Why people commit infidelity: 'Nothing personal' or 'very personal:' Machiavellianism and subclinical sadism as predictors of infidelity

Abstract

Apart from the proximate incitement, infidelity implies an intention to inflict harm and suffering to a perpetrator's regular intimate partner for the sake of the perpetrator's own pleasure. The aim of this study was to determine whether Machiavellian deceit (infidelity as a conative style, i.e., 'nothing personal') or subclinical sadism (infidelity with the overt intention to hurt, i.e., 'very personal') is the dominant impetus of infidelity. Our data collected on 111 female and 48 male respondents indicated that Machiavellian antagonism and agency were the best predictors of adulterous behaviour, thus highlighting its 'nothing personal' dimension. No indices of subclinical sadism proved their incremental predictive power in the regression model, thus challenging the 'very personal' approach to the underpinnings of infidelity. In addition, there was no evidence of sex-related differences in proclivity to infidelity.