The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Betrayals in Emerging Adulthood: A Developmental Perspective of Infidelity

Jerika C. Norona, Spencer B. Olmstead & Deborah P. Welsh

To cite this article: Jerika C. Norona, Spencer B. Olmstead & Deborah P. Welsh (2018) Betrayals in Emerging Adulthood: A Developmental Perspective of Infidelity, The Journal of Sex Research, 55:1, 84-98, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1342757 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1342757

Published online: 17 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 189

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH,55(1), 84–98, 2018 Copyright: © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1342757

Betrayals in Emerging Adulthood: A Developmental Perspective of Infidelity

Jerika C. Norona Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee Spencer B. Olmstead Department of Child and Family Studies, The University of Tennessee Deborah P. Welsh Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee

Infidelity is associated with considerable distress and discord in dating relationships. The current mixed methods study examined both the written narratives and survey responses of 104 (59.6% women) emerging adults to investigate reasons for engaging in infidelity (i.e., sexual and emotional infidelity). Emerging adults’ reasons for engaging in infidelity were attributed primarily to their primary relationships and/or their romantic partners not fulfilling their needs for interdependence and thus feeling motivated to fulfill these needs elsewhere. Although the majority of participants provided independence and/or interdependence reasons for their infi- delity, a large proportion of responses (40%) referenced alternative reasons. These responses included (a) the opportunity to become intimate with an infidelity partner while under the influence of alcohol, (b) attraction to an infidelity partner, and (c) the excitement and novelty that the infidelity experience provided. Those who reported engaging in infidelity because of unmet interdependence needs, and intimacy needs in particular, were more avoidantly attached than those who did not reference unmet interdependence needs. Those who reported engaging in infidelity because of unmet independence needs were more anxiously attached than those who did not reference unmet independence needs. Implications for the developmental importance of infidelity in terms of research and applied work are discussed.

In Western cultures, it is not uncommon for romantic partners 2006; McAnulty & Brineman, 2007; Welsh, Grello, & to experience emotional and/or physical infidelity (Allen & Harper, 2003). Past research has examined prevalence, cor- Baucom, 2006; McAnulty & Brineman, 2007). One of the relates, motivations, and reactions in relation to infidelity earliest studies of young people’sinfidelity reported that two- using adolescent and emerging adult samples (Allen et al., thirds of a sample of older adolescents/emerging adults had 2005; McAnulty & Brineman, 2007; McAnulty & experienced infidelity, either by their partner’s participation in McAnulty, 2012). However, research has yet to examine infidelity, their own participation in infidelity, or both infidelity using a developmental perspective. Indeed, devel- (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999a). In a recent study on college- opmental researchers have long hypothesized that young attending dating couples, more than half of participants people’s strivings to accomplish developmental tasks are reported having an emotional connection or being physically associated with participation in infidelity. As stated by intimate with someone other than their romantic dating partner Feldman and Cauffman (1999a), “[B]etrayal … may result in the prior two years (Allen & Baucom, 2006). Further, in from the complexities of balancing growing levels of inti- another college-attending dating sample, about one-third of macy (with its need for commitment and fidelity) with the participants reported cheating on their romantic partner physi- establishment of a strong sense of identity (with its need for cally and/or emotionally (Hall & Fincham, 2009). experimentation and exploration of alternatives)” (p. 252). Infidelity is associated with relationship distress and dis- Despite the importance of developmental tasks in under- cord (Allen et al., 2005; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999a;Furr, standing behavior and motivations (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999a), to our knowledge, researchers have yet to study infidelity among emerging adults using a developmental Correspondence should be addressed to Jerika C. Norona, University of lens. Given the potential association between the negotiation Tennessee, Department of Psychology, 305 Austin Peay Building, of psychosocial tasks and participation in infidelity, further Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail: [email protected] INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD research can unveil the significance of infidelity in emerging maturity. Parents gradually give adolescents more freedom, adulthood and how it might contribute to emerging adults’ which helps adolescents understand that they are distinct development. individuals from their families of origin and can develop their own opinions and make independent decisions (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Developmental Systems Theory and Romantic Autonomy is often discussed in the context of family Experiences in Emerging Adulthood relationships; however, as adolescents gradually separate from family members, they negotiate separateness and con- Developmental systems theory (DST; Lerner, Theokas, nectedness in friendships and romantic relationships (Collins & Jelicic, 2005) focuses on the dynamic interplay between & Steinberg, 2006). Throughout adolescence and into emer- one’s development and the environmental context in which ging adulthood, establishing autonomy becomes a work in development occurs. This theory contends that individuals, progress in multiple relationships. As they gain more experi- particularly young people, intentionally act in ways that ence in romantic relationships, the need for emotional and help them to meet their developmental needs. This behavior behavioral autonomy becomes more salient. The develop- involves making choices and actively seeking a variety of ment of autonomy continues until young people establish a experiences that are consistent with corresponding psycho- coherent sense of self (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). social tasks. In this way, young people are active agents in their own development and deliberately pursue opportu- Identity. In emerging adulthood, a major focus nities that will help them to grow as individuals (Lerner involves establishing one’s identity (Collins & Steinberg, et al., 2005). 2006). Identity is understood as a clear idea of who one is, Our understanding of emerging adults’ strivings to meet what one believes, and what one’s roles and responsibilities their developmental needs can be enhanced through a devel- are (Marcia, 1966; Morgan, 2013). Answering these opmental systems theory lens. During emerging adulthood, questions is often difficult, and individuals arrive at these young people begin developing their identities and under- answers through exploration and experimentation with standing themselves as separate from their parents (Arnett, numerous options for the kind of people they hope to be 2015; Grotevant & Cooper, 1998). At the same time, emer- in the future and the kinds of identities to which they want ging adults establish and gain experience within the context to commit (Marcia, 1966). Emerging adults aim to solidify of romantic relationships (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009; their identities across several domains (see Schwartz, Grotevant & Cooper, 1998). Establishing independence Zamboanga, Luyckx, Meca, & Ritchie, 2013). That is, (apart from one’s family of origin) while also fostering they try on various labels and behaviors that reflect these intimate relationships are tasks that are considered unique identities. Successful development of an identity generally to the period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2015). results in a coherent sense of self that is independent from Together, these tasks are conceptualized as emerging adults’ others (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). needs for independence and interdependence as they explore possibilities for love and work (Arnett, 2015; Collins & Interdependence Steinberg, 2006). In addition to establishing independence, emerging adults are expected to connect closely with romantic part- Independence ners. When the need for intimacy and sexual expression Developing a coherent and independent sense of self is a become salient, adolescents and emerging adults seek out central task for emerging adults (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; romantic relationships to fulfill their interdependence needs Grotevant & Cooper, 1998). Independence comprises two (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). This need is composed of components: autonomy and identity (Connolly & McIsaac, affiliation, intimacy, and sexual reciprocity. 2009; Grotevant & Cooper, 1998). Affiliation. Affiliation involves spending time with Autonomy. Autonomy consists of emotional and another person and engaging in mutually enjoyable and behavioral autonomy. Emotional autonomy involves shared activities (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, thinking, deciding, and emotionally reacting without 2004). Beginning in adolescence, young people develop a relying on family members, friends, or romantic partners need for affiliation and gradually interact with peers. The (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; van Petegem, Vansteenkiste, & need for affiliation can be fulfilled by any type of social Beyers, 2013). Behavioral autonomy involves taking action relationship (e.g., family relationships, friendships, romantic according to one’s own volition, rather than acting based on relationships), as affiliative interactions are more others’ beliefs (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; van Petegem characteristic of platonic companionships rather than being et al., 2013). With their maturing cognitive and behavioral sexual or romantic in nature (Connolly et al., 2004; capacities, adolescents begin to feel different and separate Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). This need for meaningful from their parents. As they express their independent views social interactions is present throughout the life span, and beliefs, family members learn to see adolescents gaining including emerging adulthood.

