Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Marital Infidelity

Abstract

Marital infidelity, otherwise called marital cheating or extra-marital affair, is often depicted as a

social issue, which can lead to a myriad of consequences. In this light, it is important to have

adequate measures of the construct, which are psychometrically sound and appropriate to today’s

context. This study aimed at developing and validating an instrument (a scale) to measure marital

infidelity among married adults. To this end, 20 items of the scale were first drafted, face and

content validation were obtained, and then the scale was administered along with two other

validated scales which had expected relations with the construct. This was done in the bid to

attain construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) of the newly developed marital

infidelity scale. The scale used for convergent validity was an already established Marital

Infidelity Scale, while for discriminant validity a totally unrelated construct was measured, being

Innovativeness. Thirty participants were sampled using convenience and purposive techniques,

and their data was then analysed using Pearson correlations to ascertain validity, and Cronbach’s

Alpha coefficient and internal consistency to ascertain reliability. The results showed good

validity, with convergence of r (28) = .734, p<0.05 with already validated Marital Infidelity

Scale, and discriminant value of r (28) = -0.117, p>0.05 with already validated Innovativeness

Behaviour Scale. The scale also exhibited good reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of

0.953.

Keywords: Marital Infidelity, married adults, validity, reliability, innovativeness.

Word count: 224

BACKGROUND

The definition of infidelity has been debated in the scholarly literature in the last decades (Moller

& Vossler, 2015). According to a general and a widely accepted definition, it entails violations of

the norm of emotional and/or physical exclusivity that most partners of a couple assume (Snyder,

Baucom, & Gordon, 2007). Infidelity encompasses several categories of behaviours, such as

sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, marital infidelityual activities, internet infidelity (Blow &

Hartnett, 2005). Past studies indicate a high prevalence of infidelity in intimate relationships.

Tafoya and Spitzberg’s (2007) meta-analysis suggests that 34% of men and 24% of women have

engaged in extramarital sexual relations while a more recent investigation reported that 29% of

heterosexual women and 49% of heterosexual men committed infidelity (Haversath & Kröger,

2014). These high percentages are at odds with the people’s usually negative attitudes toward the

phenomenon (Van Hooff, 2017), which are consonant with the negative psychological and social

phenomena associated to infidelity, such as declines in psychological health (Shrout & Weigel,

2018;) or couple dissolution (Apostolou, Constantinou, & Anagnostopoulos, 2019; DeMaris,

2013). These results indicate that infidelity provokes harm to another person (partner or spouse)

or even to the whole family (DeMaris, 2013; Thorson, 2013), with some authors labeling it as a

social problem (Klimas, Ehlert, Lacker, Waldvogel, & Walther, 2019).

Various psychological injuries that can be caused by one partner’s unfaithful behaviour suggest

that infidelity can also be conceived as a violation of one of the most important moral principles,

i.e., to avoid harming others (Graham, Haidt, Koleva, Motyl, Iyer, Wojcik, & Ditto, 2013),

besides that of the norm of emotional and/or physical exclusivity that most partners of a couple

assume. In the case of marital relations, exclusivity is further emphasized by the vows that the

two spouses make to each other at the time of marriage, rendering infidelity as a deceptive act
toward one’s partner. This contributes to a more immoral character of extramarital infidelity in

comparison to non-marital romantic relationships: while for a romantic relationship flirting with

another person or going out with someone else might not weigh that much, for a marital

relationship they could mean a very serious betrayal and be considered infidelity. As previously

stated, these characteristics render infidelity as immoral (Brake, 2013) and past studies indicate

that the strength of one’s moral norm is negatively related to unfaithful behaviour and to

permissive attitudes toward extramarital relationships (Greeley, 1994). Past research investigated

the motivations that the transgressors of the fidelity commitment invoke as justifications for this

immoral behaviour and classified them under various categories. For instance, Drigotas,

Safstrom, and Gentilia (1999) differentiate between sexual or emotional needs that motivate

infidelity, permissive norms/attitudes, favorable social context, or revenge/hostility. In a similar

approach, Barta and Kiene (2005) identify dissatisfaction, neglect, anger, and sex as the main

reasons for infidelity.

