Causal Attributions of Infidelity of Latvian Residents

with Different Kinds of Infidelity Experience
Iveta Ruza, Daugavpils University, Latvia
Aleksejs Ruza, Daugavpils University, Latvia
Abstract: Sexual, emotional, and other kinds of infidelity afflict any romantic relationships. It is a
common phenomenon in such relations, which is poorly understood and is expressed by many ways
in any cultural context. The current research focused on causal attributions and verbal responses
concerning infidelity in romantic relationships presented by Latvian residents of different age, sex,
education, ethnical and religious belonging, as well as ones with different infidelity experience
(N=1083). Four types of infidelity experience were taken into account in this study: (a) persons who
have no infidelity experience at all, (b) those, who were unfaithful in romantic relations, (c) those,
whose partner was unfaithful, and (d) those, who were unfaithful both with partner. The additional
variables were: the term and the number of relationships and degree of sexual and emotional satisfaction
with existing relations. Results demonstrate the significant differences in attributions concerning infidelity between the different groups of participants. Implications of these findings and directions for
future research are discussed.
Keywords: Attributions, Causal Attributions, Infidelity, Infidelity Experience

I

NFIDELITY IS A multifaceted problem that frequently afflicts any kinds of romantic
relationships. The definition of infidelity has been a topic of discussion in literature and
science for many years. There are various operational definitions of infidelity. McAnulty,
& Brineman, (2007) consider, that almost any form of emotional or sexual intimacy
with a person other than one’s primary dating partner qualifies as infidelity. Blow and
Hartnett (2005) define an infidelity as a sexual and/or emotional act engaged in by one person
within a committed relationship where such an act occurs outside of the primary relationship
and constitutes a breach of trust and/or violation of agreed upon norms (overt and covert)
by one or both individuals in that relationship in relation to romantic/emotional or sexual
exclusivity. Glass (2002) suggests that infidelity is a secret sexual, romantic, or emotional
involvement that violates the commitment to an exclusive relationship. Weeks with colleagues
(2003) defines infidelity as a “violation of the couple’s assumed or stated contract regarding
emotional and/or sexual exclusivity”. The most of the definitions refer to violation of the
mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship , which constitutes a
significant breach of faith or a betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity of
the relationship is defined.
In Latvian culture, like in many other cultures, most people are considered to express beliefs
that relationship partners should be faithful to each other. These beliefs are common to a
most of cultures and are true to whether in a dating or marital relationship (Sheppard, Nelson,
& Andreoli-Mathie, 1995; Allen, & Baucom, 2006). However, sexual, emotional, and other
kinds of infidelity normally afflict any kinds of romantic relationships. It is reported that
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences
Volume 5, Number 2, 2010, http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882
© Common Ground, Iveta Ruza, Aleksejs Ruza, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