85 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH

Intimacy. Being intimate and connected with others is infidelity is likely a form of relationship exploration and particularly important for those seeking meaningful romantic experimentation. relationships. Intimacy involves mutual trust and support, Extant research supports the notion that the need to self-disclosure, and positive and validating interactions achieve independence and interdependence is related to emer- (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Intimacy first develops within ging adults’ motivations for engaging in various romantic one’s family of origin and continues to grow in friendships experiences. For example, emerging adults have been found and romantic relationships. In same-gender peer groups to end romantic relationships because their romantic partners during adolescence, young people have opportunities to did not fulfill their needs for independence or interdepen- practice and become comfortable with sharing emotional dence, particularly intimacy, autonomy, and identity (Norona, vulnerabilities and engaging in mutually validating and Olmstead, & Welsh, 2017). Although it is unknown whether rewarding interactions. This need for intimacy remains this need fulfillment applies to in fidelity, empirical evidence important for emerging adults, who increasingly strive to suggests that salient developmental needs for independence develop intimacy with romantic partners. and interdependence guide emerging adults’ decisions to pursue various romantic experiences. Sexual Reciprocity. As young people experience physiological, biological, and hormonal changes during adolescence at the onset of puberty, they gradually Attachment Styles and Reasons for Participating in develop romantic and sexual attractions (Collins et al., Infidelity 2009). In emerging adulthood, sexual expression often manifests in the context of dating relationships, and casual From an adult attachment perspective, Allen and Baucom sexual and romantic experiences with friends and (2004) examined the relationship between adult attachment acquaintances (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013; Grello, styles and reasons for engaging in infidelity. Using commu- Welsh, & Harper, 2006). Emerging adults commonly nity and undergraduate samples, they found that avoidantly report engaging in casual sexual relationships, rather than attached individuals were more likely than securely and pursuing committed relationships, to fulfill their sexual anxiously attached individuals to engage in infidelity for desires (Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2010). reasons related to autonomy, such as wanting freedom from their relationship. Anxiously attached individuals were more likely than securely and avoidantly attached Emerging Adult Development and Infidelity individuals to engage in infidelity for reasons related to intimacy, such as gaining closeness to another individual. Connolly and McIsaac (2009) first applied developmen- Unfortunately, the research on attachment styles and infide- tal systems theory to the experience of romantic relationship lity among emerging adult populations is scarce and is dissolution and found that interdependence and indepen- limited to the prevalence of infidelity across different attach- dence needs were associated with adolescents’ motivations ment styles (see Blow & Hartnett, 2005; McAnulty & for ending romantic relationships. In an effort to extend their McAnulty, 2012). Although these attachment styles overlap work, we examined whether this lens helps explain the with the developmental needs of independence and interde- experience of physical and/or emotional infidelity among pendence for emerging adults, research has yet to examine emerging adults (a common reason for romantic relationship whether attachment styles are associated with emerging dissolution; Blow & Hartnett, 2005). adults’ reasons for engaging in infidelity and their relevant From the perspective of developmental systems theory psychosocial tasks. (Lerner et al., 2005), it is possible that emerging adults participate in and seek out infidelity experiences for devel- opmental purposes. Perhaps emerging adults’ infidelity Gender and Reasons for Participating in Infidelity reflects their unmet developmental needs for independence and interdependence in their primary romantic relationship. In addition to reasons for engaging in infidelity and Indeed, Feldman and Cauffman (1999b) stated that “sexual related attachment styles, infidelity is often explored in the betrayal may be a symptom of the difficulty with which context of gender differences and similarities. Findings on adolescents juggle the competing demands of two age-rele- the rates of infidelity are mixed, as studies often include vant developmental tasks” (p. 228). Ambivalence about different definitions of this construct (Blow & Hartnett, what the relationship does and does not provide may moti- 2005; McAnulty & McAnulty, 2012). From a developmen- vate emerging adults to seek out other kinds of relationships tal perspective, theoretical and empirical work on gender and partners who they believe can help them meet these socialization indicates that girls and young women are developmental needs. In other words, participating in infi- socialized to be relationally focused, whereas boys and delity may be another way that emerging adults attempt to young men are socialized to be independently focused meet their needs for independence and interdependence. As (Eagly, 2013; Gilligan, 1982). These gendered patterns of emerging adulthood can be a trying and daunting time for romantic engagement suggest there may be gendered pat- young people (Arnett, 2015), the decision to engage in terns of infidelity as well. However, developmental research

86 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD has suggested that young people become more similar than infidelity among emerging adults, we developed three research different during the period of emerging adulthood (e.g., questions to guide our study and also tested two hypotheses: Norona et al., 2017; see Norona, Preddy, & Welsh, 2015, for a review). As proposed by Norona et al. (2015), gender RQ1: How do emerging adults’ reasons for engaging in differences may emerge in domains that have the strongest infidelity coincide with their developmental needs expectations for gender differences, such as parenting. for independence and interdependence? Whether engaging in infidelity yields such gender differ- ences has yet to be investigated. Thus, in the present study, H1: We hypothesized that emerging adults’ reasons for we considered gender differences in emerging adults’ expla- infidelity would describe more unfulfilled indepen- nations for engaging in infidelity. dence needs and interdependence needs compared to reasons that are not related to independence and inter- dependence needs (e.g., opportunity for infidelity). Relationship Education and Interventions in Emerging Adulthood RQ2: Are there associations among adult attachment style and reasons for engaging in infidelity? The possible associations among the developmental needs for independence and interdependence, reasons for H2: Given previous findings on the association between engaging in infidelity, attachment style, and gender have anxious attachment and intimacy motivations and the the potential to contribute to relationship education for relationship between avoidant attachment and auton- omy motivations (Allen & Baucom, 2004), we emerging adults through formal programs or dyadically in hypothesized that anxious attachment would be related therapy. Currently, RelationshipU (Fincham, Stanley, & to unmet interdependence needs and avoidant attach- Rhoades, 2010), which has been implemented with emer- ment would be related to unmet independence needs. ging adults, educates young people about their expectations of relationships, individual factors that can contribute to RQ3: Do emerging adult men and women differ in their couple dynamics, and how to make decisions about rela- reported reasons for engaging in infidelity? (Given its tional experiences rather than “sliding” into such experi- exploratory nature, no a priori hypotheses were pro- ences (i.e., sliding versus deciding, Stanley, Rhoades, & posed for this research question.) Markman, 2006). Developmental needs of independence and interdependence in emerging adulthood and their asso- ciation with reasons for engaging in various romantic Method experiences and individual characteristics overlap with these general goals. Thus, gaining a deeper understanding Participants about these variables may help guide relationship education programs, specifically by helping emerging adults become Participants were 104 emerging adults (59.6% women) aware of the salient developmental tasks of this life course who reported engaging in emotional and/or physical inti- stage and how their relational choices are likely guided by macy with someone other than their primary romantic part- the need to achieve those tasks. ner within the six months prior to the study. On average, participants were 22.1 years old (SD = 2.12, range = 18 to 25). The majority (74.0%) identified as White/Caucasian, Current Study followed by Black/African American (10.6%), Asian/Asian American (7.7%), Hispanic/Latino/a (1.9%), Native Our study extends the existing literature by examining Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1.0%), and 2.9% reported as reasons for participating in infidelity in emerging adulthood biracial/multiracial. About half (48.1%) of participants using a developmental perspective, underscoring the psycho- reported that they had attended some college (and not social tasks associated with this period. Using developmental received a degree), whereas others had earned a bachelor’s systems theory (Lerner et al., 2005), we aimed to understand degree (28.8%), high school diploma or equivalent (7.7%), emerging adults’ explanations for engaging in infidelity as they associate’s degree (4.8%), trade/technical/vocational train- relate to independence and interdependence needs. To do so, ing (4.8%), master’s degree (3.8%), some high school we first qualitatively analyzed open-ended narratives about (1.0%), and a professional degree (1.0%). The majority reasons for engaging in infidelity. Second, we examined asso- (81.7%) identified as heterosexual, followed by bisexual ciations across adult attachment styles and reasons for enga- (16.3%), gay/lesbian (1.0%), and 1.0% reported as “other.” ging in infidelity as they related to emerging adults’ relevant psychosocial tasks. Third, we examined potential gender dif- Procedures ferences in participants’ reasons for engaging in infidelity to determine whether there are gendered patterns in infidelity After receiving approval from the university’s institu- using a developmental perspective. Informed by developmen- tional review board (IRB), participants were recruited tal systems and attachment theory and the extant literature on using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing

87 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH system hosted by Amazon.com. We chose to use MTurk to Think back to the time you were in a relationship and were recruit participants to gain a more representative sample of emotionally and/or physically intimate with someone other emerging adults than are typically found with college stu- than your primary boyfriend or girlfriend in the last six dents (Arnett, 2016). Research on MTurk participants (i.e., months. MTurk “workers”) has shown that their demographic char- acteristics are more representative of the U.S. population Imagine you are telling a very good friend about the story of compared to college samples (Ipeirotis, 2010; Ross, this intimacy. In the course of the conversation, you describe Zaldivar, Irani, & Tomlinson, 2009). why you were intimate with someone other than your boy- friend or girlfriend. A brief description of the study was provided on the Human Intelligence Task page on MTurk. Interested indivi- Describe the circumstances with enough detail to help your duals clicked a link that provided more information, and they friend see and feel as you did. were then routed to an informed consent form to gain addi- tional information about the study and determine their elig- Although your account will be anonymous and will be ibility. Participants self-selected into the study, which was identified only by code name, please do not reveal informa- anonymous. From MTurk, participants were routed to tion that is so painful as to make you feel uncomfortable Qualtrics, an online survey system, to complete the study. describing the circumstances. Participants completed a screening questionnaire to determine their eligibility for the study; eligible participants included It is important to mention that we intentionally did not individuals who were between the ages of 18 and 25 years define physical and emotional intimacy to assure a phenom- old and identified engaging in emotional and/or physical infi- enological perspective and privilege the subjective experi- delity within the six months prior to the study. After complet- ence of participants. Participants were thus able to ing the survey, participants were rerouted to MTurk and each participate and respond to this question if they believed received $2.01 as compensation. Measures in the present study they were physically and/or emotionally intimate with assessed basic demographic information, romantic experiences, someone other than their boyfriend or girlfriend. Although and adult attachment style. not providing definitions for these terms might lead to a broad range of experiences described by participants, to address our primary research question we wanted to include Measures these experiences if they were believed to be infidelity with Demographic Characteristics. Participants completed a someone other than their primary romantic partner. demographics questionnaire that surveyed basic demographic information, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational Infidelity Type and Level. The highest level of background, and socioeconomic status. intimacy was assessed through questions developed by Allen and Baucom (2006). Participants first reported their Romantic Experiences and Extradydadic Intimacy. level of sexual contact with their partner; responses included The Romantic Experiences Questionnaire (REQ) was developed 0=No sexual/physical contact,1=Sexual hugging and for use in this study. This questionnaire asked participants to caressing,2=Sexual kissing,3=Heavy petting,4=Oral report their current relationship status, relationship length for sex or similar sexual contact, and 5 = Sexual intercourse. those currently in romantic relationships, length of the most Participants then reported their level of emotional recently dissolved romantic relationship, and total number of involvement with their partner; responses included 0 = No romantic relationships experienced in the past. emotional involvement,1= Slight emotional involvement, In addition, prior to completing this primary portion of 2=Moderate emotional involvement,3=Strong emotional the survey, participants read a short paragraph about the involvement, and 4 = Extremely deep emotional involvement. typicality of infidelity. As suggested by Drigotas, Safstrom, and Gentilia (1999), this can normalize the Attachment Style. Attachment style was assessed experience of infidelity for participants and help them feel using the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale comfortable disclosing such information. Following this (ECRS; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The ECRS is a paragraph, instructions were adapted from Moffitt and 36-item, self-report questionnaire used to assess attachment Singer’s(1994) self-defining memory prompt. A text box styles in romantic relationships. Items included brief was provided for participants’ responses. The normalizing descriptions of attachment styles with romantic partners paragraph and the prompt read: and asked participants to rate the degree to which they utilized that style in their relationships to measure two During romantic relationships, there are times when we are scales of anxious and avoidant attachment. We particularly attracted to other people. Part of being human is noticing the focused on anxious and avoidant attachment because of physical qualities or personality traits in others that are their significant relationships with infidelity during the attractive to us. Sometimes that attraction is mutual and developmental period of emerging adulthood (Allen & sometimes it is not. Baucom, 2004). Sample items include “I’m afraid that I