According to researchers, marital infidelity can lead to various consequences, on both the

individuals involved, and the marital home in general. An example of such consequences

includes conflict and domestic violence. These can further spur into even more secondary

consequences such as poor academic performance of the couple’s offspring and in particular,

adolescents (Jimoh, Taiwo, Adetona, 2011).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

According to theories of social exchange (Blau 1964; Emerson 1962; Homans 1958),

relationships are analogous to economic marketplaces where the exchange of goods occurs

through interaction. In romantic relationships, actors reciprocally exchange a range of resources,

including companionship, love, sex, money, social mobility, housekeeping, and childcare
(Becker 1981; Safilios-Rothschild 1976; Sprecher 1998). Rather than bargaining over the

division of a finite pool of resources, each actor separately, and without explicit prior agreement,

performs acts that bestow benefits upon the other without knowing if, when, or how the acts will

be reciprocated. As suggested by the strong tendency toward homogamy, some resources are

exchanged for their equivalent. People tend to marry individuals who are similar in physical

appearance, social class, and education (Blossfeld 2009; Kalmijn 1998; Schwartz 2013). Others

are exchanged for unlike resources. Historically, for example, women’s physical attractiveness

was exchanged for men’s wealth or social standing (Taylor and Glenn 1976; Udry and Eckland

1984). As women’s education and labour force participation have risen, however, social

exchange theory predicts more symmetrical exchanges between men and women, a trend that has

been noted both theoretically (Oppenheimer, 1988) and empirically (Kalmijn 1991; Mare 1991;

Sweeney and Cancian 2004). From an exchange theoretic perspective, resources and power are

positively related. According to the principle of least interest (Waller 1937; Waller and Hill

1951), the power of actor A over actor B is a function of B’s dependence on A for valued

resources (Emerson 1962; McDonald 1981; Thibaut and Kelley 1959). In other words, power is

relational. Since resources increase power and decrease dependency, the party receiving fewer

benefits has greater bargaining power to improve upon the exchange (Cook and Emerson 1978).

Applying this theory to marital relationships, exchange theory predicts high power and low

dependency will increase the odds of an individual engaging in marital infidelity or leaving the

marriage. Empirical tests of this hypothesis generally focus on the relationship between relative

income, a quantifiable measure of resource contribution, and divorce, implying relationship

dissolution signifies the presence of exchange opportunities with alternative, more equitable,

partners (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). In particular, because power is relational, persons who
contribute more compared to their spouses are less dependent and should be more likely to seek

marital dissolution or a different partner. Some scholars have found a positive effect of women’s

relative earnings on the probability of divorce (e.g., Heckert et al. 1998; Jalovaara 2003; Kalmijn

et al. 2007; Manting and Loeve 2004; Moore and Waite 1981; Teachman 2010). This has been

interpreted as an “independence effect” (Ross and Sawhill 1975). As women’s earnings increase

relative to their husbands, they gain less from marriage. Moreover, unlike women who earn very

little compared to their husbands, these women are better able to maintain their standard of living

after divorce. According to this theory, women with high relative earnings are thus more likely to

seek divorce or a different partner. However, men’s and women’s relative earnings are directly

proportional. If women’s high relative earnings are related to marital dissolution, men’s low

relative earnings must be too. Thus, it is impossible to know if women who are high relative

earners seek divorce believing they can improve upon the exchange, or if men who are low

relative earners seek divorce. Examining the relationship between relative income and marital

infidelity provides a way to distinguish between these two possibilities. Unlike divorce, which is

a couple-level measure, marital infidelity is an individual-level measure, allowing to assess

which member of the couple engaged in exit behaviour. Although marital infidelity does not

necessarily lead to divorce, it does so frequently and signals one’s engagement in behaviour that

could damage the primary relationship. Furthermore, engagement in marital infidelity may

provide a more direct test of the exchange hypothesis. Many reasons for divorce do not imply the

desire to re-partner, including falling out of love, wanting different things, and growing apart.