Nicastle. infidelity experience. Shackelford. 1994. Emotional satisfaction might imply relationship dissatisfaction. It is considered that human reactions to events are guided by the explanations i. Voracek. these figures vary from culture to culture. Jones & Davis. 2003. Klein. & Ferrari. Drigotas.. emotionality. Todd. 1972. attitudes-norms. 1985. Sexuality motives include the desire for variety and dissatisfaction with the primary sexual relationship. etc. Kelley. 2003). 1973. Safstrom. The betrayer’s reactions can be also displayed in many different ways (Fisher. 2008). 2006). Schützwohl. Nguyen. religiosity (Atkins. Kelley. & Maner. It is suggested. Guadagno. Buss. Buss. LeBlanc. but in any case. 1958. & Millevoi. & Weeks (2007) note.e. (1999) distinguish five categories of motives for infidelity: sexuality. et al. Lipinski. Schmitt.e. Becker. 1973). general attitude towards fidelity/infidelity in relations and sexual morality (Scott. Weekes-Shackelford. & Buckmaster. the act of infidelity can be devastating to both sexes and the betrayed partner normally feels an avalanche of unpleasant emotions. Miller. 1975. that human responses concerning to their own or partner’s infidelity are traditionally related to variety of factors (Harris. cultural background (Jankowwiak. Gunderson. were found to impact the likelihood of one engaging in infidelity. social context. Schmitt. Thus. 2008. 1990). Weiner. 2008). other studies have drawn vastly different conclusions about how likelihood of engaging in infidelity is impacted. Bem. Social contextual factors refer to opportunity and absence of the primary partner. and revenge-hostility. self-esteem Allen and Baucom (2006).THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES from 26% to 55% of men and 21% to 45% of women have had sexual intercourse during their marriage with someone other than their spouse (Allen. educational levels and likelihood of engaging in infidelity appear to be influenced by the educational dynamics of the partners in the relationship). Miller. 2008). 1985. 2008. Cramer. a degree of satisfaction with the existing relations. 2003. inconsistent: while some research indicates that religion or education plays a part in likelihood of infidelity. 2005. 2000. Stocks. such as sex (Sagarin. & Drass. assigned causes can lead to considerable differences in behavior (Weiner. religions. revealing how such extra-dyadic relations are perceived and explained (Mongeau. & Houska. 1986). ego bolstering. Hertlein. & Gentilia. 1965. a degree of sexual and emotional attachment to a partner. but their effect depended on mediating variables (i. An external attribution refers to an explanation of behavior based upon an external situation not necessarily related to a person’s personality or disposition. Blow and Harnett (2005) discovered that demographics such as age. at best. & Alles. & Michalski. Attitudes-norms include sexually permissive attitudes and norms. & Fincham. An internal attribution refers to an explanation of behavior based upon inferences about a person’s inherent personality or disposition. and/or emotional attachment to the other person. Shackelford. level of education. 2004). Meteer. & Bennet. Nguyen. attributions that people make for them (Heider. Nell. 2000. Shackelford. 2008). & Zillmer. 2002. 2007). Voracek. 2002.g. & Maner. (Buss. Ordinary people seem to believe that others behave as they do because of the kinds of others they are and because 536 . that much of the research in infidelity is. & Kessel. & Rekkas. Ajzen & Fishbein. emotional satisfaction. 1986. Halle. In spite of the variety of attribution theories (e. Hilton & Slugoski. Hall. 2008). etc. age (Lawson. & Zillmer. 1998). 1988. 2005. 1986. 2008. & Samson. Revenge-hostility applies to infidelity that occurs in retaliation for some perceived wrong by the partner. Medcof. Heider. Though.. Stocks. the most of them suggest that the psychological world is a mirror of the physical world and therefore both of them are penetrated by the same logic. The number of studies determines links between people’s reactions towards their own or partner’s infidelity and causal attributions. 1958.

