(PS5-A6) Assessing Patterns of Responses to Infidelity

Upon discovering a partner’s infidelity, individuals can respond in highly variable ways. Improving assessment of various patterns of responding can, in turn, increase our ability to assess predictors of different ways of responding (e.g., predictors such as ways the infidelity is discovered or aspects of personality) and possible sequelae of different ways of responding (e.g., sequelae such as depression or breakup). To begin to address this gap in assessment, we generated items related to various ways an individual may respond to partner infidelity, and conducted an exploratory factor analysis to identify groupings of responses. 

Data were collected in 2006 as part of a larger survey study of undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 50. From the larger study, participants who endorsed at least one prior experience of partner infidelity were selected. These 278 participants (76 male, 179 female) were 62% White non-Hispanic, 13.5% Asian, 9.4% Hispanic, 7.6% Black, 1.3% Pacific Islander, .4% Indigenous, and 5.5% other/multiracial. These participants were asked to endorse degree of reactions they had to a current or former partner “cheating on” them from 1 = Did Not Do This At All, and 7 = Did This A Lot. Twelve possible reactions were listed. 

An exploratory factor analysis showed 11 of the 12 items loaded cleanly onto 3 different factors.  Factor 1 consisted of 4 items (with their respective factor loading): “Give my partner hell” (.40), “Go after the other person” (.84), “Fool around with someone else to get back at my partner” (.54), and “Get violent” (.56).  We named this factor Revenge, because the items appeared to reflect underlying themes of getting back at their partner, or the person they cheated with, in some way. A subsequent internal consistency analysis of the items showed adequate reliability (a=.70).  Factor 2 consisted of 4 items: “Feel furious” (-.38), “Feel depressed” (-.86), “Feel anxious” (-.73), and “Feel ugly and worthless” (-.63). We named this factor Negative Affect because these items appeared to reflect various forms of negative feelings. A subsequent internal consistency analysis of the items showed adequate reliability (a=.75).  Factor 3 consisted of the items: “Stop having sex with my partner for a while” (.61), “Check on my physical health” (.50), and “break up with my partner” (.57).  We named this factor Self-preservation because these items appeared to reflect underlying themes of protecting one's own health and/or feelings. Despite these robust factor loadings, a subsequent internal consistency analysis of the items showed inadequate reliability (a=.59).  

The above factor analysis provided some initial insights into how various responses to partner infidelity group together into larger dimensions. However, limitations include the low number of items generated and analyzed and the date when the data were collected. In our future research, we hope to generate a larger possible range of responses using additional methods, such as formative qualitative research with diverse samples of persons who have experienced partner infidelity. Overall, improving our knowledge on patterns of responding to partner infidelity, and predictors of such responses, can identify potential needs for individual support or intervention.