Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex Differences in Self-reported Infidelity and its Correlates

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined sex differences in the prevalence, incidence, reasons for, and consequences of infidelity. Participants (Study 1, 543 undergraduates in the Northwestern US; Study 2, 313 undergraduates and 233 community members in the Mid-Atlantic US), reported on infidelity by questionnaire. Using a broad definition of cheating, women reported being as unfaithful or more unfaithful than men. Men were more suspicious about cheating and more likely to discover the cheating than women. Women were more likely to break up with their partners, to begin new relationships after cheating, and to report reasons for cheating that may indicate a desire to switch long-term mates, such as being unhappy in the current relationship. Results are discussed in the context of evolutionary theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Shackleford, T. K. (1999). Differences in parental investment contribute to important differences between men and women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 86–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blow, A., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 183–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological-Science, 3, 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B., & van Driel, B. (1989). Variant lifestyles and relationships. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano, A., & Leary, D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive episodes and symptoms of nonspecific depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 774–781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death, hope, and sex: Steps to an evolutionary ecology of the mind and morality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38, 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S., Safstrom, A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeley, A. (1994). Marital infidelity. Society, 31, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiling, H., & Buss, D. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haden, S. C., & Hojjat, M. (2006). Aggressive responses to betrayal: Type of relationship, victim’s sex, and nature of aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, L. L., & Hudson, J. W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowiak, W., Nell, M. D., & Buckmaser, A. (2002). Managing infidelity: A cross-cultural perspective. Ethnology, 41, 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D., Sadalla, E., Groth, K., & Trost, M. (1990). Evolution, traits and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A., & Samson, C. (1988). Age, gender and adultery. The British Journal of Sociology, 39, 409–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, W. M. (2002). The death of “Till death do us part”: The transformation of pair-bonding in the 20th Century. Family Process, 41, 135–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M. (1993). The red queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behavior Change, 21, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whisman, M., Dixon, A., & Johnson, B., (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couples’ problems and treatment issues in couples’ therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward online and offline infidelity. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 569–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The man who mistook his wife for a chattel. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 289–322). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were reported at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in March, 2006, and as part of the Master’s thesis of the third author. The authors thank Larry Sugiyama for helpful suggestions, and Caroline Packard, Courtney Turner, Colleen Bott, Tanya Fiedler, Brittany Bishop, Sherry Rieger, Rachel McCartney, Elizabeth Gravallese, and Phaedra Massie for help with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

    Rebecca J. Brand & Ana Mills

  2. Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

    Charlotte M. Markey

  3. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    Sara D. Hodges

  4. Department of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Rebecca J. Brand

Authors
  1. Rebecca J. Brand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte M. Markey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara D. Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca J. Brand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brand, R.J., Markey, C.M., Mills, A. et al. Sex Differences in Self-reported Infidelity and its Correlates. Sex Roles 57, 101–109 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9221-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9221-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation