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

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 ones 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 couples 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

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

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

of the kinds of situations in which their behaviors unfold; thus, when a person makes an attribution about another, she or he attempts to determine which of these factorsthe other
person or the other persons situationplayed the more significant role in shaping the other
persons behavior (Gilbert, & Malone, 1995).
Infidelity, as well as any other negative experiences may be attributed to another person,
to chance, or to the self. Such attribution models have been applied to marriage or other
close relationships, in an effort to understand how partners interpret and respond to one anothers behavior. Hall, & Fincham, (2006) note, that applying this framework to infidelity,
the victim will likely make attributions for his or her partners unfaithful behavior, and the
nature of these attributions will influence his or her behavioral response to the infidelity. In
case if the victim makes internal, global, and stable attributions for the infidelity (e.g., My
partner cheated because he/she is untrustworthy, no matter the situation, and isnt going to
change), he or she may be more likely to react negatively (e.g., terminate the relationship).
In contrast, external, specific, and unstable attributions (e.g., My partner only cheated because
he/she got put in a bad situation and he/she wont cheat again) might be more likely to lead
to reconciliation. External attributions towards own infidelity often reduce the feeling of
guilt, providing justification of socially disapproving behavior.
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.
Four aspects are taken into account in this study: (a) causal attributions of infidelity towards
womens infidelity; (b) causal attributions of infidelity towards mens infidelity; (c) causal
attributions towards respondents gender group (i.e. in-group attributions) and (d) causal
attributions towards the partners gender group (i.e. out-group attributions). 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, intellectual and emotional satisfaction with existing relations.

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 1083 Latvian residents (367 males, 33.9%; 716 females, 66.1%).
The mean age was 26.90 (SD = 10.15) ranging from 18 to 56. 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. The rest of participants were people of different education and occupation living in Latvian cities and countryside. 468 participants (43%) indicated Latvian
language as a mother tongue, 605 participants (55.9%) indicated Russian language as a
mother tongue, and only 10 participants (0.9%) indicated the other languages as their
mother tongues. 606 participants (56%) were single; 278 participants (25.7%) were married,
156 participants (14.4%) were in dating relationships=-; and 43 participants 3.9% were either
widowed or divorced by the moment. It is important, that 108 participants (10%) reported
that they have never had any romantic relationship with other person. The rest of participants
reported about one or several romantic relations with other persons.
Concerning to the infidelity experience, the distribution of male and female participants
was rather equal. Thus, 467 (65.2%) of female participants reported that they have no infi-

537

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

delity experience at all; 104 (14.5%) indicated that they have cheated their partners; 105
(14.7%) responded that they have been cheated at least once; and 40 (5.6%) reported that
they have cheated and have been cheated. 244 (66.5%) of male participants reported that
they have no experience of infidelity; 62 (16.9%) indicated that they have cheated their
partners; 40 (10.9%) responded that they have been cheated at least once; and 21 (5.7%)
reported that they have cheated and have been cheated.

Procedure
The participants were asked to indicate their sex, age, religious belonging and the degree of
religiosity (7-point scale), the number and term of relationships (in years), the degree of
emotional, sexual, financial and total satisfaction with the existing relations (7-point scale)
and possible reasons of mans and womans infidelity as well as their definition of infidelity.
They were also asked to indicate their infidelity experience among the offered four variants:
(a) I have no infidelity experience; (b) I was unfaithful in romantic relations, (c) my partner
was unfaithful, and (d) I was unfaithful both with partner.

Instrumentation
All participants were asked to fill out the Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ) consisted of 24
items, which they had to asses with 5-point scale. The Infidelity Questionnaire (INFQ) developed by Yenieri & Kkdemir (2006) was used in this study. It was adapted and modified
for Latvian and Russian sample. 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.e. in-group
attributions) as well as attributions towards the partners gender group (i.e. out-group attributions). The questionnaire consists of six components: (a) legitimacy, which implies the
effect of revenge. This component seems to state that the partner in the relationship deserves
to be cheated; (b) seduction, which implies the effect of a third person; (c) normalization,
which underlines concept that infidelity is a normal act; (d) sexuality, referring to the quality
of the sexual relationship between a person and his or her partner; (e) social background,
describing the cultural peculiarities and circumstances in which the relationship with partner
was established; and (f) sensation seeking, corresponding to persons activity in seeking for
sensual experience.

