COPYRIGHT 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Marital infidelity has a long history in human existence (Harvey, 1995). In U.S. samples alone, the percentage of married men and women reporting at least one incidence of extramarital sex (ES) ranges from 13% to 50% or higher (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Greeley, Michael, & Smith, 1990; Hunt, 1974; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). For example, a recent NORC study based on a representative sample of the U.S. population indicates that approximately 25% of married men and 15% of married women reported having engaged in ES at least once (Laumann et al., 1994). Although marital infidelity is not uncommon, attitude surveys reveal that there is widespread disapproval of extramarital sexual relationships in the U.S. (e.g., Davis & Smith, 1991; Glenn & Weaver, 1979; Laumann et al., 1994; Thompson, 1984; Weis & Slosnerick, 1981).

Much of the earlier, descriptive research on normative attitudes toward ES relied upon global questions (e.g., "What is your opinion about a married person having sexual relations with someone other than the marriage partner?"; Sponaugle, 1989); such items measure general approval or disapproval, but cannot assess other, more specific beliefs and attitudes people may have about ES (e.g., possible outcomes of the ES relationship, evaluations of the individuals involved therein). For the current investigation, we conducted a person perception experiment to examine a variety of specific responses people may have to an ES relationship. The person perception paradigm has been used in past sexuality research to study reactions to premarital sexuality (e.g., O'Sullivan, 1995; Sprecher, McKinney, & Orbuch, 1987), and is particularly useful for examining beliefs about male vs. female ES behavior because participants are not aware that the focus is on differences in attitudes about men vs. women and therefore are less likely to provide socially desirable responses. Specifically, we examine men's and women's beliefs about the individual and interpersonal outcomes of a common type of sexual relationship, one that involves a married person and a single person. This type of "forbidden sexual relationship" (Richardson, 1988), particularly when it involves a married man and a single woman, may be quite common. Richardson (1988) estimated that between 18% and 32% of single women become involved with a married man. However, we have very little information about how people might react to and perceive such a relationship if it occurs to someone in their social network. Our research explores the role of gender in people's beliefs about the outcome of the "forbidden sexual relationship" between the married person and the single person.

Gender is an important variable to consider in any investigation of extramarital sexuality. Previous research has found that gender is related to ES in a number of ways. Compared to women, men hold more permissive attitudes about ES (e.g., Thompson, 1984), are more likely to express an interest in having an extramarital relationship (e.g., Buunk & Bakker, 1995; Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994; Thompson, 1984), are more likely to engage in one (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Laumann et al., 1994; Thompson, 1984), and report that they are less emotionally committed to their ES partner(s) (e.g., Thompson, 1984). Research also indicates that a double standard exists in regard to censure for extramarital sexual relationships. While ES behavior is not considered acceptable for either gender, it seems to be more tolerated or expected in men (for discussion, see Collins & Coltrane, 1995; Reiss, 1973; Reiss & Lee, 1988; although for an exception, see Margolin, 1989).

Two major theoretical perspectives have been used to explain the association between gender and ES behaviors and attitudes. Evolutionary theorists suggest that gender differences in sexual behaviors and attitudes are a result of different obstacles to reproductive success that men and women faced in their ancestral past. Male reproductive success requires maximizing the number of genes passed to the next generation; hence, men should seek to engage in sexual activity with as many fertile: partners as possible and should hold permissive sexual attitudes. Female reproductive success requires maximizing an offspring's chances of survival; women, then, should demonstrate less permissive sexual attitudes and should confine their sexual activity to long-term relationships with committed partners who control many resources (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kenrick, Sadalia, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Symons, 1979). According to the social context perspective (e.g., Oliver & Hyde, 1993), gender differences in sexuality are shaped by the patterns of reinforcement and punishment that men and women receive for their sexual behavior; men generally receive more positive reinforcement for seeking out and engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners, whereas women generally receive more reinforcement for confining their sexual activity to committed, love-based relationships involving a single long-term partner (e.g., marriage).

