Are There Sex Differences in Reaction to Different Types of Sexual Infidelity?

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.32024

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.2, 161-164

Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.32024

Are There Sex Differences in Reaction to Different Types of

Sexual Infidelity?

T. Joel Wade, Ryan Kelley , Dominique Ch urch

Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received October 31st, 2011; r evised November 30th, 2011; accepted December 25th, 2011

Evolutionary theory based research shows that women and men can differ in their responses to sexual and

emotional infidelity. However, research has not examined the question of whether men and women react

similarly or differently to a partner’s engagement in different types of sexual infidelity. The present re-

search sought to answer this question. Based on the aforementioned prior research, and short term mating

desires, sex differences in reactions to different types of sexual infidelity were not expected. Both women

and men were expected to report higher levels of upset when a partner engaged in sexual intercourse ra-

ther than when a partner engaged in oral sex, heavy petting, or kissing with another person. The results

were consistent with the hypothesis. Both men and women were most upset by a partner’s engagement in

sexual intercourse with another person. These findings are discussed in terms of prior research.

Keywords: Sexual Infidelity; Oral Sex; Intercourse; Heavy Petting; Kissing

Introduction

Some research finds that men are more upset by their part-

ner’s sexual infidelity while women are more upset by their

partner’s emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Sem-

melroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Cra-

mer, Abraham, Johnson, & Manning-Ryan, 2001-2002; Gol-

denberg, Landau, Pyszczynski, Cox, Greenberg, Solomon, &

Dunnam, 2003; Harris & Christenfeld, 1996, 1998; Pietrzak,

Laird, Stevens, & Thompson, 2002; Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno,

Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003; Schützwohl, 2004; Wiederman &

Allgeier, 1993; Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). Men are more

upset by sexual infidelity because it diminishes their paternity

certainty and women are more upset by emotional infidelity

because it may lead to diminished parental investments from

their male partners (Buss et al., 1992; Buss, 1999; Schützwohl,

2004; Symons, 1979; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993; Wieder-

man & Kendall, 1999). But, this pattern of findings is not very

robust (Sabini & Green, 2004) and some researchers have not

found the aforementioned difference (Bassett, 2005; Geary,

Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard; 1995; Sabini & Green, 2004;

Sabini & Silver, 2005; Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000;

Wade & Fowler, 2006). Additionally, Sagarin (2005) reports

that out of 11 studies examining this issue only 4 show signifi-

cant differences consistent with the aforementioned pattern.

Also, the sex difference does not occur when continuous rather

than categorical measures are used (Harris, 2003). Furthermore,

Mathes (2005) reports that in short term mating contexts both

men and women are most upset by a partner’s commission of

sexual infidelity. Sexual infidelity is more upsetting in short

term mating contexts due to the heightened desire for, and

competition to, find suitable partners.

While researchers have demonstrated that men and women

can differ in what types of infidelity most upset them, no re-

search has examined the question of whether or not sex differ-

ences occur in reaction to a partner’s commission of different

types of sexual infidelity. Would men and women be equally

upset by a partner’s engagement in intercourse, heavy petting,

oral sex, and kissing? Since pregnancy can be a direct result of

sexual intercourse one would expect men to be most threatened

by a partner’s engagement in sexual intercourse with someone

else. In addition, following good genes theory where women

are most concerned with sexual access and there is heightened

competition for sexual access one would also expect women to

be most upset about sexual infidelity that involves sexual in-

tercourse since genetic transmission can only occur with inter-

course. With this in mind, not surprisingly Greitemeyer (2005)

found that women and men view kissing, making out, and

switching partners equally. However, Greitemeyer’s (2005)

research did not examine reactions to sexual infidelity rather it

was an investigation of receptivity to sexual offers. Thus, the

answer to the question is indefinite. Using a repeated measures

design and continuous measures the present research seeks to

determine if there are sex differences in responses to different

types of sexua l infi delity in a short term mating context.

Hypotheses

Since some prior research has found that men and women are

most upset by sexual infidelity (Bassett, 2005; Geary, Rumsey,

Bow-Thomas, & Hoard; 1995; Sabini & Green, 2004; Sabini &

Silver, 2005; Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000; Wade &

Fowler, 2006), Greitemeyer (2005) reports that men and wom-

en view kissing, making out, and switching partners equally,

Mathes (2005) finds that sex differences do not occur in short

term mating contexts, and continuous measures are utilized, sex

differences are not expected. Men and women are both hy-

pothesized to be most upset about a partner’s engagement in

sexual intercourse with another individual.

T. J. WADE ET AL.

Method

Participants

Participants were 40 women and 39 men ranging in age from

18 to 22, M = 19.28, SD = 1.03, recruited from classes on a

college campus in the northeastern US. Their participation was

in partial fulfi llment of course requireme nts, or voluntary.

Procedure

Participants were given a questionnaire that included ques-

tions regarding their age, sex, and sexual orientation, whether

or not they had been in a sexual relationship, what their current

relationship status was, whether or not they were on any pre-

scribed medications, or currently taking birth control, and four

hypo thetical se xual infid elity scenarios: kissing another person,

heavy petting with another person, having oral sex with another

person, and sexual intercourse with another person. The sce-

narios were modified versions of scenarios used by Wiederman

and Kendall (1999) and Wade and Fowler (2006). The follow-

ing scenarios were presented to participants in different orders

to control for possible order of scenario presentation effects:

Infidelity Scenarios

It is revealed that your partner kissed someone else passion-

ately, but did not have intercourse with this person. You are

sure that your partner still loves you very much and values your

relationship. You also realize that what your partner had with

this other person was a one time occurrence and that your part-

ner will never see this person again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not upset very upset

You find out that your partner had sexual intercourse with

someone else. You are sure that your partner still loves you

very much and values your relationship. You also realize that

what your partner had with this other person was a “one-night

stand” and that your partner wil l never see this person again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not upset very upset

You find out that your partner had oral sex with someone

else, but did not have intercourse with this person. You are sure

that your partner still loves you very much and values your

relationship. You also realize that what your partner had with

this other person was a “one-night stand” and that your partner

will never see this person again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not upset very upset

You find out that your partner engaged in some heavy petting

with someone else, but did not have sexual intercourse with this

person. You are sure that your partner still loves you very much

and values your relationship. You also realize that what your

partner had with this other person was a one time occurrence

and that your partner will never see this person again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not upset very upset

Participants were instructed to rate their expected level of

reaction to each scenario, using a 1 = not upset to 7 = very up-

set scale. Lastly, participants completed a short version of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale to determine whether

or not social desirability biases play a role in participants’ re-

sponses.

Results

A series of repeated measures ANOVAs across sex of par-

ticipant, order of scenario presentation, relationship status, me-

dication use, and sexual orientation, were computed. Addition-

ally, participant’s social desirability scores were included as a

covariate in the analyses. No significant effects occurred for

order of presentation, sex of participant, relationship status,

medication use, or sexual orientation. In addition, there were no

significant effects for social desirability. A significant multi-

variate effect occurred for infidelity scenario, F(3,71) = 6.43, p

< .001, eta squared = .28, observed power = .96. This effect

was accompanied by a significant univariate effect for scenario,

Huynh-Feldt corrected F(2.43, 178.03) = 2.44, p < .0001, eta

squared = 14, observed power =.998. Sexual intercourse was

perceived as most upsetting (M = 6.45, SD = .99), followed by

oral sex (M = 6.01, SD = 1.17), while heavy petting (M = 4.85,

SD = 1.64) and kissing (M = 4.58, SD = 1.62) are least upset-

ting. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections based

on the number of comparisons computed revealed that all of the

means differ significantly from one another except the means

for heavy petting and kissing.

An additional repeated measures ANOVA examining the ef-

fect of birth control usage on women participants’ responses

revealed no significant effect for birth control usa ge.

Discussion

The findings were consistent with the hypothesis. The mean

levels of upset reported show that sexual infidelity involving

sexual intercourse is most upsetting. This is consistent with

prior research examining reactions to sexual and emotional

infidelity (Bassett, 2005; Geary et al., 1995; Sabini & Green,

2004; Sabini & Silver, 2005; Sagarin, 2005; Shackelford et al.,

2000, Wade & Fowler, 2006). This result is a product of the

short term context of the infidelity and the mating context for

this population. Prior research shows that the mating context

for the present sample follows a short term (Flack, Daubman,

Caron, Asadorian, D’Aureli, Kiser, Hall, Gigliotti, & Stine,

2007) and the sexual infidelities in the present research were

described such that they indicate a short term liaison. Mathes

(2005) reports that both women and men find sexual infidelity

more upsetting in a short term context.

The pattern of findings for men can also be explained as a

product of male parental investment concerns. Following pa-

rental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) men should be most

upset by sexual infidelities involving intercourse since inter-

course can lead to pregnancy. With a partner’s commission of

sexual intercourse with another partner men run the risk of

being cuckolded in to caring for and raising another man’s child.

The pattern of findings for women can also be explained as a

product of women’s short term sexual strategies. Women can

engage in short term mating to find good genes, or acquire bet-

ter mates (Greiling & Buss, 2000). A partner’s commission of

sexual intercourse with another diminishes a woman’s opportu-

nity to continue to reap genetic benefits or acquire a better mate

since she is competing with other women for these same bene-

162

T. J. WADE ET AL.

fits. Also, such behavior on the part of a partner would not al-

low a woman the possibility of finding a short term mate that

could turn into a long term mate. Buss and Schmitt (1993) re-

port that women can use short term mating to test for/find long

term mates.