Nor does marriage prevent one from exchanging valued resources with someone else. Barriers to

divorce, such as children and finances, keep people in relationships with little or no commitment

to one another. Yet, 99 percent of married persons expect their spouse to have sex only in
marriage, and 99 percent assume their partner expects the same from them (Treas and Giesen

2000). Given the strong norm that sex should be exchanged exclusively between marital

partners, sexual infidelity is a relatively unmistakable indicator that an individual has violated the

marital contract and sought to exchange at least some resources with another. The principle of

least interest predicts that persons with greater relative power will be more likely to engage in

marital infidelity. Previous research confirms that subjective measures of inequity are related to

infidelity in non-probability convenience samples. Persons who believe they are more desirable

than their spouses (Hatfield, Traupman, and Walster 1979), and women who believe they

“contribute more” than their spouses (Prins, Buunk, and VanYperen 1993), are more likely to

cheat.

While exchange theory predicts that high relative income will be associated with increased

infidelity, the predictions for low relative earners are less clear. On the one hand, as Hatfield and

colleagues (1979) predict, the “over-benefited partner should have grave reservations about

taking such risks.” Because low relative earners are more economically dependent on their

partners, they should be less likely to engage in behaviours like infidelity that could damage their

lucrative marital arrangements.

On the other hand, equity theory, a derivative of exchange theory, states that inequitable

relationships cause distress for those who get “too little” and those who get “too much” (Adams

1965). Applying equity theory to extramarital relationships, Prins and colleagues (1993) argue

that over-benefiting (that is, putting in less than one receives) is an adverse state, and infidelity

may provide over-benefited individuals with the opportunity to escape and prove their

desirability. They found that women (but not men) who felt they “contributed less” in general

than their partners engaged in more extramarital relationships than women who felt they
contributed equally. Yet, emerging literature raises questions about the utility of gender-neutral

exchange approaches (e.g., Bittman et al. 2003; Brines 1994; Kornrich, Brines, and Leupp 2013).

Men and women may respond differently to similar economic positions within the family.

Research Questions

1. What is the internal reliability/consistency (Cronbach Alpha) of the newly developed

Marital Infidelity scale?

2. Is there any significant relationship between the newly developed marital infidelity scale

and a standardized marital infidelity scale as an evidence of convergent validity?

3. Is there any significant relationship between the newly developed marital infidelity scale

and innovativeness as an evidence of discriminant validity?

METHOD

Research Design

The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design, which investigated many different individuals

at the same time, through the use of a survey instrument (a questionnaire). This design was used

in order to develop and validate a marital infidelity scale among married adults in the University

of Ibadan.

Sample and Sampling Techniques

Convenience sampling method was used to select the region for the study. The researcher used

the University of Ibadan as a setting for study, because the researcher could conveniently find

married adults within the premises.

Purposive sampling method was adopted to select participants in this study. This technique was

used because the population of study is very specific, in that it focuses on married individuals. In

the bid to measure the infidelity of such individuals, it is necessary to consider only those who

are married adults. Therefore, inclusion criteria were set as follows:

 Participant must be over 18 years of age.

 Participant must be married.

Participants who met these criteria were then administered copies of the questionnaire. A total

number of thirty (30) participants who met these criteria were included in this study.

Instrumentation

A questionnaire was used for the collection of data due to the high literacy of married individuals

(both staff and students) within the setting. The development of the instruments was done after

extensive review of literature to satisfy both face and content validity. The questionnaires were

divided into three sections: A, B and C.