These theories may be more relevant for explaining gender differences in actual ES behavior than for making predictions concerning how male vs. female ES behavior will be viewed or evaluated. Nonetheless, both evolutionary and social cultural factors may interact to influence the development of societal sexual norms and scripts that dictate who is appropriate as a sexual partner and the appropriate reasons or motives for having sex or for entering a sexual relationship (see, for example, Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Reiss, 1981). For example, research across several sexual domains (including both premarital and extramarital contexts) indicates that the love-sex association is stronger for females than for males, whereas the pleasure-sex association is stronger for males than for females. That is, while both genders may be motivated to have sex as an expression of affection and love, love/affection is more important to women than to men and pleasure is more important to men than to women. This has been found not only in men and women's actual sexual behaviors (e.g., Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; Glass & Wright, 1985), but also in people's beliefs about male and female sexuality (e.g., Regan & Berscheid, 1995). These findings suggest that an alternative form of a double standard (one more favorable toward women) might exist when considering impressions about the outcomes of an extramarital relationship. We hypothesize that a married woman who engages in an extramarital relationship may be viewed as motivated primarily by feelings of love and commitment for the new partner, and therefore the perceived prognosis for the new relationship may be positive. Conversely, a married man who has an extramarital relationship may be viewed as having nonrelational motives (pleasure, etc.) and thus the new relationship may be viewed as temporary. Indeed, in Richardson's (1988) interviews with single women involved with married men, most of the women said they entered the relationship assuming it would be short-lived.

How the "forbidden sexual relationship" between a single woman (man) and a married man (woman) is viewed may also depend on the degree to which the married man (woman) is perceived to be invested in his/her marriage. Investment theory, a theory about the stability of relationships (Rusbult, 1983), states that the greater the number of investments in the relationship (e.g., children, shared possessions, years together), the greater its stability. Indeed, prior research indicates that people who are invested in a relationship are less likely to leave it (Rusbult, 1983) and are viewed as less likely to leave it (Rusbult, 1980). We hypothesize that a person who is presented as highly invested in a marriage (has children and has been married for many years) will be viewed as less likely to leave a spouse for an extramarital sexual partner than someone less invested in the marriage. We are also interested in exploring whether a person's marital investments interact with gender to affect the perceived outcome of the extramarital sexual relationship. For example, marital investments may decrease the perceived likelihood that a married woman will leave her husband for an extramarital partner, but have no effect or increase the perceived likelihood that a married man will exit the marriage. In order to be able to make comparisons with previous research on beliefs about male vs. female sexuality (e.g., Regan & Berscheid, 1985), we conduct our study also with young adults.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The participants were 209 undergraduate students (80 men and 129 women) from a Midwest, public university. The mean age of the sample was 20.6. Although information on racial/ethnic background of the sample was not obtained, the undergraduate population of the larger university was approximately 86% white, 8% black, and 6% various other racial/ethnic backgrounds.

The students participated on a volunteer basis during class time. Each student received a 2-page experimental booklet that contained directions, a vignette about a sexual/emotional relationship between a single friend and a married opposite-sex person in the workplace, and a brief section of dependent measures. The directions indicated that the students' participation was anonymous and voluntary.

The Materials

Eight versions of the vignette were created to correspond to a 2 (Gender of Married Person [Gender of Single Person]) x 2 (Marriage Length: 5 vs. 15 years) x 2 (Number of Children in Marriage: 0 vs. 2) factorial design. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the eight vignettes. The vignette was introduced as a "situation you could possibly encounter." Following is the general vignette used with the manipulations:

Imagine you have a close friend named Ann (Bob). She (He) is a single woman (man) in her (his) thirties and is currently employed as a CPA at a local accounting firm. She (He) has enjoyed this position for a number of years with no complaints. She (He) has confided in you about a situation that has developed. She (He) has been involved emotionally and sexually with one of the other accountants in the firm for the past year. The man (woman) she (he) is having the affair with has been married for five (15) years and has no (two) children. He (she) says that he (she) loves Ann (Bob) and vows to leave his wife (her husband) to be with her (him). Ann (Bob) wonders where the relationship will go.

Dependent Measures

Participants were asked seven questions that assessed their views of the relationship and possible relationship outcomes. There were two versions of the dependent measures corresponding to the gender of the friend (and the gender of the married "other"). Below are the seven questions presented for the "married man vignette." Each question was followed by a 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) response scale. The questions were:

1. How much do you think the man is attracted to Ann?

2. How committed do you think the man is to building a life with Ann?

3. How much do you think the man loves Ann?

4. If the man were to leave his wife, how likely is it that the man and Ann would ever marry?

5. How much of a trustworthy person do you think the man is?

6. How likely do you think it is that the man will become emotionally and/or sexually involved with someone else?

7. How likely is it that the man will leave his wife?

RESULTS

The first column of Table I presents the mean responses to the seven questions for all participants (across all versions of the vignette). Overall, the participants believed that the married person presented in the vignette experienced considerable attraction, some love, but a low level of commitment for his or her extramarital partner (i.e., the participant's hypothetical single friend). Furthermore, the participants believed that there was a low likelihood that the married person would leave his or her spouse, but that if he or she did leave, that there was a moderate chance he or she would marry the current extramarital partner. The participants did not view the married person as very trustworthy and believed that there was a high chance that he or she would have another extramarital relationship. Thus, overall, a "cheating spouse" is viewed somewhat negatively.