Limitations and Future Study

Since the present research involved hypothetical responses to

infidelity scenarios future research should examine the re-

sponses of men and women who have actually experienced the

various types of sexual infidelity. Also, since an individual’s

mate value characteristics can affect feelings of jealousy ex-

perienced (Brown & Moore, 2003), future research should also

examine how men and women’s mate value characteristics as

well as their rivals’ mate value characteristics affect feelings of

jealousy experienced with different types of sexual infidelity.

Additionally, the sample included in this research is from the

same shared environment which could influence their responses.

Therefore, additional research with samples from diverse envi-

ronments should be conducted. Since culture can interact with

evolutionary adaptations (Buss, 1995; Crawford & Anderson,

1989) it is possible that in other environments the degree of

similarity in responding may be lower. Similarly, future re-

search should examine how the characteristics of rivals affect

men and women of different cultures’ responses to the various

types of sexua l infi delity.

REFERENCES

Bassett, J. F. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy in response to a part-

ner’s imagined sexual or emotional infidelity with a same or different

race other. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 71-84.

Brown, W. M., & Moore, C. (2003). Fluctuating asymmetry and ro-

mantic jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 113-117.

doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00148-4

Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through

sexual selection. Ame ric an Psychologist, 50, 164-168.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164

Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the

mind. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bac on .

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex

differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.

Psychological Science, 3, 251-155.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An

evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,

100, 204-229. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

Buss, D. M., Shackelford , T. K., Kirkp atrick, L. A., Ch oe, J. C., Li m, H.

K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy an d

the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses

about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Per-

sonal Relationships, 6, 125-150.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x

Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex

differences in jealousy in evolutionary perspective: Tests from the

Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science,

7, 359-363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x

Carlson, R. A., & Willis, F. N. (1993). Singles ads: Gender, social class,

and time. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29, 387-405.

doi:10.1007/BF00289431

Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B.

(2001-2002). Current psychology: Developmental, learning, person-

ality, social. 20, 327-336. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1015-2

Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environ-

mental discipli ne? American Psychologist, 44, 1449- 1459.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1449

Flack, W. F., Dau bman, K. A., Caron, M., Asadorian , J., D’Aureli, N.,

Kiser, S., Hall, A., Gigliotti, S., & Stine, E. (2007). Risk factors and

consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking

up, alcohol, and stress response, Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

22, 139-157. doi:10.1177/0886260506295354

Geary, D. C., Desoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., & Cooper,

M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy. Human Nature, 12,

299-320. doi:10.1007/s12110-001-1001-2

Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995).

Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of

sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology

and Sociobiology, 16, 355- 383. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00057-7

Goldenberg, J. L., Landau, M. J., Pyszczynski, T., Cox, C. R., Green-

berg, J., Solomon, S. & Dunnam, H. (2003). Gender-typical re-

sponses to sexual and emotional infidelity as a function of mortality

salience induced self-esteem striving. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 29, 1585-1595.

doi:10.1177/0146167203256880

Greiling, H., & Buss, D. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hid-

den dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Dif-

ferences, 28, 929-963. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8

Greitemeyer, T. (2005). Receptivity to sexual offers as a function of sex,

socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the

offer. Pers on al Relationships, 12 , 373-386.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00121.x

Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy,

including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interper-

sonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Review, 7, 102-128.

doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128

Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason.

Psychological Science, 7, 364-366.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00390.x

Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual strate-

gies and sexual jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96 , 29-35.

doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.29-35

Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002).

Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-

choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the

same subjects. Ev olution and Human Behavior, 23, 83-94.

doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00078-2

Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and

emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, sam-

ples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,

1375-1388. doi:10.1177/0146167204264012

Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (2005). Gender and jealousy: Stories of infidel-

ity. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 713-727.

Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconside ring evolved sex differences in jea l o u s y:

Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Re-

view, 9, 62-75. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5

Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Mil-

levoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy. The

moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation

of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 17-23.

doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00106-X

Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which type of infidelity makes you more jeal-

ous? Decision strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emo-

tional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 121-128.

Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional

reactions to infidelity. Cognition and Em otion, 14, 643-659.

doi:10.1080/02699930050117657

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Ox-

ford University Press.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.

Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp.

136-179). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in responses to sex-

ual and emotional infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness

and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychol-

T. J. WADE ET AL.

164

ogy, 4, 37-50. doi:10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.1.3

Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in

sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation? Ethology

and Sociobiology, 14, 115- 140. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)90011-6

Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, K. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy:

Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 20, 121-128. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00046-4