (Munsch, 2012). The act of infidelity may be a result of ones lowered or depleted self-regulation

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

23

during the time when an opportunity arises. Far from a cop-out or excuse, an understanding and awareness of the self, ones past, ones social and cultural context, and ones capacities to control is called for, in addressing infidelity. In the beginning, this paper sought to deconstruct, describe and decipher this embedded phenomena. At its conclusion, the authors find that infidelity may be the result of unrecognized and unaddressed betrayals that precedes and permeates our most intimate of relationships.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS References Abarquez S. S. (1997). An overview of the nature, motives and rationales of extramarital activities among upper-class middle aged men. Mga papel sa Sikolohiya ng pagkatao, compiled by Benedicto Villanueva.

24

Abolfazl, H., Elham, F., Zahra, G., & Masoomeh, E. (2011). The relationship between parenting styles and attachment styles in men and women with infidelity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 (3rd World Conference on Educational Sciences - 2011), 37433747. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.366 Alano, M. G. (1995). Infidelity : the dynamics of the querida system in the Philippines. Doctoral dissertation, Ateneo De Manila University, Philippines. Ali, L., Miller, L., Juarez, V., Peterson, H., Springen, K., Sulmers, C., Adams, W., and Kelley, R. (2004). The secret lives of wives. Newsweek 144(2), 46-54. Allen, E. S. & Baucom, D. W. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extra dyadic Involvement. Family Process, 43, 467-489. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00035.x Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. NY: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory and mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 61-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Barta, W., & Kiene, S. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 339360.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252 1265. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M, DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: how interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773-1801.

25

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351355. Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotion on the Internet. New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489785 Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45(1), 79. Bowlby, R., & King, P. (2004). Fifty Years of Attachment Theory. London: Karnac on behalf of the Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy Bolick, K. (2011). All the single ladies. Atlantic Monthly (10727825), 308(4), 116-136. Bulatao, R. A. (1978). Double standard in sex roles. Philippine Sociological Review, 26, 3-4. Ciarocco, N.J, Echevarria, J. & Lewandowski, G. W. (2012): Hungry for love: The influence of self-regulation on infidelity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 61-74 Cooper, A., Scherer, C., & Mathy, R. M. (2001). Overcoming methodological concerns in the investigation of online sexual activities. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4(4), 437-447. doi:10.1089/109493101750526999

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Das, B., & Sahoo, J. (2011). Social networking sites - A critical analysis of its impact on personal and social Life. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(14), 222228. Del Giudice, M. (2009) Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1) 1-21. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000016 De Vera, M. G. (1978) Ang Pakikiapid: Isang Pag-aaral. Sikolohiyang Panlipunan sa

26

Kontekstong Pilipino, compiled by V.G. Enriquez. Quezon City: Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, 1976, 441-459. DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy. Questioning the fitness of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367372. DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Finkel, E. J., Luchies, L. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one's partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1302-1316. doi: 10.1037/a0025497 Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509-524. Duba, J. D., Kindsvatter, A., & Lara, T. (2008). Treating infidelity: Considering narratives of attachment. The Family Journal, 16(4), 293-299. doi:10.1177/1066480708323198 Feist, J., & Feist, G. J., (2003) Theories of Personality, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Fish, J. N., Pavkov, T. W., Wetchler, J. L., & Bercik, J. (2012). Characteristics of those who participate in infidelity: The role of adult attachment and differentiation in extra dyadic experiences. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(3), 214-229. doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.601192

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

27

Fisher, H. E. (1992). Anatomy of Love: The natural history of monogamy, adultery and divorce. New York: W. W. Norton Flora, S. (2004). Power of Reinforcement. State University of New York Press. Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Self-Regulation and sexual restraint: Dispositionally and temporarily poor self-Regulatory abilities contribute to failures at restraining sexual behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 173-186. doi:10.1177/0146167206293472 Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Glass, S. (2003). Not Just Friends Rebuilding trust and recovering your sanity after infidelity. New York: Free Press Glass, S. P. (2002). Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity. In A.S. Gurman & N.S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 488507). New York: Guilford. Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 11011120. Goudreau, J. (2012). What's So Wrong With Monogamy?. Forbes.Com, 23 Gough, E. (1999). Infidelity: Your complete guide to awareness, prevention, intervention and recovery. New York: Avery Pub Group. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Hertlein, K. M., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The Seven "As" Contributing to Internet-Related Intimacy Problems: A Literature Review. Cyberpsychology, 4(1), 1-8.

