I Can But You Can't: Inconsistencies in Judgments of and Experiences With Infidelity

Q3 Psychology

Journal of Relationships Research Pub Date : 2016-03-01 DOI:10.1017/jrr.2016.1

A. E. Thompson, L. O’Sullivan

{"title":"I Can But You Can't: Inconsistencies in Judgments of and Experiences With Infidelity","authors":"A. E. Thompson, L. O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1017/jrr.2016.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite strong prohibition against infidelity and endorsement of exclusivity as a norm, many people report engaging in infidelity. The current study examined this paradox by employing a between-subject design using online surveys with 810 adults to assess actor-observer biases in the degree of permissiveness judging own versus partner's hypothetical behaviour, as well as hypocrisy in judgments of infidelity versus self-reported behaviour. Participants judged their own behaviour more permissively than their partner's, but only for emotional/affectionate and technology/online behaviours (not sexual/explicit or solitary behaviours). Many reported having engaged in behaviours that they judged to be infidelity, especially emotional/affectionate and technology/online infidelity behaviours. Sexual attitudes, age, and religion predicted inconsistencies in judgments of infidelity and self-reported behaviour (hypocrisy). This study has implications for educators and practitioners working with couples to improve communication and establish guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.","PeriodicalId":37757,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Relationships Research","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/jrr.2016.1","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Relationships Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2016.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 28

Abstract

Despite strong prohibition against infidelity and endorsement of exclusivity as a norm, many people report engaging in infidelity. The current study examined this paradox by employing a between-subject design using online surveys with 810 adults to assess actor-observer biases in the degree of permissiveness judging own versus partner's hypothetical behaviour, as well as hypocrisy in judgments of infidelity versus self-reported behaviour. Participants judged their own behaviour more permissively than their partner's, but only for emotional/affectionate and technology/online behaviours (not sexual/explicit or solitary behaviours). Many reported having engaged in behaviours that they judged to be infidelity, especially emotional/affectionate and technology/online infidelity behaviours. Sexual attitudes, age, and religion predicted inconsistencies in judgments of infidelity and self-reported behaviour (hypocrisy). This study has implications for educators and practitioners working with couples to improve communication and establish guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我能，但你不能:对不忠的判断和经历的不一致

尽管强烈禁止不忠，并认可排他性作为一种规范，但许多人报告说他们有不忠行为。目前的研究采用了一种主体间设计，对810名成年人进行了在线调查，以评估行为者-观察者在判断自己和伴侣的假设行为时的宽容程度上的偏见，以及在判断不忠行为和自我报告行为时的虚伪程度。参与者对自己行为的评价比伴侣更宽容，但仅限于情感/深情和技术/在线行为(不包括性/明示或单独行为)。许多人报告说，他们的行为被认为是不忠，尤其是情感/深情和技术/网络不忠行为。性态度、年龄和宗教预示着对不忠和自我报告行为的判断不一致(虚伪)。这项研究对教育工作者和从业人员改善夫妻沟通和建立适当和不适当行为的指导方针具有启示意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Relationships Research Psychology-Social Psychology

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： This innovative journal provides researchers and practitioners with access to quality, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed articles covering the entire range of fields associated with personal, intimate, organizational and family, and social relationships, development, training and analysis of human relationship skills across the life-span. Originally an initiative of the Psychology of Relationships Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society, the journal became independent within its first year with the intention of publishing papers from the full array of researchers of relationship. The journal features an experienced and eclectic international Editorial Board and is international in its reach. There is a special emphasis on contributions from Asia, including the subcontinent and Pacific regions but the journal welcomes papers from all other parts of the world.