Section A consists of the newly developed marital infidelity scale. This is a 20-item scale

developed by the researcher to measure the levels of infidelity among married adults. The scale

adopted a 5-likert response format, ranging from Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree

(SD). Typical examples of some of the items on the scale are: “Cheating on my partner could be

my way of rewarding them for hurting me”; “Flirting is not bad if done with sense”; “With the

trend of extra-marital affairs in the world today, I feel I can engage in one” among others.

Section B consists of an already validated measure of marital infidelity by Lisma and Holman

(2021), used to establish convergent validity. This is a 15-item scale, measuring the extent of

infidelity among married individuals. The scale adopted a 5-likert response format, ranging from
Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD). Typical examples of some of the items on the

scale are: “If the partners do not clearly state their limits, one should not be blamed for having an

affair”; “Some people deserve to be cheated on in their marital relationships”; “Having an affair

with someone else is nothing compared to spousal abuse” among others.

Section C comprised of an already validated scale to measure innovativeness by Pallister and

Foxall (1998), to establish discriminant validity. This is a 15-item scale, measuring innovative

behaviour among individuals. The scale adopted a 5-likert response format, ranging from

Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD). Typical examples of some of the items on the

scale are: “I enjoy trying out new ideas”; “I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas”; “I

am an inventive kind of person” among others.

Method of Data Analysis

Cronbach Alpha was used to establish the reliability of the scale. Internal consistency method

was used to ascertain the inter item correlation that exist in the items. This is also known as item

representativeness. Convergent validity technique was used to establish the scale relatedness

with other similar measure, while discriminant validity technique was used to establish the scale

relatedness with a different measure.

RESULTS

This presents the result of the research carried out on development of marital infidelity scale.

Three research questions were formulated and tested for this study.

Research Question One: What is the internal reliability/consistency (and Cronbach Alpha) of the

newly developed Marital Infidelity scale?

Table 1: Table Showing the Cronbach Alpha Value of the Newly Developed Marital

Infidelity Scale

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.953 20

Table 2: Table Showing the Internal Consistency (Item-Total Statistics) of the Newly

Developed Marital Infidelity Scale

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
A1 36.14 207.052 .858 .948
A2 36.83 222.005 .828 .949
A3 36.69 219.722 .832 .949
A4 36.28 211.493 .769 .949
A5 36.72 219.778 .819 .949
A6 36.55 217.828 .783 .949
A7 36.38 216.387 .667 .951
A8 36.76 222.690 .817 .949
A9 36.72 223.421 .850 .949
A10 36.66 217.020 .670 .951
A11 35.72 216.278 .450 .958
A12 36.00 211.429 .750 .950
A13 36.72 222.207 .850 .949
A14 36.83 219.648 .801 .949
A15 36.83 226.862 .471 .953
A16 36.90 227.239 .565 .952
A17 36.24 216.975 .792 .949
A18 36.45 222.470 .635 .951
A19 36.79 223.527 .771 .950
A20 36.97 228.677 .534 .952
Tables 1 and 2, reliability statistics tables, show that the reliability coefficient is = .953 and also

that all the items on item-total statistics are reliable. All the items are above the standard value of

0.3 which implies the fit the rules of internal consistency. The scale exhibited high internal

consistency, and so all items are retained in the final version of the scale.

Research Question 2: Is there any significant relationship between the newly developed marital

infidelity scale and a standardized marital infidelity scale as an evidence of convergent validity?

Table 3: Table Showing PPMC Summary on the Relationship between Newly Developed

Marital Infidelity Scale and already Validated Marital Infidelity Scale

Correlations
Infidelity_Validat
Infidelity_New ed
Infidelity_New Pearson Correlation 1 .734**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 30 30
**
Infidelity_Validated Pearson Correlation .734 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 30 30
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3 shows the significant relationship between the newly developed marital infidelity scale

and standardized marital infidelity. The result revealed that there is significant relationship

between the newly developed marital infidelity scale and the standardized marital infidelity scale

as an evidence of convergence validity; r (28) = .734, p<0.05. This implies that the developed

marital infidelity scale had strong correlation to standardized marital infidelity scale.