The mean age was 26. global. The most of the sample (at least 76%) were full-time or part-time undergraduates and postgraduates from various Latvian Colleges and Universities who volunteered to participate in partial fulfillment of a research requirement. 278 participants (25. no matter the situation. & Malone.9% were either widowed or divorced by the moment. 467 (65.IVETA RUZA. 1995). external. that 108 participants (10%) reported that they have never had any romantic relationship with other person. and the nature of these attributions will influence his or her behavioral response to the infidelity. thus. The main objective of the present research is to determine if there are any differences in causal attributions towards infidelity of persons with different kinds of infidelity experience. or to the self. It is important. (2006) note. in an effort to understand how partners interpret and respond to one another’s behavior.15) ranging from 18 to 56. and stable attributions for the infidelity (e. 66. she or he attempts to determine which of these factors–the other person or the other person’s situation–played the more significant role in shaping the other person’s behavior (Gilbert. Four aspects are taken into account in this study: (a) causal attributions of infidelity towards women’s infidelity. & Fincham. intellectual and emotional satisfaction with existing relations.. that applying this framework to infidelity. the victim will likely make attributions for his or her partner’s unfaithful behavior.9%. to chance.9%) indicated the other languages as their mother tongues.4%) were in dating relationships=-. Concerning to the infidelity experience.e.. 605 participants (55. specific. In case if the victim makes internal. as well as any other negative experiences may be attributed to another person. 468 participants (43%) indicated Latvian language as a mother tongue. External attributions towards own infidelity often reduce the feeling of guilt..g. 606 participants (56%) were single.1%). Infidelity. and 43 participants 3. 716 females. terminate the relationship).9%) indicated Russian language as a mother tongue. he or she may be more likely to react negatively (e. 33. Thus. (b) causal attributions of infidelity towards men’s infidelity. in-group attributions) and (d) causal attributions towards the partner’s gender group (i.2%) of female participants reported that they ‘have no infi- 537 . The rest of participants reported about one or several romantic relations with other persons. The additional tasks of the study are to determine if there are relations between causal attributions towards infidelity and such variables as the term and the number of relationships and degree of sexual. Such attribution models have been applied to marriage or other close relationships.7%) were married. The rest of participants were people of different education and occupation living in Latvian cities and countryside. when a person makes an attribution about another. and only 10 participants (0.e. “My partner cheated because he/she is untrustworthy. the distribution of male and female participants was rather equal. “My partner only cheated because he/she got put in a bad situation and he/she won’t cheat again”) might be more likely to lead to reconciliation. 156 participants (14. (c) causal attributions towards respondents’ gender group (i. providing justification of socially disapproving behavior. out-group attributions).g. In contrast.90 (SD = 10. and isn’t going to change”). and unstable attributions (e. Method Participants The sample consisted of 1083 Latvian residents (367 males.g. Hall. ALEKSEJS RUZA of the kinds of situations in which their behaviors unfold.

7%) reported that they ‘have cheated and have been cheated’. the number and term of relationships (in years). 105 (14. religious belonging and the degree of religiosity (7-point scale). and (d) I was unfaithful both with partner. and 21 (5. female) × 4 (infidelity experience) × 2 (ingroup attributions and out-group attributions) independent groups factorial design. which implies the effect of “revenge”. sexual. which implies the effect of a “third person”. (c) normalization. As a consequence. referring to the quality of the sexual relationship between a person and his or her partner. the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures were initially performed.5%) indicated that they ‘have cheated their partners’. (e) social background. Procedure The participants were asked to indicate their sex. (b) I was unfaithful in romantic relations. (d) sexuality. in-group attributions) as well as attributions towards the partner’s gender group (i. (c) my partner was unfaithful.5%) of male participants reported that they ‘have no experience of infidelity’.e.7%) responded that they ‘have been cheated at least once’. financial and total satisfaction with the existing relations (7-point scale) and possible reasons of man’s and woman’s infidelity as well as their definition of infidelity. The questionnaire consists of six components: (a) legitimacy. age. Design This study used a 2 (sex of participant: male. describing the cultural peculiarities and circumstances in which the relationship with partner was established. Results Because attributions measures were significantly correlated. only ANOVA results are presented. Instrumentation All participants were asked to fill out the Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ) consisted of 24 items.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES delity experience’ at all. The modification of this questionnaire allowed combining INFQ-W and INFQ-M forms into one form used by both sexes in order to get responses concerning as to attributions of infidelity towards respondents’ gender group (i. Further (MANOVA) tests paralleled univariate ANOVAs. This component seems to state that the partner in the relationship deserves to be cheated. The Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ) developed by Yeniçeri & Kökdemir (2006) was used in this study. which they had to asses with 5-point scale. 62 (16. and (f) sensation seeking. the degree of emotional. 40 (10. and 40 (5. They were also asked to indicate their infidelity experience among the offered four variants: (a) I have no infidelity experience. It was adapted and modified for Latvian and Russian sample.9%) indicated that they ‘have cheated their partners’.9%) responded that they ‘have been cheated at least once’.e. 244 (66. which underlines concept that infidelity is a normal act. out-group attributions). 104 (14. (b) seduction. 538 . corresponding to person’s activity in seeking for sensual experience.6%) reported that they ‘have cheated and have been cheated’.