To examine whether the participants' perceptions of the extramarital relationship varied as a function of the version of the vignette, a 2 [Gender of Married Person (also Gender of Single Person)] x 2 (Number of Children) x 2 (Length of Marriage) x 2 (Participant Gender) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on responses to the dependent measures.

As hypothesized, participants' perceptions of the extramarital relationship were strongly influenced by the gender of the married individual (i.e., a married man with a single woman vs. a married woman with a single man). The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate Gender main effect [Pillai's V = .131, F(1,193) = 4.04, p [less than] .001]. Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were then conducted on each of the seven items, utilizing the Bonferroni procedure to guard against inflating the Type I error rate and employing a familywise alpha of .05 (resulting in a significance level of p [less than] .007). These analyses revealed a significant univariate main effect of gender for four items. Specifically, a married man (having an affair with a single woman) was perceived as experiencing less love and less commitment in the extramarital relationship than a married woman (having an affair with a single man). In addition, a married man was perceived as less likely to marry the extramarital partner and was perceived as more likely to have another extramarital relationship than a married woman. A married man having an affair was also perceived as less trustworthy and as less likely to leave the current spouse than a married woman having an affair, although these results failed to reach significance when Bonferroni protection was applied (both at p [less than] .05).

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED]

There were no significant multivariate or univariate main effects for our two investment manipulations (years married, children), which also failed to significantly interact with gender at the multivariate or univariate level. However, our analyses did reveal a significant multivariate Participant Gender main effect [Pillai's V = .078, F(1,193) = 2.25, p [less than] .05], as well as one significant univariate main effect for the item "likelihood that married person will become involved with another partner" [F(1,193) = 9.40, p = .002]. Female participants were more likely to endorse this belief than male participants. Finally, the MANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between Participant Gender and Length of the Marriage [Pillai's V = .077, F(1,193) = 2.24, p [less than] .05]; however, protected follow-up univariates failed to reach significance.

DISCUSSION

This person perception experiment was designed to examine the beliefs that people form about an emotional/sexual relationship between a married person and a single person, a common type of extramarital relationship (e.g., Richardson, 1988). Our primary interest was in the degree to which people's beliefs about the outcome of such a relationship depend on the gender of the "cheating spouse" and the extent to which that individual was invested in his or her marriage.

Overall, participants recognized that love and attraction can exist in the extramarital relationship. Participants were less optimistic, however, about the future outcome of the extramarital relationship (e.g., whether the married partner would leave his or her spouse; how committed the married person was to their extramarital partner). These two somewhat divergent sets of results seem to indicate that people have mixed perceptions about extramarital relationships. They recognize that a single person can derive love and intimacy from a relationship with a married person, but they do not expect it to be a permanent, exclusive relationship.

The results of this study also indicate that views about an extramarital relationship involving a single person and a married person differed as function of whether the married person (the "cheating spouse") was a male or a female. A woman's extramarital involvement, relative to a man's, was more likely to be viewed as leading to the formation of a new committed relationship. That is, a "cheating female" was more likely than a "cheating male" to be viewed as on the verge of terminating the old relationship and becoming committed to the new relationship. Prior research suggests that a double standard exists in attitudes about extramarital sexuality insofar as women are judged differently (usually more harshly) than men for engaging in extramarital relationships (e.g., Reiss & Lee, 1988). The present research, however, suggests that if a woman does engage in an extramarital relationship, her behavior - unlike that of a extramaritally-involved man is assumed to arise from feelings of love and commitment and is viewed as likely to result in a new, permanent union. These results are consistent with other research indicating that people believe that the love-sex association is stronger for women than for men (e.g., Regan & Berscheid, 1995), and are also consistent with the type of sexual norms and scripts that are likely to have developed due to the interaction of evolutionary and social cultural factors.

