(PS4-D91) A Novel Extradyadic Involvement Coping Scale: Factor Structure and Reliability

Extradyadic Involvement (EDI) is one of the leading causes of relationship distress and dissolution (Negash et al., 2013). EDI (e.g., infidelity, cheating, adultery, etc.) is described as the emotional or sexual involvement with someone outside of a primary dyad in an ostensibly monogamous relationship. There are many reasons an individual might engage in EDI, including but not limited to, relationship problems (Yeniceri & Kokdemir, 2006). In general, when couples are experiencing problems in their relationship they may engage in various types of coping strategies. However, the degree to which EDI is contextualized as a way to cope with marital problems has not been incorporated in marital coping measures.

One of the most widely used measures to assess coping in relationships is the Marital Coping Inventory (MCI; Bowman, 1990). The MCI  assesses individual coping tactics when faced with intimate relationship problems. It includes 5-subscales relating to conflict, introspective self-blame, positive approach, self-interest, and avoidance. While this measure encompasses several coping tactics used in relationships, it does not assess the degree to which individuals may respond to problems with EDI ideation or behavior (flirtation to extradyadic sexual partners).  Therefore, in the current study, we added a number of “EDI coping” items to the MCI to explore the degree to which individuals respond to relationship problems with these thoughts or behaviors. These 8 were answered from 1 = never to 5 = usually and included items such as, “I imagine what it would be like to be with another person” and “I turn to other sexual partners to feel better”. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, followed by a reliability analysis.

Data in this study was from a sample of 204 heterosexual couples from a community sample. The sample racial/ethnic distribution was White non-Hispanic (43.8%),  non-White Hispanic (22.1%), Black non-Hispanic (19.1%), with the remaining 15% multiracial or other racial identifications.

Principal axis factoring (PAF) with a direct oblimin rotation suggested a 2-factor solution that accounted for 69.41% of the variance among the items. Six out of 8 of the items had a factor loading of greater than .50 in magnitude on one factor, with the other 2 items having a factor loading of greater than .70 in magnitude on the second factor. The 2 item factor indicated thoughts/ideations, whereas the 6 item factor included a range of behaviors (flirtation to extradyadic sex). However, a 1 factor solution with all 8 items is also reasonable, accounting   for 54.12% of the variance among the items, each item having a factor loading of greater than .45, and a Cronbach’s alpha level of .86. The mean score on this single factor (summed across items) was 12.79 for males and 12.34 for females, corresponding to an average endorsement between never and rarely.  

Given these results, we can conclude that individuals do not frequently engage in EDI coping, but that EDI coping was a reliable measure of the degree to which individuals defer to EDI thoughts and behaviors when experiencing problems within their relationship. Future research can evaluate the degree to which EDI coping converges with other important individual and relationship variables, to validate the scale.