75 3.47 3. p=. ‘Social Background’ (F 3. p=.515).41 14.763.42 3.62 Sensation Seeking .85 Seduction .06 Sexuality .46 Normalization . 539 .946).105).350.13 13.72 3. The second research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would influence causal attributions towards the men’s infidelity.60 11. The rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents: ‘Legitimacy’ (F 3. p=.04 Social Background .57 3.408.27 12. ALEKSEJS RUZA The first research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would influence causal attributions towards the women’s infidelity.1079 =2.36 13.35 13.63 3.50 3.58 3.36 3. The multiple comparisons between groups of participants showed that persons with ‘no infidelity experience’ and those who ‘have been cheated at least once’ are less inclined to explain women’s infidelity as ‘sensation seeking’ than persons with other kinds of infidelity experience such as ‘I’ve cheated my partner’ and ‘I’ve cheated and I’ve been cheated’.47 14.789).37 3.423).11 3. ‘Sexuality’ (F 3.39 12.76 3.IVETA RUZA.74 15.70 3.00 3.64 12.39 3.54 12.58 15.936.1079 =.49 3.55 15.62 10.05 4.68 11.46 10. ‘Seduction’ (F 3.24 3.57 15.001).49 10.46 4.34 12. p=. The mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 2. Table 1: Causal Attributions towards the Women’s Infidelity Component Alpha Have no Experience of Infidelity I’ve Cheated my Partner I’ve been Cheated at Least Once I’ve Cheated and I’ve been Cheated (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) Legitimacy .123. p=.63 13.45 11.48 3.71 3.81 3.1079 =.32 The results indicated the significant difference in ‘Sensation Seeking’ component between groups of respondents with different kinds of infidelity experience (F 3.1079 =. The mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 1. ‘Normalization’ (F 3.1079 = 6.69 13. p>.50 3.44 3.66 12.1079 =.80 10.050.

44 15.57 3. p=.86 Sexuality .00 15.35 Normalization .80 3. p=.51 13.254).51 3.74 3. ‘Seduction’ (F 3.90 3.65 14.006) and ‘Sensation Seeking’ (F 3.002). ‘Social Background’ (F 3.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES Table 2: Causal Attributions towards the Men’s Infidelity Component Alpha Have no Experience of Infidelity I’ve Cheated my Partner I’ve been Cheated at Least Once I’ve Cheated and I’ve been Cheated (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) Legitimacy .89 2.90 3. The third research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would influence causal attributions towards infidelity of participants’ gender group.53 15.138.03 3.36 15. p=.38 3.54 3.67 11.1079 =. p=.56 13.12 16.705.01 15. ‘Normalization’ (F 3.44 15.587.90 3.91 3. p=.921.531.28 The results showed the significant differences in causal attributions towards men’s infidelity in two components: ‘Sexuality’ (F 3.34 14.65 11.39 3.50 14.65 3.39 12. 540 .61 3.31 16.61 11.1079 =1.36 3.1079 =.1079 = 4.27 3.29 Sensation Seeking .57 11.04 3.44 3.59 15.01 Seduction .358.1079 =2.54 14.64 13. Respondents who “have no infidelity experience” are significantly less inclined to explain men’s infidelity as ‘Sensation Seeking’ than other groups of participants.623).31 Social Background .72 15. p=.42 14.1079 = 4.63 3.59 3.67 13.85 3.25 3.661). The mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 3.49 3.086). The multiple comparisons between groups discover that persons who ‘have cheated and have been cheated’ are significantly more inclined to explain men’s infidelity with sexual motives than other groups of participants. The rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents: ‘Legitimacy’ (F 3.

