Studia Psychologica, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2019, 145-158 doi: 10.21909/sp.2019.03.779 Guilt- and Shame-Proneness and Their Relation to Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Adriana Kaplánová Alexander Gregor Department of Sport Educology and Sport Humanities Department of Psychology Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Faculty of Philosophy and Arts Comenius University, Bratislava Trnava University, Trnava This paper explores how proneness to guilt and shame is related to perceptions of dating infidelity. Research data was collected from 805 participants from Slovakia. Attitudes toward extradyadic behaviors were measured by the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale. Guilt- and shame-proneness were assessed by the Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale (GASP). Results indi- cated that guilt- and partially shame-proneness were associated with less permissive perceptions of dating infidelity. A moderating effect of age was found in both subscales of guilt-proneness and perceptions of sexual infidelity. Gender moderated the association between perceptions of deceptive behavior and negative self-evaluations of shame-proneness, such that this association was positive for women and negative for men. Key words: guilt- and shame-proneness, infidelity, attitudes, perceptions of dating infidelity and Tras (1998), proneness towards infidelity Introduction as reflected upon sexual attitudes has been found to be strikingly high among Western Infidelity has been traditionally regarded as a European countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, topic of interest for both researchers and the Netherlands, West Germany, and France). laypeople, and it has been a hot topic in roman- Besides Western European trends, infidelity is tic relationships, given its hurtful nature. Ac- reputed to be strikingly high in Thailand and cording to a large study carried out by Widmer large parts of South America (Schmitt et al., 2004). Infidelity (colloquially, cheating) most com- Acknowledgments monly assumes a breach of sexual agreement. With special regard, we would like to thank Profes- sor Peter Halama for consulting assistance during According to Berman and Frazier (2005), infi- the preparation of this paper. delity is a sexual or romantic involvement with someone other than one’s primary partner, which Correspondence concerning this article should be is concealed from the partner, because it would addressed to Mgr. et Mgr. Adriana Kaplánová, De- partment of Sport Educology and Sport Humanities, be unacceptable to him/her. Researchers deal Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Comenius with two kinds of infidelity – sexual and emo- University, Nábrežie armádneho generála Ludvíka tional. Sexual infidelity is considered as engag- Svobodu 42e98/9, 814 69, Bratislava, Slovak Re- ing in sexual intercourse with somebody other public. E-mail: [email protected] than one’s partner, whereas emotional infidel- Received November 4, 2018 ity is considered as “falling in love” or sharing 145 146 Studia Psychologica, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2019, 145-158 a deep emotional bond with someone other than ity (Wilson et al., 2011). Moreover, Hackathorn, one’s partner (Whitty & Quigley, 2008). There Mattingly, Clark, and Mattingly (2011) found is some overlap between the two, as sexual infi- that PDIS-ambiguous scores predicted the like- delity may involve emotional involvement and lihood of engaging in similar behaviors over a vice versa. one-month follow-up. Presently, there are three A key-defining characteristic of a monoga- recognized factors that predict more permissive mous relationship is that, typically, certain be- attitudes toward infidelity – the history of infi- haviors are considered as acceptable only for delity, age, and staying in a romantic relation- the two individuals involved in the relationship. ship for a longer period of time (Toplu-Demirtas (Luo, Cartun, & Snider, 2010). When an indi- & Fincham, 2017; Silva, Saraiva, Albuquerque, vidual engages in such exclusive behaviors with & Arantes, 2017). someone outside the primary relationship with- Shame as a psychological construct is a pri- out their partner’s consent, such behaviors are mary self-conscious emotion. In recent decades, termed extradyadic (e.g., Luo, Cartun, & Snider, it has been investigated mostly in social and 2010). These may comprise diverse behaviors personality psychology. More recently and in including deep kissing/tongue kissing,” oral a cumulative rate, shame has been researched contact with nipples, oral sex with or without in a domain of clinical psychology and psycho- orgasm, and masturbation to orgasm in the pres- pathology. From the phenomenological per- ence of another person. (Randall & Byers, 2003). spective, feelings of shame are most closely Thus, its operationalization