Research Question 3: Is there any significant relationship between the newly developed marital

infidelity scale and innovativeness as an evidence of discriminant validity?

 Table 4: Table Showing PPMC Summary on the Relationship between Newly Developed

Marital Infidelity Scale and already Validated Innovativeness Scale

Correlations
Infidelity_New Innovativeness
Infidelity_New Pearson Correlation 1 -.117
Sig. (2-tailed) .536
N 30 30
Innovativeness Pearson Correlation -.117 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .536
N 30 30

Table 4 shows there is no significant relationship between the newly developed marital infidelity

scale and standardized innovativeness scale. The result revealed that there is no significant

relationship between the newly developed marital infidelity scale and the standardized

innovativeness scale as an evidence of discriminant validity; r (28) = -0.117, p> 0.05. This

implies that the developed marital infidelity scale had no correlation to standardized

innovativeness scale, therefore proving discriminant validity.

CONCLUSION
This study aimed at developing and validating an instrument (a scale) to measure marital

infidelity among married adults. A scale was then developed and validated using 30 married

adults, and correlated with already validated scales to establish validity. The validity analysis

yielded good results, with a convergence validity value of r (28) = .734, p<0.05 when correlated

with the already validated Marital Infidelity Scale, and a discriminant validity value of r (28) = -

0.117, p> 0.05, when correlated with the already validated Innovative Behaviour Scale. These

results show validity of the newly developed marital infidelity measure. Reliability was also

analysed, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and item analysis of internal consistency. The

results yielded good reliability of Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.953, while the internal consistency item
analysis revealed that each item was a good fit for the scale. This scale is therefore valid and