782). ‘Sexuality’ (F 3.73 15.1079 = 1.08 3. The rest of components indicated no significant differences between groups of respondents: ‘Legitimacy’ (F 3.41 3. p=.472.02 3.99 3.066.08 3. ‘Social Background’ (F 3.198).02 3.56 15.66 12. ‘Normalization’ (F 3.01 3.61 16.39 13.59 15.52 10.32 Social Background .17 3.54 10.66 12.558. p=.42 12.1079 =1.01 Sexuality .363).1079 = 7.99 3. ALEKSEJS RUZA Table 3: Causal Attributions towards Infidelity of Participants’ Gender Group (in-group Attributions) Component Alpha Have no Experience of Infidelity I’ve Cheated my Partner I’ve been Cheated at Least Once I’ve Cheated and I’ve been Cheated (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) Legitimacy .52 Seduction .256.1079 =1.47 13.78 3.30 4.92 3.85 3.27 3.22 3.65 13.47 14.60 10.383.360.1079 =.82 3.82 3.52 14.24 3.69 3.1079 =.63 11.02 The results indicated the significant differences in ‘Sensation Seeking’ component (F 3.87 11.IVETA RUZA. p=. 541 .66 3.34 12.71 11.001).45 Normalization .47 10. p=. The third research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would influence causal attributions towards infidelity of partner’s gender group.288).702). ‘Seduction’ (F 3.95 12. p=.55 3.66 14.33 3.16 4.54 12. The multiple comparisons showed that persons who ‘have cheated the partner’ and those who ‘have cheated and have been cheated’ are more inclined to explain in-group attributions towards infidelity as ‘sensation seeking’ than persons with other kinds of infidelity experience. The mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 4.96 3. p>.19 14.50 Sensation Seeking .

‘Normalization’ (F 3.67 14.57 13. sexual.976.80 3.21 3.07 3.24 3.51 3.07 3.1079 = 5.05 3.58 3. and ‘Social Background’ (F 3.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES Table 4: Causal Attributions towards Infidelity of Partner’s Gender Group (Out-group Attributions) Component Alpha Have no Experience of Infidelity I’ve Cheated my Partner I’ve been Cheated at Least Once I’ve Cheated and I’ve been Cheated (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) (M) (SD) Legitimacy .35 15.63 15.60 11.59 2.52 14.08 2.002). Persons who ‘have no infidelity experience’ are significantly less inclined to explain out-group attributions towards infidelity with ‘Sexuality’ and ‘Sensation seeking’ than people.41 13. ‘Sexuality’ (F 3. p=.46 15.1079 = 3.73 15. 542 . The rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents: ‘Legitimacy’ (F 3. degree of religiosity.88 3.1079 = 5. p=.62 11.50 15.58 3. p=.93 14. financial and total satisfaction with the existing relations were not significantly related with INFQ components.36 13.40 15.48 3.85 3.001).950.82 Sexuality .552.638). the term of the relationships negatively affected the most of components. The multiple comparisons showed that persons who ‘have been cheated at least once’ and those who ‘have cheated and have been cheated’ are significantly more inclined to explain out-group attributions towards infidelity with ‘Seduction’ component than persons with ‘no infidelity experience’. emotional.007.010).57 12.90 3. who ‘have cheated and have been cheated’. p=.116).36 3.52 12.55 11.46 Sensation Seeking .24 15.23 15.41 Social Background . However.51 15.1079 =.08 16.97 3. p=.08 3.80 15.820.565.1079 =1.62 3.55 Normalization . who ‘have been cheated at least once’ and those.33 2.20 3. and ‘Sensation Seeking’ (F 3. The additional variables such as number of relationships.647).54 13.67 13.18 The results showed the significant differences in three components: ‘Seduction’ (F 3.1079 = . p>.53 3.23 3.61 3.44 Seduction .