88 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD will lose my partner’s love” and “I often worry that my Henderson, Peterson-Badali, & Goldstein, 2016; Ravert & partner will not want to stay with me.” Response options Gomez-Scott, 2015). were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 Subsequently, the presence or absence of each of the (Strongly disagree)to7(Strongly agree). Brennan and seven possible developmental needs (interdependence, inde- colleagues (1998) reported high internal consistency for pendence, intimacy, affiliation, sexual reciprocity, auton- avoidance and anxiety scales (α = .94 and α = .91, omy, and identity) were dummy-coded (0 = Absent, respectively). Internal consistencies for the present study 1=Present) to determine frequencies. If responses were were high (avoidance: α = .93, anxiety: α = .94). unable to be categorized, they were set aside for inductive qualitative analysis. These responses were examined using a qualitative approach called thematic analysis (Braun & Analytic Strategy Clarke, 2006). Specifically, categories in the coding system To address the first research question and analyze parti- were generated from participants’ responses. In the first cipants’ open-ended responses, we conducted a qualitative phase of coding, familiarizing yourself with your data content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). Given the length of (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the coding team carefully and participants’ responses, which were several sentences long, thoroughly read through responses several times to famil- this analytic strategy was chosen to capture the possibility of iarize themselves with the data. In the second phase of multiple themes in a given response, as individuals can coding, generating initial codes, each member of the coding engage in infidelity for a variety of reasons. We used a team independently reviewed each response for initial codes deductive, top-down approach, using the definitions of and collated their ideas. In the third phase, searching for each of the subcomponents of independence (i.e., identity themes, the coding team systematically organized the initial and autonomy) and interdependence (i.e., affiliation, inti- codes into preliminary themes and collated example macy, and sexual reciprocity) to guide our investigation. responses that reflected these themes. In the fourth phase, Definitions for various categories were consistent with pre- reviewing themes, the team periodically examined the vious developmental theory and research on developmental themes on a broader level to determine if they appropriately tasks (Arnett, 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck, Arnold, & Connolly, reflected the larger set of responses. Themes that reflected 2014). For these definitions, please contact the first author. the broader spectrum of responses were collected. In the Next, sorting material into categories involved the fol- fifth and final phase of coding, defining and naming themes, lowing process: The first author reviewed each response the coding team created the final themes. separately to determine the developmental needs that were When conducting the quantitative analyses, Pearson’schi- present in the response. The presence, rather than the fre- square tests were used when the assumption of equality of quency, of referenced needs were recorded. Thus, if one variances was met. If this assumption was violated, a Mann- particular need (e.g., intimacy) was referenced twice Whitney nonparametric t test was conducted. To address throughout the response, its presence was recorded only research question 1 and analyze frequency differences, we one time. Therefore, each response could have more than conducted a series of Pearson’s chi-square tests comparing one referenced developmental need, but up to five develop- interdependence versus independence; intimacy versus affilia- mental needs if all subcategories (autonomy, identity, affilia- tion versus sexual reciprocity; and identity versus autonomy. tion, intimacy, and sexual reciprocity) were referenced in the To address research question 2, we conducted a series of response. Responses that included words, sentences, or independent samples t tests and entered developmental phrases that could not be categorized into any of the five needs separately as a grouping variable. A series of Mann- subcategories were separated for future analysis. Responses Whitney t tests was conducted for those developmental that were granted the subcategories of autonomy and iden- needs that violated assumptions of equality of variance. tity were also granted the code “independence,” and those Because participants’ responses could reference more than granted the subcategories of affiliation, intimacy, and sexu- one developmental need, the t tests compared participants ality were also granted the code “interdependence.” who referenced that particular developmental need with To establish reliability and safeguard against biased cod- those who did not. To address research questions 2 and 3, ing (Saldaña, 2013), an advanced undergraduate research we conducted a series of Pearson’s chi-square tests and assistant double-coded a random subset of 20% of the Mann-Whitney nonparametric t tests based on group vari- total number of responses. The first author trained the ables consistent with each research question. These tests research assistant about the process of coding and the five were run with avoidant attachment as the dependent vari- developmental needs, and provided written definitions of able, and then again with anxious attachment as the depen- each of the developmental needs. Cohen’s kappa was accep- dent variable. table (κ = .81). Coding disagreements that arose were resolved via discussions between the first author and the research assistant to establish the final coding. After relia- Results bility was established, the first author coded the remainder of the responses following prior studies using similar pro- The following statistics refer to the highest level of sex- cedures (e.g., Dupree, Magill, & Apodaca, 2016; Goodman, ual and emotional involvement. A great deal of overlap was

89 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH found between those who participated in sexual infidelity partner. She was distant and cold at a time when I needed the and emotional infidelity; 12.3% of participants reported no most support. She would tell me that she did not know if she sexual or physical contact, whereas 19.8% of participants was in love with me or not. She would tell me that she still had reported no emotional involvement. In terms of sexual or feelings for her ex-boyfriend. She would also regularly talk to physical contact, 6.6% reported sexual hugging and cares- him while we were dating and even went as far as to see him at one point. At the same time that this was going on, I was going sing, 14.2% reported sexual kissing, 5.7% reported heavy through a tough time with the death of a family member, and it petting, 3.8% reported oral sex or similar sexual contact, seemed as if my partner was not there for me.Duringthattime and 55.7% reported sexual intercourse. For emotional invol- an old friend of mine starting showing increased interest in me vement, 16.0% reported slight emotional involvement, and would always make herself available to talk even if it was 23.6% reported moderate emotional involvement, 22.6% inconvenient for her. Over the course of a few weeks that reported strong emotional involvement, and 17.0% reported relationship of “talking” had progress[ed] into something extremely deep emotional involvement. Thus, the majority where I would blow off my girlfriend to hang out with this of participants experienced both sexual and emotional invol- friend because she made me feel appreciated. It was like she vement with someone other than their primary romantic genuinely cared about my feelings and well-being. partner. Because the frequencies were too small to allow for comparisons across groups, all responses were analyzed Second, 23 participants referenced the subcategory of as a single group (i.e., regardless of type of infidelity). unmet affiliation needs. These references to affiliation It is important to note that intimacy with an individual included (a) loneliness, (b) dissatisfaction about the amount other than one’s primary romantic partner can include con- of time spent with one’s primary partner, (c) boredom in the sensual, nonmonogamous relationships (e.g., polyamorous primary relationship, and (d) lack of shared interests relationships, open relationships), and not all instances of between oneself and one’s primary partner. The following extradyadic intimacy are considered infidelity. Thus, we excerpt from a 24-year-old man illustrated his lack of com- paid close attention to participants’ responses and the con- mon interests with his primary partner: text of their extradyadic intimacy. We found six individuals who described being involved in polyamorous and/or open This new girl … liked video games and so did I. She liked relationships in our sample. These individuals were included to sing, and I play guitar, which makes a perfect combo for a in the analyses and grouped into the same theme/category great time to get together and have fun, and really share true feelings with her. My primary girlfriend did not relate to me (see Table 1). in this way; she did not like video games, and wasn’t really To address research question 1, the next section reports interested in me playing the guitar or singing, which was the frequencies of referenced reasons for engaging in infi- actually really disappointing for me… . This often proved delity, followed by qualitative illustrations of the various difficult for me, because I was constantly searching for ways developmental needs. To maintain parsimony, we present that we could have fun together, without her getting bored only one example for each developmental need. However, quickly of what we were doing. additional examples are available from the first author. Frequencies are presented in Table 1. Last, 22 participants referenced the subcategory of unmet sexual reciprocity needs. These references included (a) sex- ual dissatisfaction in one’s primary relationship and (b) lack Interdependence of sex or sexual contact in one’s primary relationship. The following excerpt from a 23-year-old woman illustrated her Results of the qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, desire for a sexual connection: 2013) showed that, of the 104 participants, 76 referenced unmet interdependence needs when explaining their reasons fi I had never had a strong sexual connection with my boy- for engaging in in delity. Within these responses, 58 partici- friend, and it was the first real sexual relationship, so I pants referenced the subcategory of unmet intimacy needs. thought it was me and my fault. I wanted to sleep with These references to intimacy included (a) one’s primary other people and know what it was like. I knew that sex is partner’s lack of care, understanding, attention, or trust within an important part of a relationship, and the love was gone the relationship, (b) poor communication and/or frequent for the boyfriend, so there was nothing holding me there. arguments between oneself and one’s primary partner, (c) one’s primary partner displaying poor treatment, (d) one’s Independence primary partner’sinfidelity, (e) experiencing a “rough patch” with the primary partner, (f) lack of spark or excite- Regarding independence, 21 participants referenced ment in the primary relationship, and (g) feeling unloved by unmet independence needs when explaining their reasons one’s primary partner. The following excerpt from a 24-year- for engaging in infidelity. Within this category, seven parti- old man exemplified several of these intimacy themes: cipants referenced unmet identity needs, which included (a) one’s primary partner holding undesirable characteristics/ At the time that I became intimate with another person aside qualities, (b) not feeling accepted by one’s primary partner, from my significant other, I felt neglected emotionally by my and (c) personality differences between oneself and one’s

90 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Table 1. Emerging Adults’ Reasons for Engaging in Infidelity Coded According to Developmental Needs and Subcategories (N = 104)