and measurement connected with failure, embarrassment, es- has been miscellaneous across studies (Blow trangement, vulnerability, worthlessness, hope- & Hartnett, 2005). Moreover, research has lessness, and personal inadequacy, and split shown that there are inconsistencies in indi- within self-structure arising during unpleasant viduals’ perceptions of which non-sexual be- social situations (Ramsey, 1988; Wheeler, 1997). haviors are indicative of cheating (Wilson, Regarding intimate relationships, shame is con- Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, & Bequette, 2011). nected with unsatisfied body image, sexual in- Cheating is often associated with extradyadic adequacy, sexual activity outside of the roman- types of behavior that usually serve as a means tic relationship, abandonment by the intimate of attracting another sexual partner. Although partner, and being a victim of intimate violence extradyadic forms of behavior do not necessar- or violence perpetration (O’Sullivan & Meyer- ily mean that an individual wants to cheat, they Bahlburg, 2003; Gruber, Hansen, Soaper, & usually reflect a certain propensity for cheat- Kivisto, 2014). ing. Infidelity is the final result of extradyadic Guilt is often explored in psychological behaviors which commonly undermines the research as a covariate alongside shame. trust between partners and leads to the termi- Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton (1994) de- nation of the relationship. In our study, we abide fine guilt as a subjectively unpleasant emotional by the taxonomy of different behaviors devel- state, linked with objections towards one’s own oped by Wilson et al. (2011) – authors of the actions, deeds, circumstances, or intentions. Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale (PDIS) – Guilt is understood as an adaptive emotion which clearly defines all three types of based on an individual’s own negative evalua- extradyadic behaviors: as deceptive, ambigu- tion of his/her behavior and actions (Gilbert, ous, and explicit. Permissive attitudes towards 2001). Guilt motivates an individual toward re- extradyadic behaviors are understood as a gen- parative actions of previous behavior, consid- eral indication for the tendency toward infidel- ered wrong by them, others, or social norms. Studia Psychologica, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2019, 145-158 147 Shame and guilt are related to infidelity perceived the set of extradyadic behaviors as through many aspects. For instance, the direct cheating were significantly more likely to indi- disclosure of an affair from an unfaithful part- cate feeling greater guilt regarding hypotheti- ner is hard to make, due to the anticipation of cal cheating scenarios. unwanted feelings associated with shame A crucial point of our theoretical model is (Allen, 2018). Furthermore, presenting a cheat- justifying how guilt- and shame-proneness can ing partner with the evidence of his/her infidel- predict perceptions of dating infidelity. We ity makes one feel shame as well (Allen, 2018). contemplate how guilt-proneness may predict In such situations, the feeling of shame relates less permissive perceptions of dating infidel- primarily to one’s Self, as one is aware that ex- ity through links with several personality vari- posing himself/herself to the partner makes him/ ables. First, guilt-proneness was found to be her uncomfortable. Besides, when experiencing the strongest predictor of trustworthiness betrayal shame usually occurs on the part of (Levine, Bitterly, Cohen, & Schweitzer, 2018); the betrayed partner. Rejection felt by a be- it has been correlated with honesty-humility trayed partner will usually result in feelings of around .50, indicating that people low in guilt- inadequacy or unattractiveness and probably proneness are generally dishonest (Cohen, give rise to shame. Panter, & Turan, 2012b). Second, guilt-prone- The pattern of guilt entangled with infidelity ness is modestly related to conscientiousness is, however, different. Guilt should be a primary and agreeableness, stressing that people low consequence of extradyadic behavior, since in guilt-proneness tend to be more unreliable unfaithful individuals will likely perceive them- than high guilt-prone persons (Cohen, Panter, selves as breaking a prior commitment or social & Turan, 2012b). Trustworthy people feel contract (Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas, & Cox, 2008). greater responsibility for the well-being of oth- Oftentimes, feelings of guilt in the unfaithful ers and are more authentic and honest. Cheat- partner arise as an outcome of seeing how hurt ers often blame victims for causing their infi- the other partner is. Thus, guilt differs from delity and since they violate trustworthiness shame, in the sense that the attention resulting within a relationship, they may be perceived from guilt is directed at the partner and