Design
This study used a 2 (sex of participant: male, female) 4 (infidelity experience) 2 (ingroup attributions and out-group attributions) independent groups factorial design.

Results
Because attributions measures were significantly correlated, the multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) procedures were initially performed. Further (MANOVA) tests paralleled univariate ANOVAs. As a consequence, only ANOVA results are presented.

538

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

The first research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would
influence causal attributions towards the womens infidelity. The mean (M) and Standard
Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 1.
Table 1: Causal Attributions towards the Womens Infidelity
Component

Alpha Have no
Experience
of Infidelity

Ive Cheated
my Partner

Ive been
Cheated at
Least Once

Ive Cheated
and Ive been
Cheated

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

Legitimacy

.74

15.48

3.58

15.57

3.57

15.50

3.55

15.75

3.85

Seduction

.68

11.47

3.45

11.58

3.60

11.81

3.64

12.05

4.46

Normalization

.62

10.50

3.49

10.24

3.46

10.63

3.80

10.46

4.06

Sexuality

.63

13.42

3.13

13.72

3.36

13.76

3.47

14.36

3.04

Social
Background

.54

12.11

3.27

12.39

3.39

12.37

3.34

12.70

3.62

Sensation
Seeking

.66

12.71

3.35

13.49

3.69

13.00

3.41

14.44

3.32

The results indicated the significant difference in Sensation Seeking component between
groups of respondents with different kinds of infidelity experience (F 3,1079 = 6.408,
p>.001). 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 womens infidelity as sensation seeking than persons with other kinds of infidelity
experience such as Ive cheated my partner and Ive cheated and Ive been cheated. The
rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents: Legitimacy (F 3,1079 =.123, p=.946); Seduction (F 3,1079 =.763, p=.515); Normalization
(F 3,1079 =.350, p=.789); Sexuality (F 3,1079 =2.050, p=.105); Social Background (F
3,1079 =.936, p=.423).
The second research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would
influence causal attributions towards the mens infidelity. The mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 2.

539

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

Table 2: Causal Attributions towards the Mens Infidelity

Component

Alpha Have no
Experience
of Infidelity

Ive Cheated
my Partner

Ive been
Cheated at
Least Once

Ive Cheated
and Ive been
Cheated

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

Legitimacy

.72

15.65

3.44

15.63

3.53

15.80

3.31

16.54

3.01

Seduction

.67

13.91

3.50

14.27

3.54

14.44

3.42

14.85

3.35

Normalization

.61

11.39

3.65

11.25

3.67

11.74

3.57

11.51

3.86

Sexuality

.59

15.59

3.01

15.38

3.44

15.90

3.12

16.89

2.31

Social
Background

.56

13.03

3.39

12.90

3.64

13.04

3.51

13.57

3.29

Sensation
Seeking

.65

14.49

3.36

15.36

3.34

14.90

3.00

15.61

3.28

The results showed the significant differences in causal attributions towards mens infidelity
in two components: Sexuality (F 3,1079 = 4.138, p=.006) and Sensation Seeking (F
3,1079 = 4.921, p=.002). The multiple comparisons between groups discover that persons
who have cheated and have been cheated are significantly more inclined to explain mens
infidelity with sexual motives than other groups of participants. Respondents who have no
infidelity experience are significantly less inclined to explain mens infidelity as Sensation
Seeking than other groups of participants.
The rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents:
Legitimacy (F 3,1079 =1.358, p=.254); Seduction (F 3,1079 =2.705, p=.086); Normalization (F 3,1079 =.531, p=.661); Social Background (F 3,1079 =.587, p=.623).
The third research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would
influence causal attributions towards infidelity of participants gender group. The mean (M)
and Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 3.

540

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

Table 3: Causal Attributions towards Infidelity of Participants Gender Group (in-group