28

Karedan, P. (2003). Predictive factors of infidelity among men. Doctoral dissertation, Ateneo De Manila University, Philippines. Koski, M. A. (2001). Adult children of parental infidelity and their perspectives on love, intimate relationships and marriage. Research paper. Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2001/2001koskim.pdf Lee, L & Koss, J. (2007). College students attitudes on the causes of infidelity. Research paper. Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/rs/2007/Infidelity.pdf Leigh, W. (1985). The infidelity report: An investigation of extramarital affairs. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc. Lewandowski Jr., G. W., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something's Missing: Need Fulfillment and Self-Expansion as Predictors of Susceptibility to Infidelity. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(4), 389-403. Linardatos, L., & Lydon, J. E. (2011). Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 737-753. doi:10.1037/a0023647 Mao, A., & Raguram, A. (2009). Online infidelity: The new challenge to marriages. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(4), 302-304. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.58299 Marano, H. (2012). From promise to promiscuity. Psychology Today, 45(4), 60-69. McAlister, A., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. (2005). Predictors of young dating adults' inclination to engage in extra dyadic sexual activities: a multi-perspective study. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 96(3), 331-350.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS Munsch, C. L. (2012). The science of two-timing: The state of infidelity research. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 46-59. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00434.x Nelson, T. (2010). The New Monogamy. Psychotherapy Networker Magazine, 34(4), 20-60. Pauley, P. M., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2007). The impact of Internet technologies on

29

primary and secondary romantic relationship development. Communication Studies, 58(4), 411-427. doi:10.1080/10510970701648616 Peterman, M. A. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of extra dyadic involvement in dating relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69. Prior, V., & Glaser, D. (2006). Understanding attachment and attachment disorders : Theory, evidence and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., & Wigboldus, D. J. (2011). How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved individuals to stay faithful. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 100(5), 827-837. doi:10.1037/a0021993 Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 874-886. doi:10.1037/a0021827 Rojo, E., Samala, D., & Alarcon, M. A. (1977). Comprehensive inquiry on the querida system as viewed by Filipino husbands in Metro Manila. Working Papers in the Psychology of Personality, compiled by Benedicto Villanueva Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and consequences. Adolescence, 23, 3443. Rosin, H. (2010). The end of men. Atlantic Monthly (10727825), 306(1), 56-72.

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS

30

Ruza, I., & Ruza, A. (2010). Causal attributions of infidelity of Latvian residents with different kinds of infidelity experience. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(2), 535-547. Treger, S., & Sprecher, S. (2011). The influences of sociosexuality and attachment style on reactions to emotional versus sexual infidelity. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 413-422. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.516845 Thompson, A.P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 9, 1-12. Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 301319. doi:10.1002/per.520 Vancio, J. (1980). The realities of marriage of the urban Filipino women. Philippine Studies, 28. Vaughan, P. (1998). Monogamy myth. New York: Newmarket Press Vaughan, P. (2002). Who has affairs and why?. www.dearpeggy.com Weeks, G. R., Gambescia, N.,& Jenkins, R. E. (2003). Treating infidelity: Therapeutic dilemmas and effective strategies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Wysocki, D., & Childers, C. (2011). 'Let My Fingers Do the Talking': Sexting and infidelity in cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture, 15(3), 217-239. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9091-4 Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 16(2), 265. Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E. E., Cooper, A. A., O'Mara, J. J., & Buchanan, J. J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, (7),59-74.