Developmental Need N Subcategory N Themea N

Interdependence 76 Intimacy 58 Lack of mutual care, understanding, attention, or trust 37 Fighting/poor communication 15 Primary partner’sinfidelity 6 Poor treatment from primary partner 6 Lack of spark or excitement in primary relationship 3 “Rough patch” with primary partner 3 Feeling unloved by primary partner 1 Affiliation 23 Loneliness 11 Dissatisfaction about time spent with primary partner 9 Boredom 8 Lacking shared interests with primary partner 1 Sexual reciprocity 27 Sexual dissatisfaction in primary relationship 17 Lack of sex or sexual contact in primary relationship 10 Independence 21 Identity 7 Undesirable qualities in primary partner 5 Not accepted by primary partner 2 Personality changes or differences in primary partner 1 Autonomy 14 Desiring freedom from primary relationship 12 Having to care financially for primary partner 3 Other 65 Opportunity and alcohol 28 Desirable qualities in infidelity partner 17 Excitement, novelty, and attention 14 Polyamorous or open relationship 6 Idiosyncratic (occurred fewer than five times) or vague responses 16 aValues for the developmental needs and their associated subcategories refer to the presence or absence of each need/subcategory in a response. Themes, however, could be referenced more than once in a single response; thus, values represent frequencies rather than presence or absence. Furthermore, subcategories could be mentioned multiple times by the same person; values across this table do not add up cumulatively. Because participants’ responses could reference more than one developmental need, the t tests compared participants who referenced that particular developmental need with those who did not. primary partner. The following excerpt from a 20-year-old single person and having no freedom to be with other man described feeling unaccepted by his primary girlfriend: people and have no restrictions on my actions. It didn’t help that my partner was extremely jealous, which meant [My girlfriend] didn’t have any problems accepting the fact that I could not look at another woman for more than a that I am bisexual, but two months into our relationship, I second without causing an argument and feelings to be hurt. was burning with desire for intimacy with a male. This is when the trouble began, and it has only escalated since Alternative Reasons for Participating in Infidelity then… . She got angry at me, became insecure, jealous, and tried to control me. She refuses to accept me for who I A total of 65 responses included reasons for engaging in am, who I told her the first time we met that I am… .Iam infidelity that did not fall under either interdependence or not in love with her, but I am happy—well, content, being independence needs. Within these 65 responses, three fre- with her with the exception of her trying to control me, quently referenced themes emerged: (a) opportunity to trying to “change” me, trying to “fix” me when there is engage in infidelity along with the influence of alcohol nothing wrong with me. I am not broken and I am not in (28 references), (b) desirable qualities in the infidelity “fi ” need of repair or in need of being xed. partner (17 references), and (c) excitement, novelty, and attention from the infidelity partner and/or the relationship In this example, the participant feels as though he cannot (14 references). The remaining references appeared in be himself around his girlfriend and that she is trying to fewer than 10 responses and were thus not considered change a part of his sexual orientation. This theme of feeling emergent themes. like one’s partner is attempting to exert control or change ’ “ one s qualities was common within the not feeling Opportunity and Alcohol. Narratives that included ’ ” accepted by one s primary partner category. the emergent theme of opportunity and alcohol described Fourteen participants referenced unmet autonomy needs, the availability of an infidelity partner as well as lowered ’ which included (a) desiring freedom from one s primary rela- inhibitions due to alcohol consumption. The following ’ ’ fi tionship and (b) one s primary partner s nancial dependence. excerpt from an 18-year-old woman illustrates this theme: The following excerpt from a 19-year-old man described his desire for freedom from his primary relationship: I never really intended to cheat on him; it just kind of happened. I was out with my friends on frat row and got a I became intimate with a girl because I was unhappy in my little bit more tipsy than I anticipated. We went out to a current relationship. I was tired of being consumed by one party and I danced with a guy. It started off pretty

91 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH

innocently until I got even more wasted. I wound up hook- attachment styles and reasons for engaging in infidelity in ing up with him that night. different directions than were predicted. Compared to those who did not reference unmet interdependence needs, parti- Desirable Qualities in the Infidelity Partner. cipants who reported engaging in infidelity due to unmet Narratives that included the emergent theme of desirable interdependence needs scored higher on the avoidant attach- qualities in the infidelity partner described the appeal of ment subscale. In examining the subcomponents of inter- the infidelity partner as opposed to what a primary partner dependence, compared to those who did not reference might have been lacking. For example, a 21-year-old man intimacy, those who referenced intimacy in their responses said, “It was an attraction to her personality insofar as she scored higher on the avoidant attachment subscale. No other can always make me laugh and feel good after spending differences were found. time with her. Her personality is just so bubbly at times that No differences were found in attachment scores between I’m drawn to it.” those who did and did not reference independence in their responses. In examining the subcomponents of indepen- Excitement, Novelty, and Attention. Narratives that dence, compared to those who did not reference autonomy, included the emergent theme of excitement, novelty, and those who referenced autonomy needs scored higher on the attention described the thrill of being intimate with a new anxious attachment subscale. No other differences were person. For example, the following excerpt from a 23-year- found. old woman illustrated this excitement:

[T]his attractive European and I danced. We kissed, left the Gender Comparisons club, walked around the city, holding hands and kissing, and No gender differences were found in any of the calcu- making it all seem like a very romantic summer evening. lated comparisons (i.e., references to interdependence, Eventually we returned to his apartment. I enjoyed feeling affiliation, intimacy, sexual reciprocity, independence, iden- adventurous, and that was probably the main reason I did tity, or autonomy; analyses not shown). what I did. I was hesitant about my actions, but it also felt thrilling to do something I wasn’t supposed to, since I’ve always followed the rules … I was not ready to be tied down, but rather craved something more thrilling and Discussion adventuresome. The comfort and consistency of a regular boyfriend was not for me. It was more exciting to be inti- Emerging Adults’ Reasons for Engaging in Infidelity mate with someone in that moment overseas. Overall, our findings partially support developmental systems theory (Lerner et al., 2005) and suggest that some Quantitative Comparisons emerging adults engage in infidelity to fulfill their develop- mental needs for interdependence and independence. The Contrary to hypothesis 1, participants more often refer- majority of participants in our study reported engaging in enced unmet interdependence needs (76 references) com- infidelity because their primary partners failed to meet their pared to unmet independence needs (21 references) in their needs for interdependence. Intimacy was the primary devel- explanations for engaging in infidelity, χ2(1) = 31.19, opmental need that was not met in their primary relation- p < .001. In examining the subcategories of interdependence ships, followed by affiliation and sexual reciprocity. About needs, unmet intimacy needs (58 references) were refer- one-quarter of participants also reported engaging in infide- enced more often than unmet affiliation (23 references) lity because their primary partners failed to meet their needs and sexual reciprocity (22 references) needs, χ2 for independence, with autonomy reasons appearing more (2) = 24.49, p < .001. In examining the subcategories of often than identity reasons. Relatively speaking, intimacy independence needs, the frequencies of references to unmet needs were referenced with the greatest frequency. autonomy (14 references) and identity (7 references) needs did not differ, χ2(1) = 2.33, p = .19. Importantly, indepen- Importantly, there were 65 occurrences of reasons for fi dence and interdependence references (a total of 97 refer- in delity that could not be categorized according to devel- ences) occurred more often than alternative references (65 references), χ2(1) = 6.32, p = .02. Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Attachment Styles According to Gender Reasons for Participating in Infidelity and Attachment Styles Women Men

Means and standard deviations for attachment styles ECRS Subscales MSDMSD according to gender are presented in Table 2. In addition, Mann-Whitney U results for all developmental needs are Anxious attachment 3.59 1.37 3.60 1.39 Avoidant attachment 3.25 1.26 3.00 .95 presented in Tables 3 and 4. Although hypothesis 2 was not supported, results revealed significant differences in Note. ECRS = Experiences in Close Relationships scale.