reliable, and as such fit for use in psychological assessments and further studies.
References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. Pp. 267–99 in Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology. Vol. 2, edited by L. Berkowitz. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press
Apostolou, M., Constantinou, C., & Anagnostopoulos, S. (2019). Reasons that could lead people
to divorce in an evolutionary perspective: Evidence from Cyprus. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage, 60(1), 27-46
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples:
The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339-360.
Becker, G. S. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., and Matheson, G. (2003). When Does Gender
Trump Money? Bargaining and Time in Household Work. American Journal of Sociology
109(1):186–214
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Blossfeld, H. (2009). Educational Assortative Marriage in Comparative Perspective. Annual
Review of Sociology 35(1):513–30
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships ii: A substantive review.
Journal of marital and family therapy, 31(2), 217-233.
Brake, M. (2013). The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures (Routledge Revivals):
Sex and Drugs and Rock'n'Roll?. Routledge.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at Home. American
Journal of Sociology 100(3):652–88
Cook, K. S., and Richard M. E. (1978). Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks.
American Sociological Review 43(5):721–39.
DeMaris, A. (2013). Burning the candle at both ends: Extramarital sex as a precursor of marital
disruption. Journal of family issues, 34(11), 1474-1499
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
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review 27(1):31–
41.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review 27(1):31–
41.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013).
Greeley, A. (1994). Marital infidelity. Society, 31(4), 9-13.
Hatfield, E., Traupman, J., and William W. (1979). Equity and Extramarital Sex. Pp. 323–34 in
Love and Attraction, edited by M. Cook and G. Wilson. Oxford, UK: Pergamom Press
Haversath, J., & Kröger, C. (2014). Extradyadic Sex and its Predictors in Homo-and
Heterosexuals. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie, 64(12), 458-
464
Heckert, D. A., Thomas C. N., and Kay A. S. (1998). The Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’
Relative Earnings on Marital Disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60(3):690–
703.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behaviour as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology
63(6):597–606.
Jalovaara, M. (2003). The Joint Effects of Marriage Partners’ Socioeconomic Positions on the
Risk of Divorce. Demography 40(1):67–81
Jimoh, A. M., Taiwo, A. K., and Adetona, M. B. (2011). Marital Conflict and Domestic Violence
as Factors Predisposing Adolescents to Poor Academic Performance in South-western
Nigeria
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogamy.
American Sociological Review 56(6):786–800.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of
Sociology 24(1):395–421
Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A. and Manting D. (2007). Income Dynamics in Couples and the
Dissolution of Marriage and Cohabitation. Demography 44(1):159–79
Klimas, C., Ehlert, U., Lacker, T. J., Waldvogel, P., & Walther, A. (2019). Higher testosterone
levels are associated with unfaithful behaviour in men. Biological psychology, 146,
107730
Kornrich, S., Brines, J., and Leupp, K. (2013). Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual
Frequency in Marriage. American Sociological Review78(1):26–50.
Manting, D, and Loeve, A. (2004). Economic Circumstances and Union Dissolution of Couples
in the 1990s in the Netherlands. Statistics Netherlands Voorburg/Heerlen.
Mare, R. D. (1991). Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating. American Sociological
Review 56(1):15–32.
McDonald, G. W. (1981). Structural Exchange and Marital Interaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family 43(4):825–39.
Moller, N. P., & Vossler, A. (2015). Defining infidelity in research and couple counseling: A
qualitative study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(5), 487-497.
Moore, K. A., and Waite, J. (1981). Marital Dissolution, Early Motherhood and Early Marriage.
Social Forces 60(1):20–40
Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A Theory of Marriage Timing. American Journal of Sociology
94(3):563–91
Prins, K. S., Buunk, P. B. and VanYperen, N. W. (1993). Equity, Normative Disapproval and
Extramarital Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10(1):39–53.
Ross, H. L., and Sawhill, I. (1975). The Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by
Women. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). A Macro-and Micro-Examination of Family Power and Love: An
Exchange Model. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38(2):355–62
Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and Variation in Assortative Mating: Causes and Consequences.
Annual Review of Sociology 39(1):451–70.
Shrout, M. R., & Weigel, D. J. (2018). Infidelity’s aftermath: Appraisals, mental health, and
health-compromising behaviours following a partner’s infidelity. Journal of social and
personal relationships, 35(8), 1067-1091
Snyder, D. K., Baucom, D. H., & Gordon, K. C. (2007). Treating infidelity: An integrative
approach to resolving trauma and promoting forgiveness. In Infidelity (pp. 113-139).
Routledge.
Sprecher, S. (1998). Social Exchange Theories and Sexuality. Journal of Sex Research 35(1):32–
43
Sweeney, M. M., and Cancian, M. (2004). The Changing Importance of White Women’s
Economic Prospects for Assortative Mating. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(4):1015–
28.
