Infidelity

1. Barta and Kiene claim that their multifactor model of infidelity provides a more apt fit for describing the data than does the previous two-factor model of emotional versus sexual infidelity. In what ways does their model advance beyond the simplicity of the two-factor model? In what ways has it yet to be refined? What are the limitations to formulating a fully comprehensive model of infidelity?

2. Barta and Kiene derive the four factor model by using the Motivation for Infidelity Inventory (MII) and retaining the items that account for 63% of the total variance. What are the limitations to defining the factors using this kind of method? What are the specific detriments to comprehensiveness?

3. By nature of being correlational, the Barta and Kiene study does not assess causality in comparing infidelity motivations with gender, personality differences, or sociosexual orientation. While the causal relationship of gender cannot be debated, must personality or sociosexual differences cause certain infidelity motivations? Could causality be, to any degree, reversed? Could there be unexamined variables?

4. In the Drigotas, Safstrom and Gentilia study, the participants had a mean age of 18.20 years (mostly freshman) and a mean relationship duration of 28.16 months. What sorts of problems could this pose? Are these problems accounted for in the research design?

5. Drigotas, Safstrom and Gentilia assessed participants for extradyadic experiences by using a “foot-in-the-door” technique, in which participants were asked about minor forms of infidelity first before revealing more severe forms of relationship infidelity. Are there potential confounds to this type of approach?

6. Drigotas, Safstrom and Gentilia use a continuous scale in measuring levels of emotional and physical infidelity. However, they run into the problem of defining what levels of such infidelity qualify a breach of relationship norms. They run a pilot study which shows that 66% of students consider the midpoint of the scale to be infidelity. What are the problems with this inference? Is there a better way in which the researchers could have operationalized relationship infidelity? The authors downplay this weakness by arguing that the investment model may predict both infidelity behavior as well as behavior that is merely extradyadic. Is there a problem with blending infidelity behavior with merely extradyadic relations?

7. In determining levels of satisfaction, alternative quality, and investment, Drigotas, Safstrom and Gentilia use generic scale measurements. Do you think there are particular kinds of investments, traits in alternatives, or aspects of satisfaction that make one more susceptible to infidelity?

8. From a general theoretical perspective, what are the strengths and limitations of evolutionary theory and interdependence theory in describing infidelity and jealousy? How could attachment styles account for infidelity and factor into jealousy?

9. Using the investment model, how does one explain both the occurrence of infidelity and a lack thereof in long distance relationships?

10. In addition to spring break, what other general or specific contexts promote infidelity?

11. How could one test infidelity experimentally? What are the strengths and limitations of this method when investigating infidelity?

Jealousy

1. One of the beauties of evolutionary theory is, given our current understanding of adaptive behavior, you cannot be wrong in using it; no one knows for sure our evolutionary obstacles and it cannot be directly tested, so one can only speculate about the origins of modern behavior. Fenigstein and Peltz decide that evolutionary theory predicts that mothers and fathers should show no difference in distress towards particular types of their child’s partner’s infidelity, given that they should be unified in their desire to propagate their genes. Do you think that they used evolutionary theory correctly? Might you predict something else, using the same tenets of the theory?

2. In the Fenigstein and Peltz study, only 47.5% of parents returned the questionnaires. Could this be indicative of a sampling bias? If so, how? Also, the researchers have no way of verifying that parents filled out the questionnaires separately. Could their results reflect the possibility that the questionnaires were filled out together?

3. One of the problems with cross cultural studies (e.g., Buunh et al.) exists in faulty translation in the measurements, where terms sometimes adopt slightly different meanings. Could these discrepancies in translation potentially account for the variation in sex differences?

4. DeSteno and Salovey argue that, instead of using evolutionary theory, sex differences in jealousy-provoking types of infidelity can be better explained by the “double-shot hypothesis,” in which certain types of infidelity (i.e., emotional) are perceived as nonindependent from other types of infidelity (ie., sexual). Is there any way that this perspective itself can be explained using evolutionary theory?

5. DeSteno and Salovey claim that their “double-shot hypothesis” can better account for variations within a sex, since it includes the variable of how one perceives the causal relationship between the two types of infidelity. What sorts of factors might cause one to develop this perceptual style more so than someone else of the same sex?

6. How is jealousy adaptive? Are there positive consequences that result from feelings of jealousy?

7. How is jealousy experienced in homosexual relationships?

8. How might sampling different demographic groups affect research on infidelity and jealousy?