92 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Table 3. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U Tests for References to Interdependence Needs (N = 104)

Interdependence Intimacy Affiliation Sexual Reciprocity

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

ECRS Subscales MR MR U MR MR U MR MR U MR MR U

Anxious attachment 52.53 50.52 986.00 50.64 53.76 1226.00 53.59 51.54 883.50 61.11 49.52 690.50 Avoidant attachment 56.66 38.89 672.00** 57.85 44.46 965.50* 52.65 51.81 905.00 50.58 57.23 776.00

Note. ECRS = Experiences in Close Relationships scale. ECRS subscales range from 1–7; MR = mean rank. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

Table 4. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U Tests for References to Independence Needs (N = 104)

Independence Autonomy Identity

Yes No Yes No Yes No

ECRS Subscales MR MRU MR MRU MR MR U

Anxious attachment 60.70 49.90 656.00 67.77 49.72 380.00* 47.57 52.32 305.00 Avoidant attachment 47.00 53.20 730.00 51.54 52.07 579.00 38.57 52.98 242.00

Note. ECRS = Experiences in Close Relationships scale. ECRS subscales range from 1–7; MR = mean rank. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

opmental needs. This suggests that although infidelity might interdependence, these “other” responses did not seem pre- be motivated in part by seeking to fulfill one’s needs for meditated or planned. In other words, whereas individuals independence and interdependence, other factors are also at who referenced independence and interdependence needs in play. The most frequently occurring theme involved being their responses discussed how their primary romantic part- under the influence of alcohol while confronted with the ners were not helping them fulfill their developmental opportunity to engage in infidelity (i.e., a person to whom needs, individuals who referenced “other” responses they were attracted present in the social context). Because of focused on the opportunity to engage in infidelity and spe- alcohol’s reduction of inhibitions (Tapert, Caldwell, & cific qualities about the infidelity partner that were Burke, 2004/2005) and the increase in drinking from ado- attractive. lescence to emerging adulthood (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014), alcohol Infidelity as a Process might be a catalyst for infidelity in a situation in which the opportunity is present. Thus, it is important to consider As mentioned previously, developmental systems theory environmental factors in the occurrence of infidelity in only partly explains emerging adults’ reasons for engaging addition to one’s individual needs for independence and in infidelity. To further explain this phenomenon, particu- interdependence. In addition, as alcohol reduces inhibitions, larly the alternative responses found in this study, Allen it might open individuals to attaining their developmental et al.’s(2005) process model for conceptualizing infidelity needs. Thus, future research should further probe on the is especially relevant. Allen et al. discussed infidelity as a needs that interacted with the presence of alcohol. Indeed, process, whereby infidelity occurs through an interplay of the consideration of external factors has been discussed in predisposing factors, approach factors, and precipitating the marital literature (e.g., Baucom, Snyder, & Gordon, factors. These factors are related to the partner participating 2009), and present findings suggest that environmental fac- in infidelity, the injured partner, their relationship, and the tors with opportunity and alcohol should be included in larger context in which the relationship grows. The present explaining emerging adults’ experiences of infidelity. study’s developmental lens and unfulfilled interdependence The need for excitement, novelty, and attention, as well and independence needs appear to map onto predisposing as desirable qualities in infidelity partners, were also identi- factors. Specifically, considering the age of participating fied as reasons for engaging in infidelity. In such responses, partners can shed light on the developmental tasks that are participants seemed to have met potential infidelity partners, salient. Young people who are still figuring out what they become attracted to them or the excitement of being with want in terms of love and work might be particularly vul- someone new, and engaged in infidelity. Unlike the nerable to participating in infidelity if they believe their responses that referred to independence and needs are not being met in their primary relationship. The

93 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH alternative responses are consistent with the contextual fac- abandonment or enmeshment (Epstein & Baucom, 2002; tors that contribute to infidelity, such that the availability of Greenberg & Johnson, 1988). For example, a young a romantic alternative and/or the use of substances make woman who is anxiously attached and afraid of losing infidelity more likely. In sum, it is important to consider the intimacy with her romantic partner might behave in ways proximal and distal factors that can contribute to infidelity. that she believes will bring her partner closer. As a result, A sizable portion of participants seemingly engaged in the increase in closeness in an effort to protect herself from infidelity without prior motivations, yet the contextual abandonment might lead to a decreased sense of autonomy. opportunity for infidelity led them to “slide” into rather Thus, this young woman might venture outside of her than “decide” about involvement with an infidelity partner relationship to meet her autonomy needs while her inti- (Stanley et al., 2006). This sliding seems to be relevant macy needs are met within her primary relationship. when predisposing factors and contextual factors align for Similarly, in another example, a young man who is avoi- emerging adults. dantly attached and afraid of intimacy might behave in ways that create distance within the relationship. With this created distance, the young man might then feel that Adult Attachment and Reasons for Participating in his intimacy needs are not being met within the relation- Infidelity ship. Thus, the young man might venture outside of the Compared to those who did not reference unmet inter- relationship to meet his intimacy needs. Because emerging dependence needs, participants who reported engaging in adulthood is thought to be a time of exploration and infidelity due to unmet interdependence needs, and intimacy experimentation, it is possible that engaging in infi delity needs in particular, tended to be more avoidantly attached. is a path through which individuals seek to meet their This finding suggests that individuals who generally avoid developmental needs for independence and interdepen- closeness and find it threatening tend to perceive their dence and promote their individual development. primary partner as not meeting their needs for interdepen- This interpretation is consistent with findings from a dence, particularly intimacy. In addition, those who reported series of studies by DeWall et al. (2011). Through eight engaging in infidelity due to unmet independence needs studies with various methodologies, they found that those tended to be more anxiously attached. This finding suggests who were avoidantly attached held more liberal attitudes that those who are overly concerned about losing intimacy about engaging in infidelity, paid more attention to romantic in their primary relationship tend to perceive their primary alternatives, and engaged in infidelity more often. However, partner as not meeting their needs for autonomy. such findings were not present for those who were anxiously Based on research by Allen and Baucom (2004), these attached. The researchers speculated that these findings findings were unexpected. Allen and Baucom found that were due to the relevant concerns for each type of attach- avoidantly attached individuals were more likely than ment style. Specifically, those who are avoidantly attached securely and anxiously attached individuals to engage in have difficulty committing to and feeling dependent on their infidelity for reasons related to autonomy, such as wanting romantic partners, leading them to be open to seeking freedom from their relationship. Further, anxiously attached romantic alternatives. This difficulty committing to romantic individuals were more likely than securely and avoidantly partners might be perceived by avoidantly attached indivi- attached individuals to engage in infidelity for reasons duals as lower intimacy within the relationship, as illustrated related to intimacy, such as gaining closeness to another by the findings from the present study. Because emerging individual (Allen & Baucom, 2004). It is possible that our adults are theorized to fulfill both independence and inter- findings differed from Allen and Baucom's for several rea- dependence needs, a lack of intimacy might lead them to sons. First, our study was conceptualized from a develop- fulfill that need elsewhere. Those who are anxiously mental perspective, taking into account the independence attached, on the other hand, are preoccupied with maintain- and interdependence needs of emerging adults. Allen and ing closeness and thus stray away from infidelity because it Baucom used a deductive approach to categorizing reasons, can threaten the intimacy within the primary relationship. whereby they provided possible motivations for partici- However, those who are anxiously attached who have pants. We used open-ended questions for this study, which engaged in infidelity, such as the individuals in the present allowed participants to share a number of reasons for their study, might establish intimacy in the relationship to such a infidelity that were coded inductively. Relatedly, we exam- heightened degree that they feel their independence is ined a wider range of emerging adults than did Allen and compromised. Baucom. Thus, cohort effects may also play a role in the different findings, as the samples were collected more than Gender and Reasons for Participating in Infidelity 10 years apart. Our findings suggest that emerging adults’ attachment No gender differences were observed in reasons for styles affect perceptions of their primary romantic partners engaging in infidelity. As explained by Norona et al. and relationships and that individuals who are anxiously (2015), gender differences that are observed in childhood and avoidantly attached are perhaps creating certain pat- and adolescence tend to disappear by emerging adulthood. terns in their relationship to protect themselves from either Theoretically, the psychosocial tasks of emerging adulthood