Attributions)
Component

Alpha Have no
Experience
of Infidelity

Ive Cheated
my Partner

Ive been
Cheated at
Least Once

Ive Cheated
and Ive been
Cheated

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

Legitimacy

.73

15.55

3.56

15.69

3.59

15.41

3.61

16.33

3.52

Seduction

.71

11.85

3.63

11.99

3.87

11.66

3.95

12.30

4.45

Normalization

.60

10.27

3.52

10.01

3.54

10.02

3.47

10.16

4.01

Sexuality

.65

13.96

3.19

14.02

3.52

14.08

3.66

14.92

3.32

Social
Background

.54

12.24

3.34

12.22

3.42

12.17

3.39

13.08

3.50

Sensation
Seeking

.66

12.99

3.47

13.78

3.66

12.82

3.47

14.82

3.02

The results indicated the significant differences in Sensation Seeking component (F 3,1079
= 7.383, p>.001). 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 rest of components indicated no significant differences between groups of respondents:
Legitimacy (F 3,1079 = 1.066, p=.363); Seduction (F 3,1079 =.472, p=.702); Normalization (F 3,1079 =.360, p=.782); Sexuality (F 3,1079 =1.558, p=.198); Social Background (F 3,1079 =1.256, p=.288).
The third research question asked whether infidelity experience of the participants would
influence causal attributions towards infidelity of partners gender group. The mean (M) and
Standard Deviation (SD) values of each INFQ component are presented in the Table 4.

541

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

Table 4: Causal Attributions towards Infidelity of Partners Gender Group (Out-group

Attributions)
Component

Alpha Have no
Experience
of Infidelity

Ive Cheated
my Partner

Ive been
Cheated at
Least Once

Ive Cheated
and Ive been
Cheated

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

(M)

(SD)

Legitimacy

.73

15.58

3.46

15.51

3.50

15.88

3.24

15.97

3.44

Seduction

.67

13.53

3.54

13.85

3.52

14.59

2.93

14.61

3.55

Normalization

.60

11.62

3.55

11.48

3.52

12.36

3.62

11.80

3.82

Sexuality

.63

15.05

3.23

15.08

3.40

15.58

3.08

16.33

2.41

Social
Background

.57

12.90

3.36

13.07

3.57

13.24

3.41

13.20

3.46

Sensation
Seeking

.67

14.21

3.35

15.07

3.51

15.08

2.80

15.23

3.18

The results showed the significant differences in three components: Seduction (F 3,1079
= 5.007, p=.002); Sexuality (F 3,1079 = 3.820, p=.010); and Sensation Seeking (F
3,1079 = 5.950, p>.001). 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. Persons who have no infidelity experience
are significantly less inclined to explain out-group attributions towards infidelity with
Sexuality and Sensation seeking than people, who have been cheated at least once and
those, who have cheated and have been cheated.
The rest of components showed no significant differences between groups of respondents:
Legitimacy (F 3,1079 = .565, p=.638); Normalization (F 3,1079 =1.976, p=.116); and
Social Background (F 3,1079 =.552, p=.647).
The additional variables such as number of relationships, degree of religiosity, sexual,
emotional, financial and total satisfaction with the existing relations were not significantly
related with INFQ components. However, the term of the relationships negatively affected
the most of components.

542

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

Table 5: Correlations between the Term of the Relationships and INFQ Components
Term of the Relationship
Component

Womens
Infidelity

Mens
Infidelity

In-Group
Infidelity

Out-group
Infidelity

-.171**

-.049

-.125**

-.099**

-.051

-.024

-.055

.032

-.036

-.022

-.038

.024

-.084**

-.168*

-.097**

-.048

Social
Background

-.190**

-.130**

-.163**

-.155**

Sensation
Seeking

-.093**

-.008

-.076*

-.008**

Legitimacy
Seduction
Normalization
Sexuality

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Thus, the results represented in Table 5, 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. However, it takes negative significant effect
on Social Background component in all four cases; Legitimacy component explaining
womens infidelity, in-group infidelity, and out-group infidelity; Sexuality component
explaining womens infidelity, mens infidelity and in-group infidelity; and Sensation
Seeking component explaining womens infidelity, in-group infidelity and out-group
infidelity. All these correlations indicate a tendency that the longer partners are in the relationship with each other, the less their attributions towards infidelity are expressed with the
related components.

Discussion
This study aimed to represent how Latvian residents with different kinds of infidelity experience perceive, and what do they think about the reasons of mens, womens, their own and
partners infidelity. The present research was not designed to test specific hypotheses derived
from a theory of causal attributions towards infidelity. Instead, 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), which was used in this study, consisted of six components
referring to the possible reasons of infidelity. Our findings indicate that the differences
between groups with different kinds of infidelity experience are expressed more brightly in
Sensation Seeking component, revealing a tendency that people with no infidelity experience are less inclined to explain infidelity with persons activity in seeking for sensual ex-