and what do they think about the reasons of men’s.051 -. consisted of six components referring to the possible reasons of infidelity.155** Sensation Seeking -.036 -. Correlation is significant at the 0.032 -.125** -. ‘Legitimacy’ component explaining ‘women’s infidelity’. and ‘out-group infidelity’. Our findings indicate that the differences between groups with different kinds of infidelity experience are expressed more brightly in ‘Sensation Seeking’ component.049 -.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.048 Social Background -. which was used in this study.024 -.093** -. indicated that the term of the relationships has no significant effect on ‘Seduction’ and ‘Normalization’ components assessing the causal attributions towards infidelity for all four groups. the less their attributions towards infidelity are expressed with the related components. ‘Sexuality’ component explaining ‘women’s infidelity’.022 -.099** -.055 .024 -. Instead. ALEKSEJS RUZA Table 5: Correlations between the Term of the Relationships and INFQ Components Term of the Relationship Component Women’s Infidelity Men’s Infidelity In-Group Infidelity Out-group Infidelity -. the overarching goal of this research was to identify a broad array of causal attributions that people with different infidelity experience might use on the discovery of sexual or emotional infidelity. The modified Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ). ‘in-group infidelity’ and ‘out-group infidelity’. Discussion This study aimed to represent how Latvian residents with different kinds of infidelity experience perceive.008** Legitimacy Seduction Normalization Sexuality *.008 -.084** -. ‘men’s infidelity’ and ‘in-group infidelity. the results represented in Table 5.171** -.168* -. However.097** -.190** -.01 level (2-tailed). it takes negative significant effect on ‘Social Background’ component in all four cases. **. their own and partner’s infidelity. revealing a tendency that people with ‘no infidelity experience’ are less inclined to explain infidelity with person’s activity in seeking for sensual ex- 543 .038 .IVETA RUZA. All these correlations indicate a tendency that the longer partners are in the relationship with each other.163** -. Thus. women’s. and ‘Sensation Seeking’ component explaining ‘women’s infidelity’.076* -.130** -. The present research was not designed to test specific hypotheses derived from a theory of causal attributions towards infidelity. ‘in-group infidelity.

544 . The ‘Sexuality’ attributions of infidelity are more frequent for persons ‘who have cheated and have been cheated’. have rated higher the most of the components assessing all four groups. who ‘have cheated and have been cheated’. The ‘Normalization’ and ‘Social background’ components showed fewer differences between the groups of participants with the different kinds of infidelity experience. his/her partner or imagined person is conscious. out of INFQ items. such reasons as ‘losing control under the influence of drugs or alcohol’. when they have to make in-group assessment. Persons with any infidelity experience are tended higher evaluating the ‘Seduction’ component. analyzing the verbal responses of the most of participants. For instance. ‘women’s infidelity’ and ‘in-group infidelity’. persons with infidelity experience.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES perience. following this study. The current study is limited in several ways that suggest directions for future work. especially those. so the number of persons who are older than 30 was not enough in order to represent the real population of Latvia. there emerged many other possible reasons of infidelity. that the act of infidelity which was performed by the real participant. Another limitation of this research is a methodological limitation. Though the age of the participants was ranging from 18 to 56. In the same time. which occurs very seldom in one cultures. at the moment is very topical for population of the most of new EU states. but is very common reason of infidelity in other cultures. who might be more experienced in the domains of perceiving and committing infidelity. Participants were instructed to fill out 24 items of INFQ. which. except the case. They are tended more explaining infidelity with ‘Sexuality’ reasons. which was held among Turkish University students. participants ‘who have cheated’ and those. when partner or participant have to work outside his/her country. the most of participants were undergraduate and postgraduate students of Latvian Colleges and Universities. which was chosen from a single culture and a relatively restricted age range. or ‘living far away from partner for quite a long time’. It is supposed. An important direction for future work could be an attempt to identify the behavioural and cognitive correlates of the real and imagined act of infidelity as well as developing questionnaire on infidelity attributions taking into account the specific features and peculiarities more relevant to the modern Latvian Society. It is possible that the current studies missed some important reasons of infidelity that might be more likely to occur in older persons. ‘who cheated and have been cheated’ consider attributions relevant for ‘Sensation Seeking’ as one of the major reasons of infidelity. than persons with no infidelity experience at all. However. In general. than those. One limitation pertains to the sample. The received results are partly consistent with Yeniçeri & Kökdemir (2006) research. who have other kinds of infidelity experience. realized act. than persons with ‘no infidelity experience’. which were classified into six components. The differences between persons who ‘have cheated’ and those ‘who have been cheated at least once’ are presented more distinctly in this component assessing ‘men’s infidelity’.

