Romantic Hypocrisy: Perceiving and Practicing Infidelity

Infidelity is a significant threat within exclusive romantic relationships that, in many cases, can lead to dissolution. But how do you define it? Most couples would agree there are definite examples of cheating, and then there is the grey area. Text messages, browsing singles websites, and expressing interest in (attractive) others are examples of behaviors that might be viewed as ambiguous in terms of interest and intent. The significance of interpretation is important within romantic relationships, considering the potential for misunderstanding. Research explains.

Romantic Hypocrisy

Researchers Ashley E. Thompson and Lucia F. O’Sullivan examined the way partners engage in inconsistent explanations of infidelity in a piece aptly entitled “I Can But You Can’t.”[i] Using online surveys with 810 adult participants, they compared opinions about infidelity given by participants regarding their own behavior and the behavior of their partners. People judged their own behavior more permissively than the way they viewed the behavior of their partners, yet only in certain areas. They were more permissive in the areas of emotional/affectionate and technology/online behaviors, but not when viewing behavior that was categorized as sexual/explicit or solitary.

Many study participants admitted to being unfaithful, especially within the categories of emotional/affectionate and technology/online. Thompson and O’Sullivan explored some of the reasons behind the differences in the ways partners viewed the same behavior—depending on who committed it. They note that generally, individuals tend to judge the behavior of others more severely than their own, a tendency known as actor-observer bias. This self-serving bias blames others and attributes one’s own bad behavior to external factors, situational or contextual, yet attributes the bad behavior of others to internal reasons, such as stable personal or dispositional characteristics. They give the example of someone blaming one’s own low exam score on the situational factor of a poor instructor, while explaining someone else’s low score on a dispositional factor such as low intelligence.

Inconsistencies in Judgments and Behaviour

Within romantic relationships, Thompson and O’Sullivan found that individuals classify certain behaviors as infidelity and then report participating in them themselves. Their study included a sample of 810 individuals, 328 men and 482 women, with a mean age of 34.4 years. Most of them lived in the United States, almost 90% were heterosexual, and most were in a committed relationship.

The measures included four subscales. The Sexual/Explicit Behaviour subscale included explicit physical contact such as oral sex and sexual intercourse. The Technology/Online Behaviour subscale related to explicit technology-facilitated communication, including messaging, browsing a singles website, and webcam masturbation. The Romantic/Affectionate Behaviour subscale included displaying romantic interest or intimate activities, including sharing secrets, having a casual dinner, and providing emotional support. The Solitary Behaviour subscale covered behaviors people typically do alone, such as masturbating or viewing pornography.

Detecting Double Standards

Regarding areas of inconsistency, Thompson and O’Sullivan reported that differences in judgments between self and others revealed a self-enhancing bias and greater willingness to downplay one’s own negative behavior, especially when it was more ambiguous, in order to maintain a positive self-image. They found this actor-observer difference in judgments of technology/online and emotional/affectionate infidelity behaviors, not solitary or sexual/explicit behaviors.

Regarding solitary behaviors, Thompson and O’Sullivan noted that a substantial number of participants viewed them as suggestive of infidelity to some extent because they involved arousal or attraction to someone else, but did not view them as serious violations of monogamy expectations. Yet as a practical matter, a significant number of partners would view them as distasteful and undesirable, perhaps even to the extent they would rethink a relationship.

This research highlights the importance of discussing fidelity expectations early on in a relationship to avoid misunderstanding and prevent incompatible pairings. Healthy, sustainable, long-term relationships start with good communication and are sustained through mutual respect, love, and commitment.

References