94 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD tend to be the most salient for young women and men, and track the fulfillment of developmental needs for inde- regardless of gender. Indeed, Arnett (2015) conceived of pendence and interdependence over time. In addition, the emerging adult women and men as more similar than dif- majority of participants in the present study identified as ferent, pointing to within-gender differences as more com- White/Caucasian, as well as heterosexual. Future research mon within this developmental stage. Thus, as they navigate should include a more diverse sample to examine reasons romantic relationships and attempt to attain independence for engaging in infidelity to determine whether the present and interdependence, young women and men might be more findings generalize to a broader range of emerging adults. motivated to meet their developmental needs rather than Importantly, the present sample included more than 16% of adhere to gender-typed expectations. individuals who identified as bisexual, but the small sub- sample prevented us from running comparative analyses. Additional research might examine reasons for infidelity Strengths and Limitations for individuals who do not identify as heterosexual. Cross- The present study builds on existing research in several cultural research would be particularly helpful in shedding ways. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine light on whether emerging adults from other cultures engage fi in infidelity for similar reasons as those in this U.S. sample. in delity from a developmental lens, taking into account the fi unique psychosocial tasks encountered by emerging adults. Because the meaning of in delity is context dependent and can vary across cultures (Blow & Hartnett, 2005), reasons Also, our mixed methods approach allowed participants to fi report several reasons they perceived may have contributed for engaging in in delity might vary as well. to their infidelity. A strength of the study was the inclusion Further, the main prompt of the study relied on partici- ’ fi. of a diverse sample of emerging adults who followed var- pants self-report of their reasons for engaging in in delity The qualitative methodology is limited by participants’ abil- ious educational paths. ity to remember and communicate their infidelity experi- Our study also included several limitations. Importantly, ences. Thus, observational data and/or partner data would be we recognize that intimacy with an individual other than ’ helpful in illuminating relational dynamics and whether one s primary romantic partner can include consensual, developmental needs were being met in primary relation- nonmonogamous relationships, and not all instances of fi ships, particularly as it relates to the speculation that inse- extradyadic intimacy are considered in delity. To safeguard curely attached individuals create relational dynamics that against this, we paid careful attention to participants who, make it difficult for romantic partners to meet their devel- within their responses, described consensual nonmonoga- opmental needs for independence and interdependence. For mous relationships; we found six individuals who reported example, relational dynamics within conversations between such relationships. It will be important for future research to romantic partners can help unveil whether partners support make a distinction between extradyadic intimacy that is ’ fi each other s independence and interdependence needs. considered a betrayal of delity within the relationship and Additional self-report measures can tap into partners’ per- extradyadic intimacy that is consensual among partners. ceptions of how well they meet each other’s needs. Along fi Next, in our prompt adapted from Mof tt and Singer these lines, as attachment styles can be either reinforced or (1994), we did not request participants to choose the most altered by romantic interactions (Hadden, Smith, & Webster, recent time they experienced extradyadic emotional/physical 2014), those who are anxiously or avoidantly attached might intimacy; rather, we asked them to report on such an experi- behave in ways that lead their securely attached partners to ence that occurred within the last six months. In addition, participate in infidelity. Self-report measures that assess both fi the prompt adapted from Mof tt and Singer (1994) that partners’ attachment styles would help illuminate these “ ” included the phrase telling a very good friend may have dynamics within couples. Relatedly, it is possible that led participants to choose an experience that was particu- there are reasons for engaging in infidelity of which an larly emotionally intimate, which brings nonrandom choice individual is not fully aware. This is relevant to the 40% into the responses. Future research should standardize this of responses that included needs that were in neither the prompt and ask participants to report on their most recent interdependence nor independence categories. It is possible extradyadic experience. that unfulfilled needs underlie these behaviors, which self- Moreover, the study was retrospective in nature, asking report methods are limited in their ability to address. individuals to provide reasons for their infidelity after the To examine the relationship between adult attachment fact. Because there are negative attitudes about infidelity in and reasons for engaging in infidelity, it would be beneficial U.S. culture (see McAnulty & McAnulty, 2012), it is pos- for future studies to further elucidate the reasons for the sible that participants attempted to justify their behaviors in discrepancy between the present findings and that of Allen particular ways to be viewed in a more favorable light (i.e., and Baucom (2004). In addition, future studies might exam- social desirability bias). However, in an effort to reduce the ine the possibility that insecurely attached individuals over- likelihood of impression management, we phrased the main compensate in their relationships to promote closeness prompt in such a way that normalized infidelity. Future (and avoid abandonment) or maintain distance (and avoid prospective, longitudinal research should collect data on enmeshment), and if other developmental needs are sacri- emerging adults in newly established romantic relationships ficed as a result. Such studies will illuminate the

95 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH counterintuitive effect that attempts to protect oneself and about why the infidelity might have occurred. In addition, the relationship may have. In addition, it is possible that awareness about the needs lacking in the primary relation- understandings of infidelity can vary according to indivi- ship can help couple members begin a discussion about duals’ attachment styles. For example, those who are avoi- how to fulfill that particular need within the primary rela- dantly attached might have a broader definition of infidelity tionship, rather than having it met with an infidelity compared to those who are anxiously attached. To our partner. knowledge, there are no empirical studies that examine Recently, Davila and Lashman (2016) developed a rela- this link; however, it will be important for future research tionship education program that targets emerging adults, to consider this possible relationship when examining rea- regardless of current relationship status. This program sons for infidelity to gain a more standardized definition of includes an in-depth examination of general needs that infidelity. Relatedly, we structured the prompt to capture romantic relationships can fulfill. The awareness of these participants’ self-defined experiences of infidelity. To build needs of independence and interdependence prior to enter- on these findings, future research might examine these types ing a romantic relationship theoretically guides individuals of infidelity separately to better understand whether there as they search for a romantic partner. To extend this pro- are different reasons for engaging in different types of gram, it would be useful to discuss how infidelity might be a infidelity. temptation when a primary romantic relationship is not ful- Importantly, the present study was conducted with a filling one’s developmental needs. Covering this topic might nonclinical sample of emerging adults. It is possible that help illuminate the importance of addressing one’s needs on associations among attachment style and reasons for enga- the front end to avoid experiencing betrayal in romantic ging in infidelity might look different, particularly for those relationships, which can be a painful experience for both who experience depressive symptoms. For example, indivi- couple members. duals who are sensitive to rejection tend to also experience Funding depressive symptoms (Harper, Dickson, & Welsh, 2006) and perceive neutral interactions with their romantic part- Funding for this project was provided by the dissertation ners as hostile and rejecting (Norona, Salvatore, Welsh, & support grant awarded to Jerika C. Norona by the Darling, 2014). As such, depressed individuals or those with Department of Psychology at the University of Tennessee. heightened sensitivity to rejection might experience their partners’ abilities to meet their needs for independence and interdependence in a different way than those from norma- References tive samples. Relatedly, future studies would benefit from including commitment as a control variable, given its rela- Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., tionship to attachment style and infidelity (Owens, Rhoades, & Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual & Stanley, 2013). factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101–130. doi:10.1093/ clipsy/bpi014 Implications Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic involvement. Family Process, 43, 467–488. doi:10.1111/ Findings can be incorporated into current relationship j.1545-5300.2004.00035.x education programs for emerging adults. As the achieve- Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2006). Dating, marital, and hypothetical ment of developmental needs for independence and inter- extradyadic involvements: How do they compare? Journal of Sex Research, 43, 307–317. doi:10.1080/00224490609552330 dependence might be a motivating factor to engage in Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late infidelity, it would be beneficial for emerging adults to teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford learn about this specific developmental stage, the various University Press. tasks that they are expected to accomplish, and how becom- Arnett, J. J. (2016). College students as emerging adults: The developmen- – ing involved in romantic relationships may or, at times, may tal implications of the college context. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 219 222. doi:10.1177/2167696815587422 not foster the achievement of these tasks. Educating emer- Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., & Gordon, K. C. (2009). Helping couples ging adults about their needs for independence and inter- get past the affair: A clinician’s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. dependence can increase their awareness of how these needs Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: might manifest in relational decision making. The aware- A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, – ness of these needs might help emerging adults evaluate 217 233. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01556.x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. whether their behaviors align with their personal growth Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,77–101. doi:10.1191/ prior to sliding into action. 1478088706qp063oa Further, professionals who work with emerging adult Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure- dating couples can apply a developmental lens when treat- ment of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & fi W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. ing those who have experienced in delity in their relation- – fi 46 76). New York, NY: Guilford Press. ships. For example, highlighting the speci c needs of Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2013). Casual sexual relation- independence and interdependence that emerging adults ships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, seek to fulfill can help guide couples’ understandings 138–150. doi:10.1177/2167696813487181

