Communicative Infidelity and Motives of Partners

Lauren D. Untch
University of Kentucky

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

2
Abstract

Communicative infidelity is the act of ESA to communicate a message to a partner. This type of
infidelity concerns the motives of the act rather than the content like emotional and sexual. This
type of infidelity contains both emotional and sexual infidelity. Revenge is one the motives used
when committing to perform infidelity. The subject of communicative infidelity is one that is
recently coming to the surface and that still needs extensive research. Scholars have found

gender differences with interpreting motives and researching communicative infidelity. This
journal will go into more detail about the factors of communicative infidelity.
Keywords: infidelity, communicative infidelity, revenge, sex differences, ESA

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

3
Communicative Infidelity

People in relationships will do whatever it takes to send a message across to their partner,
sometimes without using confrontation. Spitzberg and Cupach (2011) describe infidelity by
using terms such as adultery, cheating, ESA, extramarital involvement, sexual betrayal and
unfaithfulness. Communicative infidelity is the acting of ESA planned to send a message to a
former, current or potential romantic partner (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). People have different

motives for committing infidelity. They could be doing it just for the thrill, or they could be
doing it to try to communicate a message. This article will describe communicative infidelity,
talk about the motives for performing the behavior, and some advice for future situations.
Using specific communication methods within these romantic relationships is something
that should be approached carefully, and used in a correct manner. Using communicative
infidelity seems to pretty harmful and emotions are meant to be altered, which could cause
negative and unintended consequences. Infidelity is not the most appealing conversation topic,
but it is something that happens every day involving people that you are the closest with.
Thorson (2009) performed a study that would determine how much information a child of a
parent who committed infidelity, would disclose about the situation. Thorson (2009) found that
there were only particular situations was it acceptable to discuss this topic, and it depended on
the context and other factors.
Gender differences do appear in communicative infidelity. More research needs to be
conducted in order to find accurate differences, but there were a few sex differences found within
the findings of the studies performed in scholarly journal articles. Spitzberg and Tafoya (2005)
found that males, opposed to females, would interpret sexual infidelity as more acceptable and
that is was justified. In one study, men reacted to finding out about being cheated on by using
COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

the exit strategy, whereas women use more verbal responses (Dillow, Malachowski, Brann, &
Weber, 2011).
There are several different kinds of infidelity that people can commit, and communicative
infidelity is just one of the many dark branches. Sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity are
two other types of infidelity that will be highlighted in this research. Communicative infidelity

seems to be more prevalent in romantic relationships. Spitzberg & Tofoya (2005) found that
Communicative infidelity was coined to describe extradyadic sexual activity that is intended to
send a message to a primary partner (p. 1). This is somewhat similar to the first definition, but
the only difference is that this definition is saying that the message is intended for a primary
partner, rather than past or perspective ones. This type of infidelity seems to tie all the other
types of infidelity together into one. This is not one particular genre of behaviors, but rather it is
focusing on the message and the motive rather than act itself.
Infidelity in our society is something that is generally frowned upon, and there are few
people that admit to committing this inhumane act. Spitzberg and Tafoya (2005) say that if
infidelity represents an attempt to send a message to a partner, then its motivation in the context
of general moral injunctions against it transforms ESA from a merely biological or opportunistic
activity into a more intentionally strategic activity (p. 6). This is stating that the reason people
perform infidelity is not only because the opportunity arises to perhaps have relations with a nonpartner, but because the one performing the infidelity has other intentional strategies in mind.
Sexual intendment, according to Spitzberg and Tafoya (2005), is one of the motives related to
approval of communicative infidelity. Research in one article found that some motives are trying
to get attention from the partner, trying to create jealousy, trying to communicate resentment, or
signaling that you want to induce relational distance, or break up
COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY
(Dillow et. Al., 2011). The acts that people perform in order to trigger a reaction from their
partner are very broad, and everyone chooses to go about it in their own way. Depending on the
motive used to perform the infidelity, would determine the forgiveness level from the other
partner (Dillow et al. 2011). Dillow, Malachowski, Brann and Weber (2011) found that