.. 21-38. E. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. May 2008.101-130. (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Dating. From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception. 31. (1975). D. and Hypothetical Extradyadic Involvements: How Do They Compare? The Journal of Sex Research Volume 43. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Drigotas. 24(4). H.. Intrapersonal. 1-14. Psychological Bulletin . Religiousness and Infidelity: Attendance. M. G. (1999). Marital. Kleine. 77. New York: The Free Press. Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity. T.S.(In L.. 93. S. (2002).. Atkins. (1973). M. 488–507). and Presence of Apology North American Journal of Psychology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.).) Allen. E. D. An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. S. Jacobson (Eds. I. University of Missouri – Columbia.. (2007) Two Roads Diverging in a Wood: The Current State of Infidelity Research.. (2008). November 2006: pp. In A.No. Glass. D. Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model. (2008).) Jankowwiak. 2007. ALEKSEJS RUZA References Ajzen. 148(2). D. 82. E. Gunderson. Atkins.. 2. Berkowitz (Ed. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. Buss. Nell.. 41. J. CA: Academic Press. Vol. J. 70 Issue 2. 1/2. & Gentilia. D.. 95-107. Evolutionary Psychology. (1965). 107-128. D. K. pp. Berkowitz (ed. 28. January 1995 Vol. S. V. Frequency of Offense. Heider. Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed.( Psychological Review. R. (1972). A. Inc. & Baucom. (2005). (2005). Ethnology vol. Hillsdale. Hilton. No. J. D. Kelley. J. Buckmaster. The Correspondence Bias. D. K. A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. 2008. B. D.P. Bem.M. Self-perception theory. pp. J. Gilbert. The psychology of interpersonal relationships. The process of causal attribution. K. D. H. Voracek. pp. Snyder. Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review.E. pp. 1—61). 389-405. & Davis. Journalof Couple & Relationship Therapy (The Haworth Press.) Blow. C. For Better or for Worse? The impact of accounts and attributions following sexual infidelity. 10. 261—277. (2003)... W. 508-522. R. (2000). M. D. Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Meteer. (1958). In L. D. Vol. C. 183-216. H. S. M. Journal of Marriage & Family. Orlando: Academic Press.R. & Hartnett. 12 (2). P. 2008.) Vol. D. Harris. 1. 25. 545 .. San Diego. Lipinski. Managing Infidelity: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. No. (Psychological Bulletin. PhD dissertation. Sex Differences in Subjective Distress to Unfaithfulness: Testing Competing Evolutionary and Violation of Infidelity Expectations Hypotheses. R. M. Gurman & N. 509-524. A. F. 2008. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. R. M. R.S. American Psychologist. & Ferrari. A. & Slugoski. (1986). Allen.. Psychology of Women Quarterly. R. E... J.. K.E.).IVETA RUZA. Safstrom. A.. p407418. & Weeks.. New York: Guilford.. The Journal of Social Psychology. and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Number 4. E. P. interpersonal. (2007). Hertlein. Cramer. 6. T. 6. 1. (2008) Forgiveness of Sexual Cheating in Romantic Relationships: Effects of Discovery Method. & Fincham. M..). Jones. & Glass. Sex Differences in Feelings of Guilt Arising from Infidelity.& Rekkas. & Fishbein. Baucom. Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. 117. Coup Gordan. (1995). Kessel. The dangerous passion. J. E. (2). Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Predict Marital Fidelity. Fisher. (2008). & Houska. Hall. 319-330. & Malone.85-101. F. 6(3): 436-446.. (2006). 307–317. 75—88. (2006). but not Faith and Prayer.