96 INFIDELITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in inter- (Eds.), Personality development in adolescence: A cross national and personal context. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), The life span perspective: Adolescence and society (pp. 3–37). London, handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and person- UK: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. ality development (6th ed., pp. 1003–1067). New York, NY: Wiley. Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attach- doi:10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046 ment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18,42–58. Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-gender doi:10.1177/1088868313501885 groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early adolescence. Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 185–207. doi:10.1111/ consequence of dating infidelity? Personality and Social Psychology j.1532-7795.2004.01402003.x Bulletin, 35, 143–159. doi:10.1177/0146167208327189 Connolly, J., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relationships in adoles- Harper, M. S., Dickson, J. W., & Welsh, D. P. (2006). Self-silencing and cence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and develop- rejection sensitivity in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of ment. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The Youth and Adolescence, 35,459–467. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.259 development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 266–290). Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010, March 10). Demographics of Mechanical Turk. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Center for Digital Economy Research Working Papers. Retrieved Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for romantic from http://hdl.handle.net/2451/29585 dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence, Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodol- 32, 1209–1223. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.01.006 ogy (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davila, J., & Lashman, L. (2016). The thinking girl’s guide to the right guy. Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2010). Sex differences in New York, NY: Oxford University Press. approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Jr., Deckman, T., Research, 48, 275–284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694 Finkel, E. J., … Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one’s Lerner, R. M., Theokas, C., & Jelicic, H. (2005). Youth as active agents in partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, their own positive development: A developmental systems perspec- interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and tive. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund, & D. Wentura (Eds.), The adaptive Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497 self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development (pp. 31–47). Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber. model of prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Social Psychology, 77, 509–524. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Dupree, C. H., Magill, M., & Apodaca, T. R. (2016). The pros and cons of doi:10.1037/h0023281 drinking: A qualitative analysis of young adult drinking discussions McAnulty, R. D., & Brineman, J. M. (2007). Infidelity in dating relation- within motivational interviewing. Addiction Research and Theory, 24, ships. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18,94–114. doi:10.1080/ 1–8. doi:10.3109/16066359.2015.1060966 10532528.2007.10559848 Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role McAnulty, R. D., & McAnulty, D. P. (2012). Infidelity in college dating interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. relationships. In R. D. McAnulty (Ed.), Sex in college: The things they Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral don’t write home about (pp. 143–168). Westport, CT: Praeger. therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: Moffitt, K. H., & Singer, J. A. (1994). Continulty in the life story: Self‐ American Psychological Association. defining memories, affect, and approach/avoidance personal strivings. Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999a). Sexual betrayal among late Journal of Personality, 62,21–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994. adolescents: Perspectives of the perpetrator and the aggrieved. tb00793.x Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 235–258. doi:10.1023/ Morgan, E. M. (2013). Contemporary issues in sexual orientation and A:1021605532205 identity development in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999b). Your cheatin’ heart: Attitudes, 1,52–66. doi:10.1177/2167696812469187 behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Norona, J. C., Olmstead, S. B., & Welsh, D. P. (2017). Breakups in Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 227–252. doi:10.1207/ emerging adulthood: A developmental perspective of relationship dis- s15327795jra0903_1 solution. Emerging Adulthood, 5(2), 116–127. doi:10.1177/ Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Rhoades, G. K. (2010). Relationship 2167696816658585 education in emerging adulthood: Problems and prospects. In F. D. Norona, J. C., Preddy, T. M., & Welsh, D. P. (2015). How gender shapes Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adult- emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of hood (pp. 293–316). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. emerging adulthood (pp. 62–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Furr, R. E. (2006). Infidelity in adolescent romantic relationships Press. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Norona, J. C., Salvatore, J. F., Welsh, D. P., & Darling, N. (2014). Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic inter- development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. actions. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1257–1267. doi:10.1016/j. Goodman, I., Henderson, J., Peterson-Badali, M., & Goldstein, A. (2016). adolescence.2014.09.003 Youth perspectives on the transition to adulthood: Exploring the Owens, J., Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2013). Sliding versus decid- impact of problematic substance use and treatment seeking. ing in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commit- Emerging Adulthood, 4(2), 92–103. doi:10.1177/2167696815601548 ment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12, Greenberg, L. S., & Johnson, S. M. (1988). Curative principles in marital 135–149. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.779097 therapy: A response to Wile. Journal of Family Psychology, 2,28–31. Ravert, R. D., & Gomez-Scott, J. (2015). Why take risks? Four good doi:10.1037/h0080485 reasons according to emerging adult college students. Journal of Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: Adolescent Research, 30, 565–585. doi:10.1177/0743558414547099 The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, Ross, J., Zaldivar, A., Irani, L., & Tomlinson, B. (2009). Who are the Turkers? 43, 255–267. doi:10.1080/00224490609552324 Worker demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Retrieved from http:// Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1998). Individuality and connectedness www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/SocialCode-2009-01.pdf in adolescent development: Review and prospects for research on Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. identity, relationships, and context. In E. Skoe & A. von der Lippe Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

97 NORONA, OLMSTEAD, AND WELSH

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Luyckx, K., Meca, A., & Ritchie, R. A. van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2013). The jingle-jangle (2013). Identity in emerging adulthood: Reviewing the field and fallacy in adolescent autonomy in the family: In search of an under- looking forward. Emerging Adulthood, 1,96–113. doi:10.1177/ lying structure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 994–1014. 2167696813479781 doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9847-7 Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., & Harper, M. S. (2003). When love hurts: deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Depression and adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim Relations, 55, 499–509. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results research, and practical implications (pp. 185–211). Mahwah, NJ: from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of Erlbaum. national findings (NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Pub. No. SMA 14-4863). Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Arnold, V., & Connolly, J. (2014). Intercorrelations of Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov intimacy and identity dating goals with relationship behaviors and satisfac- Tapert, S. F., Caldwell, L., & Burke, C. (2004/2005). Alcohol and the adoles- tion among young heterosexual couples. Social Sciences, 3,44–59. cent brain: Human studies. Alcohol Research and Health, 28(4), 205–212. doi:10.3390/socsci3010044

98