Surprisingly, the investment variables had no effect on participants' perception of the ES relationship, for either gender. A person presented as married for a long period of time and/or as having children was not viewed any differently than a person presented as married a shorter period of time and/or as not having children. These results may suggest that college students do not perceive duration of marriage and the presence of children to be barriers to leaving a marriage for a new partner. Other research has also indicated that these factors are no longer important deterrents to marriage termination (Attridge & Berscheid, 1994; Berscheid & Campbell, 1981), although another possibility is that these investment variables would have been perceived as more important to an older sample that had more experience with marriage and children.

The results of this study have implications for our understanding of how the outcome of an extramarital relationship might depend upon others' reactions to it. Although a sexual relationship between a married person and a single person may be forbidden and secret (Richardson, 1988), others undoubtedly find out about it and develop beliefs about its outcome and those involved. These beliefs may, in turn, have a self-fulfilling impact. Research on peer reactions to romantic relationships indicates that the more friends (and family) support a relationship--by asking about the other person, by referring to the two as a couple, by extending invitations to both of them - the more likely it is that the relationship will develop and continue (e.g., Lewis, 1973; Parks & Adelman, 1983; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992). People who disapprove of a particular (extramarital) relationship or who do not believe it will last are unlikely to engage in these relationship-confirming behaviors (for discussion, see Sprecher 8,: Felmlee, 1992).

We encourage other researchers to examine people's perceptions of and reactions to these and other "forbidden sexual relations." For example, future research might examine how people beyond college age (e.g., those in their 30s and 40s) respond to such relationships. In addition, it is important to supplement our experimental results with descriptive research exploring the actual attitudes and responses expressed by the people who serve as confidants to men and women involved in ES relationships. And, finally, more research is needed on these actual forbidden relationships. Who engages in these relationships and to what consequences? Are societal conditions changing so that it is becoming more acceptable for both genders to have access to extramarital sex? We encourage more research that uses a social exchange framework (e.g., Sprecher, in press) to understand, in particular, the sexual relationship between a married person (often a man) and a single person (often a woman). What is being traded in such a relationship and what exchange conditions will result in the married person leaving his or her spouse for the extramarital partner?

The authors would like to thank four undergraduate students from Illinois State University who helped on this project for a classroom assignment.

REFERENCES

Attridge, M., & Berscheid, E. (1994). Entitlement in romantic relationships in the United States: A social-exchange perspective. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond.' Justice in close relationships. New York: Plenum.

Berscheid, E., & Campbell, B. (1981). The changing longevity of heterosexual close relationships: A commentary and forecast. In M. J. Lerner & S.C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum.

Blumstein, P, & Schwartz, P (1983). American couples. New York: Morrow.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buunk, B. E, & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313-318.

Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131-139.

Collins, R., & Coltrane, S. (1995). Sociology of marriage and the family: Gender, love, and property (4th ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Davis, J. A., & Smith, T (1991). General social surveys, 1972-1991. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

Glass, S. P., & Wright, T L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101-1120.

Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, N. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970's. The Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108-119.

Greeley, A.M., Michael, R. T, & Smith, T (1990, July/August). Americans and their sexual partners. Society, pp. 36-42.

Harvey, J. H. (1995). Odyssey of the heart: The search for closeness, intimacy, and love. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.

Kenrick, D. T, Sadalia, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reactions and the formation of dyads: An interactionist approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 36, 409-418.

Margolin, L. (1989). Gender and the prerogatives of dating and marriage: An experimental assessment of college students. Sex Roles, 20, 91-102.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

O'Sullivan, L. E. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men's and women's personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159-181.

Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55-79.

Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345-358.

Reiss, I. L. (1973). Heterosexual relationships inside and outside of marriage. University Programs Modular Series. Morristown, N J: General Learning Press.

Reiss, I. L. (1981). Some observations on ideology and sexuality in America. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 271-283.

Reiss, I. L., & Lee, G. R. (1988). Family systems in America (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Richardson, L. (1988). Secrecy and status: The social construction of forbidden relationships. American Sociological Review, 53, 209-219.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1-22.

Sponaugle, G. C. (1989). Attitudes toward extramarital relations. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context. Norwood: Ablex.

Sprecher, S. (in press). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research.

Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888-900.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24-31.

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, A. P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 35-42.

Weis, D. L., & Slosnerick, M. (1981). Attitudes toward sexual and nonsexual extramarital involvements among a sample of college students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 349-358.

Print Access:
Locations and holdings(PE):
(All, All UC, UCB, UCD, UCI, UCLA, UCR, UCSB, UCSC, UCSD, UCSF, CDL, Non-UC, CSU, STAN, Greater Bay Area, Northern California, Greater Los Angeles, San Diego/Inland Empire, Central Valley)