individuals who were more committed in a relationship, and found their partners as very unique,
were more likely to forgive them for their wrongdoing.
Spitzberg and Tafoya (2005) have designed a five-factor structure that draws the border
lines to predict what is acceptable and justifiable when it comes to communicative infidelity.
Situational acceptability refers to the context that communicative infidelity is appropriate, for
example meeting someone who has a higher income or meeting someone in a bar (Spitzberg &
Cupach, 2011). The second factor is in flagrante acceptability, where someone is caught
explicitly cheating (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). General retaliation is simple teasing, and
partner criminality is dangerous and constitutes physical abuse (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). The
last factor of the structure is relational decay, which Spitzberg & Cupach (2011) state is a
deteriorating relationship as a basis for accepting communicative infidelity (boredom or
dissatisfaction) (p. 227). These five factors seem to perfectly outline the development and the
growth of a relationship when communicative infidelity is committed.
According to Spitzberg and Cupach (2011), revenge is one the most likely objectives of
communicative infidelity. People who perceive some wrong in a relationship, and who believe
in the legitimacy of negative reciprocity as a way of achieving interpersonal justice, says
Spitzberg and Cupach (2011), are therefore more likely to view infidelity as one of the means of
redistributing costs and rewards.. (p.231). One is encouraged not to perform some of the
extreme acts of revenge that the people in this article displayed in order to get back at partner.
COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

Ankowski (2010) found that there was even a scenario where an angry wife was upset about
breaking up so she took the liberty to send a message to her husband in the context of eating his
seven goldfish. This is one of the many extremes of this situation, but she was intending to get a

message across to her husband that she was not happy with the relationship status, Extreme
revenges. These are just a few examples of infidelity at its finest.
There are other ways to attempt to send a message to your partner without having to be
unfaithful. Depending on your motive, you can approach the communication exchange in a more
effective way. For example, if you are trying to subtly let your partner know that you are
unhappy with the relationship status due to lack of time spent together, suggest replacing their
time with something that you would propose. Perhaps plan a surprise trip and go somewhere
with more nature than people. This would distract both of you from pressures of other people
and the scenes to which communicative infidelity are triggered.
If you are one the other side of infidelity, and the act has already been committed, there are
still ways for you to cope. You may think at the time that you are the only one going through this
emotional time, but there are others like you, and there is help. There is a website for victims of
infidelity to get help with how to manage their feelings, surviving infidelity. The best way to
prevent communicative infidelity from occurring seems to be to create mutual understandings
and compromise each others needs. Under-communicating or over-communicating are potential
consequences, but risks that should be taken. As long as you two are on the same page with your
relationship, then infidelity is probably not on either of your agendas.
In conclusion, extensive research has gone to show that the style of which messages are
intended to be sent to ones partner is not always the most effective in anticipation of positive
COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY
feedback. The point of communicative infidelity is that one partner is trying to communicate a
message to the other partner without being noticeably direct. Motives are an important factor in

communicative infidelity, but in order to prevent the dark side from taking over, start by creating
positive expectations from the beginning.

COMMUNICATIVE INFIDELITY

8
References

Ankowski, N. (2010). 10 outrageous ways to get revenge on an ex. Your tango: your best love
life, 1. Retrieved from http://www.yourtango.com/201058340/10-outrageous-ways-getrevenge-ex/page/2
Dillow, M. R., Malachowski, C. C., Brann, M., & Weber, K. D. (2011). An experimental
examination of the effects of communicative infidelity motives on communication and
relational outcomes in romantic relationships. Western Journal Of Communication, 75(5),
473-499. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.588986
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.) (2007). The dark side of interpersonal communication,
2, 201-233.
Spitzberg, B., & Tafoya, M. (2005). Explorations in communicative infidelity: Jealousy,
sociosexuality, and vengefulness. Conference Papers -- International Communication
Association, 1-41.
Thorson, A. R. (2009). Adult children's experiences with their parent's infidelity: Communicative
protection and access rules in the absence of divorce. Communication Studies, 60(1), 3248. doi:10.1080/10510970802623591
Welcome to survivinginfidelity.com. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.survivinginfidelity.com/