Unfaithful: Examining Infidelity in Adolescent Romantic Relationships

1. Unfaithful: Examining Infidelity in Adolescent Romantic Relationships Rebecca E. Furr, Hannah G. Arick, & Deborah P. Welsh University of Tennessee

2. Abstract • We explore the nature of infidelity in adolescent and emerging adult romantic couples. Our sample included 109 18 or 19 year-olds with a partner between the ages of 17 and 21 and 102 15 or 16 year-olds with a partner between the ages of 14 and 17. A variety of predictor variables examining multiple domains were found significantly associated with cheating. In both age groups, physical violence and externalizing problem behaviors were positively associated with cheating. Internalizing problem behaviors were positively associated with infidelity only in middle adolescents. Couples in both groups who reported physical aggression and those who were dating longer were more likely to report infidelity. Peer perceptions of the partner were negatively associated with cheating in emerging adults, but not in middle adolescents. Although there was much overlap in predicting infidelity between the two groups, our findings suggest there may be some processes unique to each. Finally, predictor variables related to the individual, the partner, the relationship, and the larger context were found significantly associated with infidelity—emphasizing the complexity of cheating behavior.

3. Aims • Examine prevalence rates of infidelity in both middle adolescent and emerging adult couples. • Explore predictor variables that are associated with infidelity in a variety of domains pertaining to the individual, the partner, the relationship, and contextual variables, using the framework proposed by Allen et al, (in press).

4. Sample • The data for this project comes from The Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR), funded by NICHD • 211 dating couples1 • 109 18 or 19 year-olds who are dating a person between 17-21 yrs old • 102 15 or 16 year-olds who are dating a person between 14-17 yrs old • Couples dating a minimum of 4 weeks • (range: 4 weeks – 260 weeks; mean: 44 weeks) 1Couples recruited from a previous study of 2201 high school students from 17 different high schools representing geographic (rural, urban, suburban) and economic diversity

5. Measures • Relationship Satisfaction – (Levesque, 1993); 5-item scale to assess adolescents’ romantic relationships • Youth Self Report (YSR) – (Achenbach, 1991); 118-item scale to assess a broad range of problem behaviors • Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) – (Straus, 1979); modified 13-item scale to assess physical and sexual violence • Sexual Behaviors Questionnaire (developed for use in this project) • Questions about friends’ & parents’ regard for the dating partner

6. Measures • Examining infidelity using Sexual Behaviors Questionnaire: • 1. Has your current partner ever cheated on you? “Yes”, “No”, or “I think he/she has” • 2. Have you ever cheated on your current partner? “Yes” or “No”

7. In Emerging Adults: 17% reported cheating on their current partner. 12% reported knowing that their partner had cheated on them. In Middle Adolescents: 11% reported cheating on their current partner. 7.4% reported knowing that their partner had cheated on them. Prevalence Rates

8. Table 1 • Predicting Own Infidelity1 Predictor VariablesEmerging AdultsMiddle Adolescents Coefficients (SE) Coefficients (SE) Gender 0.242 (.473) 0.669 (.547) Externalizing 0.016 (.057)** 0.082 (.037)* Internalizing 0.038 (.029) 0.083 (.037)* Religiosity -0.069 (.086) 0.054 (.086) Relationship length 0.011 (.005)* 0.027 (.011)* Relationship satisfaction -0.065 (.055) -0.154 (.070)* Physical aggression 0.845 (.396)* 1.169 (.293)*** Sexual coercion 0.489 (.619) 1.571 (.708)* Friend’s regard for partner -0.542 (.270)* -0.103 (.223) Parents’ regard for partner 0.079 (.283) -0.154 (.234) * = p ≤ .05, ** = p ≤ .01, *** = p ≤ .001 1 Using HLM analysis and controlling for length of relationship.

9. Table 2 • Predicting Partner’s Infidelity1 Predictor VariablesEmerging AdultsMiddle Adolescents Coefficients (SE) Coefficients (SE) Gender 0.097 (.079) -0.019 (.067) Externalizing -0.001 (.006) 0.005 (.004) Internalizing 0.005 (.005) 0.009 (.004)* Religiosity -0.019 (.013) 0.020 (.011) Relationship length 0.002 (.001)* 0.004 (.002)* Relationship satisfaction -0.027 (.011)* -0.041 (.009)*** Physical aggression 0.124 (.065) 0.141 (.058)* Sexual coercion 0.079 (.117) 0.040 (.129) Friend’s regard for partner -0.126 (.038)*** -0.035 (.029) Parents’ regard for partner -0.023 (.042) -0.046 (.035) * = p ≤ .05, ** = p ≤ .01, *** = p ≤ .001 1 Using HLM analysis and controlling for length of relationship.

10. Analyses Predicting Own Infidelity(see Table 1) • Characteristics of individual couple members • Externalizing problem behaviors were positively associated with infidelity in both emerging adult and middle adolescents. • Internalizing problem behaviors were positively associated with cheating only in middle adolescents. • Neither gender nor religiosity were associated with infidelity in either age group. • Characteristics of couples’ relationships • Couples in both groups who reported more physical aggression and those who were dating longer were more likely to cheat.

11. Middle adolescent couples who were more satisfied with their relationship and those who experienced less sexual coercion were less likely to cheat. • The larger context of couples’ relationships • Close friend’s regard for the dating partner was negatively associated with infidelity in emerging adults. • Parents’ regard for the dating partner was not associated with infidelity in either group.

12. Analyses Predicting Partner Infidelity(See Table 2) • Characteristics of individual couple members • Internalizing problem behaviors were positively associated with report of the partner’s infidelity in middle adolescents. No other variables were significantly associated in either age group. • Characteristics of couples’ relationships • In both groups, couples who were dating longer and those who were more dissatisfied with their relationship were more likely to report their partner having cheated. • Physical aggression was positively associated with report of partner infidelity in middle adolescents.

13. Sexual coercion was unrelated to report of the partner’s cheating behavior in both age groups. • The larger context of couples’ relationships • In emerging adults, close friend’s regard for the dating partner was negatively associated with report of the partner’s cheating behavior. • Parents’ regard for the dating partner was not associated with report of the partner’s infidelity.

14. Discussion • In both emerging adults and middle adolescents, infidelity appears to be associated with other impulsive behaviors, such as externalizing problem behaviors and physical aggression. • Relationship satisfaction was negatively associated with infidelity, but as this study was cross-sectional it is impossible to determine whether decreased relationship satisfaction leads to infidelity or infidelity leads to dissatisfaction in one’s relationship. • Interestingly, close friends’ perceptions of one’s partner were negatively associated with infidelity in the emerging adults, but not in the middle adolescents. This is particularly surprising because of the strong influential role that peers play in middle adolescence.

15. Discussion • Although there was much overlap in predicting infidelity between these two groups, our findings suggest there may be some processes unique to each developmental age group. • Finally, predictor variables related to the individual, the partner, the relationship, and the larger context were found significantly associated with infidelity. This emphasizes the complexity of infidelity and the need to explore multiple domains when examining this behavior.