Tafoya, M. A., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2007). Communicative infidelity. In B.H. Spitzberg & W.R.
Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 199-242).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
Taylor, P. A., and Norval D. G. (1976). The Utility of Education and Attractiveness for Females’
Status Attainment through Marriage. American Sociological Review 41(3):484–98.
Teachman, J. (2010). Wives’ Economic Resources and Risk of Divorce. Journal of Family Issues
31(10):1305–1323.
Thibaut, J. W., and Harold H. K. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
Thorson, A. R. (2013). Adult children’s discovery of their parents’ infidelity. Qualitative
Communication Research, 2(1), 61-80
Treas, J., and Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans.
Journal of Marriage and Family 62(1):48–60
Udry, J. R., and Bruce K. E. (1984). Benefits of Being Attractive: Differential Payoffs for Men
and Women. Psychological Reports 54(1):47–56.
Van Hooff, J. (2017). An everyday affair: Deciphering the sociological significance of women’s
attitudes towards infidelity. The Sociological Review, 65(4), 850-864
Waller, W. (1937). The Rating and Dating Complex. American Sociological Review 2(5):727–
34.
Waller, W., and Reuben, H. (1951). The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation. New York: Dryden
 Appendix
Section A
Please tick appropriately in the column that corresponds with your view
Strongly Agree (S.A), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)
S/N ITEMS SA A U D SD
1. Cheating on my partner could be my way of rewarding
them for hurting me
2. Considering an alternative spouse is my escape point when
there is no money again in my marriage
3. What keeps me going in marriage is good conditions; I will
leave if good turns to bad
4. With all my spouse does, I still have a crush outside there
5. If I have opportunity, I will get along with another spouse
6. Flirting is not bad if done with sense
7. Spending time with my crush is a way of escaping my
spouse’s troubles
8. Drinking and clubbing uses my time well than my spouse
9. Relying on one partner for all romantic needs is a dream
that can never turn to reality
10. I have no special feeling for my partner
11. Denying one’s partner of sex in marriage can make the
other unfaithful
12. There are times that it is possible to engage in extra-marital
affairs
13. With the trend of extra-marital affairs in the world today, I
feel I can engage in one
14. It feels good having an alternative in case your spouse
fumbles
15. Cheating is the best alternative if needs are unmet in
marriage
16. I crave more time with ex-fiancé
17. Mutual love is unreal in marriage
18. The absence of one’s spouse for a long time could be a
good reason to be unfaithful
19. I can cheat if my spouse breaks my standard of physical
appearance.
20. I have my emotional needs met by others outside the
home.
SECTION B
Please tick appropriately in the column that corresponds with your view
Strongly Agree (S.A), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)
S/N Items SA A U D SD
21. A spouse’s infidelity should not be blamed since many people
have such experiences at some point.
 22. If the partners do not clearly state their limits, one should not
be blamed for having an affair
23. Nowadays, infidelity is very frequent, so having an extramarital
affair should not be blamed.
24. Someone who is cheated on by his/her spouse usually did some
things to deserve it.
25. Some people deserve to be cheated on in their marital
relationships.
26. If a married person comes up to having an affair, his/her spouse
may be the one to blame.
27. Having an affair with someone else is nothing compared to
spousal abuse.
28. Compared to those who abandon their spouse and children,
someone who has an extramarital affair does nothing serious.
29. Having a romantic night out with someone else than your
spouse is no big deal compared to neglecting your seriously ill
partner.
30. Infidelity is not completely immoral because it offers some
people a way to ensure their psychological security.
31. An extramarital affair can mean “broadening the horizon.”
32. Having an affair is a way of keeping your necessary sense of
independence.
33. Being physically intimate occasionally with someone else than
your spouse is not very serious as long as you don’t engage in a
long-term relationship.
34. An extramarital affair that is not discovered does no harm.
35. Flirting with someone else does no harm to your spouse
SECTION C
Please tick appropriately in the column that corresponds with your view
Strongly Agree (S.A), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)
S/N Items SA A U D SD
36. My peers often ask me for advice or information
37. I enjoy trying out new ideas
38. I seek out new ways to do things
39. I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas
40. I frequently improvise methods for solving a problem when an
answer is not apparent
41. I am suspicious of new inventions and new ways of thinking
42. I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority
of people around me accept them
43. I feel that I am an influential member of my peer group
44. I consider myself to be creative and original in my thinking and
behaviour
45. I am aware that I am usually one of the last people in my group
to accept something new
46. I am an inventive kind of person
47. I enjoy taking part in the leadership responsibilities of the
groups I belong to
48. I am reluctant about adopting new ways of doing things until I
see them working for people around me
49. I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking and behaviour
50. I tend to feel that the old way of living and doing things is the
best way
51. I am challenged by ambiguities and unsolved problems
52. I must see other people using new innovations before I will
consider them
53. I am receptive to new ideas
54. I am challenged by unanswered questions
55. I often find myself skeptical of new idea