543

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

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

544

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. (Psychological Bulletin,
82, 261277.)
Allen, E., & Baucom, D. (2006). Dating, Marital, and Hypothetical Extradyadic Involvements: How
Do They Compare? The Journal of Sex Research Volume 43, Number 4, November 2006:
pp. 307317.
Allen, E., Atkins, D., Baucom, D., Snyder, D., Coup Gordan, K., & Glass, S. (2005). Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12 (2),101-130.
Atkins, D. C., Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and Infidelity: Attendance, but not Faith and Prayer,
Predict Marital Fidelity. Journal of Marriage & Family, May 2008, Vol. 70 Issue 2, p407418.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory.(In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.)
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, (2), 183-216.
Buss, D.M. (2000). The dangerous passion. New York: The Free Press.
Cramer, E. R., Lipinski, R. E., Meteer, J. D., & Houska, J. A. (2008). Sex Differences in Subjective
Distress to Unfaithfulness: Testing Competing Evolutionary and Violation of Infidelity Expectations Hypotheses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2008, 148(2), 389-405.
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509-524.
Fisher, M., Voracek, M.,& Rekkas, V. (2008). Sex Differences in Feelings of Guilt Arising from Infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2008. 6(3): 436-446.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The Correspondence Bias. Psychological Bulletin , January
1995 Vol. 117, No. 1, 21-38.
Glass, S.P. (2002). Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity. In A.S. Gurman & N.S. Jacobson
(Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 488507). New York: Guilford.
Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J.R. (2008) Forgiveness of Sexual Cheating in Romantic Relationships:
Effects of Discovery Method, Frequency of Offense, and Presence of Apology North
American Journal of Psychology, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1-14.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508-522.
Harris, C. R. (2003). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination
of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24(4), 319-330.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hertlein, K. M., & Weeks, G. R. (2007) Two Roads Diverging in a Wood: The Current State of Infidelity Research. Journalof Couple & Relationship Therapy (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol.
6,No. 1/2, 2007, pp. 95-107.
Hilton, D. J. & Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions
focus model.( Psychological Review, 93, 7588.)
Jankowwiak, W., Nell, M, D., Buckmaster, A. (2002). Managing Infidelity: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Ethnology vol. 41, pp.85-101.
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2. Orlando:
Academic Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
Kleine, M. (2007). For Better or for Worse? The impact of accounts and attributions following sexual
infidelity. PhD dissertation, University of Missouri Columbia.

545

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

http://edt.missouri.edu/Fall2007/Dissertation/KleineD-030509-D8569/research.pdf
Lawson, A., & Samson, C. (1988). Age, gender and adultery. The British Journal of Sociology, 39,
409440.
McAnulty, R., & Brineman, J. M. (2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. Annual Review of Sex Research,17, 94-114.
Medcof, J. W. (1990). PEAT: An integrative model of attribution processes.(In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 111209). New York: Academic
Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.)
Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Coping with Romantic Betrayal: Sex Differences in Responses
to Partner Infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2008. 6(3): 413-426.
Mongeau, P. A., Halle, J. L., & Alles M. (1994). An Experimental Investigation of Accounts and Attributions Following Sexual Infidelity. Communication Monographs, vol. 61 No.4 p. 32644 Dec 1994.
Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L. & Zillmer, E. J. (2008) Are Sexual and Emotional Infidelity Equally Upsetting
to Men and Women? Making Sense of Forced-Choice Responses. Evolutionary Psychology,
www.epjournal.net 2008. 6(4): 667-675.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D.V., Guadagno R., E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, 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, (2003) 1723.
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D.M., & Bennet, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partners infidelity. Cognition and emotion, 2002, 16 (2), 299307.
Shackelford, T. K., & Todd, D.M., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity.
Cognition & Emotion, Sep 2000, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p643-659.
Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., & Michalski,
R. L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. HumanNature, 15,
283300.
Sheppard, V. J., Nelson, E. S., & Andreoli-Mathie, V. (1995). Dating relationshipsand infidelity: Attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 21, 202213.
Schmitt, D. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations,
6 continents and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85104.
Schtzwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 26, 288299.
Weeks, G. R., Gambescia, N.,& Jenkins, R. E. (2003). Treating infidelity: Therapeutic dilemmas and
effective strategies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Yeneceri, Z., & Kokdemir, D. (2006). University students perceptions of, and explanations for, infidelity: The development of the infidelity questionnaire (INFQ). Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(6), 639-650.

546

IVETA RUZA, ALEKSEJS RUZA

About the Authors

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

547

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, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.