16 (2). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. L. Dating relationshipsand infidelity: Attitudes and behaviors. p643-659. & Alles M. A. & Bennet..). The British Journal of Sociology. and explanations for. An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. J.(In M. P. Norton & Co. Evolution and Human Behavior. J. Weekes-Shackelford. M. Schmitt. J. 6 continents and 13 islands. Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life.. New York: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Guadagno R. Nguyen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.edu/Fall2007/Dissertation/KleineD-030509-D8569/research. pp. infidelity: The development of the infidelity questionnaire (INFQ). 6(3): 413-426. J. V.. R. Schützwohl. D.. Medcof. 546 .& Jenkins.... D. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. (1988). Sagarin. R. 94-114.. E. A. Stocks. R.4 p.. D. D. Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. M. B. Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. D. K. Treating infidelity: Therapeutic dilemmas and effective strategies. L. L. T. S. D. E. Nicastle. Schmitt. T. K. 548–573.. Age. D. (2007). Nelson. Evolutionary Psychology. 2008. K. & Kokdemir. 34(6). & Millevoi... (1994).. A. L. 85–104. 61 No. J. (2006). Zanna (Ed. Z. M. Evolution and Human Behavior 24. E. (1985).pdf Lawson. Weiner. (2002). W.. 92.. Sep 2000.V. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.) Miller. vol.. 6(4): 667-675. Psychological Review. An Experimental Investigation of Accounts and Attributions Following Sexual Infidelity. Shackelford. & Michalski. Coping with Romantic Betrayal: Sex Differences in Responses to Partner Infidelity. Annual Review of Sex Research.M. Communication Monographs.M.net – 2008. 2002. E. Vol.. & Zillmer. & Todd. Shackelford. McAnulty. R. 15. Cognition and emotion. (2004). P. A. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.. Weiner. (2003). (2008). J. 32644 Dec 1994. 85.. Cognition & Emotion. N. G. S. 202–213. & Drass.. New York: W. Buss. B. Evolutionary Psychology. K. 288–299. 21. W. Shackelford. Weeks. L. D. Halle. K.17. E. S. 23. (2003)..missouri. E. (2003). J. gender and adultery. V. P.epjournal. Sheppard. & Samson... HumanNature. Gambescia. (2003) 17–23.. LeBlanc. 14 Issue 5. J. Emotional reactions to infidelity. 111—209). 409–440. (1995). & Andreoli-Mathie. (1990). & Brineman. 299–307. G. Infidelity in dating relationships. Yeneceri.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES http://edt. New York: Springer-Verlag. (2000). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations. V. T. B. 639-650. A. PEAT: An integrative model of attribution processes. Becker. 39. & Maner. (2005). (2008) Are Sexual and Emotional Infidelity Equally Upsetting to Men and Women? Making Sense of Forced-Choice Responses. C. Voracek. 283–300.. 26. Buss. Mongeau. www. (1986). University students’ perceptions of..

Participated in several scientific projects financed by Latvian Ministry of Education and Latvian Academy of Science. social representations.A. M.Sc. Scientific interests: Social and cognitive psychology. Latvian University. postgraduate.IVETA RUZA. researcher (Institute of Social Research) at Daugavpils University. ALEKSEJS RUZA About the Authors Iveta Ruza Education background: Latvian University B. and PhD students. Work experince: lecturer (Department of Social Psychology). Scientific interests: social cognition. PhD studies at Daugavpils University (Latvia). M. Attitudes of Latvian work migrants towards work conditions in Latvia and abroad. interpersonal relations. Dr. Participated in research projects financed by Latvian Ministry of Education and Latvian Academy of Science: "Socialization of Latvian Young people and their journey through life". Research interests: Social Representations of EU countries among the Latvian inhabitants.Sc. Daugavpils University. head of the department of social psychology.. Aleksejs Ruza Education background: B. 547 .. Work experience: docent (Daugavpils University).. Academic experience: courses in methodology of the research and social psychology for undergraduate. PhD.A. family psychology. psychology of interpersonal relations.

Copyright of International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However. download. or email articles for individual use. . users may print.