2010
DOI: 10.1177/0192513x10362348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foggy Faithfulness: Relationship Quality, Religiosity, and the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale in an Adult Sample

Abstract: The goals of the current study were to (a) replicate the factor structure of the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale (PDIS) with a sample of older adults, (b) examine whether religiosity and relational variables (e.g., satisfaction, commitment) were correlates of perceptions of infidelity, and (c) examine unique predictors of ratings of infidelity. As expected, three factors emerged from the PDIS: Ambiguous, Deceptive, and Explicit Behaviors. Satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and religiosity were corre… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
62
1
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
62
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Broadly, behaviors associated with infidelity can range from flirting to sexual intercourse (Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988) and can be categorized into three categories: (a) ambiguous behaviors, such as talking on the Internet or hugging another person; (b) explicit behaviors, such as sexual intercourse or oral sex; and (c) deceptive behaviors, such as lying to, or withholding information from, the partner (Mattingly et al, 2010;Wilson et al, 2011). Ambiguous behaviors are perceived as the least indicative of infidelity, deceptive behaviors as moderately indicative of infidelity and explicit behaviors as the most indicative of infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999;Wilson et al, 2011).…”
Section: Sociosexuality and Perceptions Of Infidelitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Broadly, behaviors associated with infidelity can range from flirting to sexual intercourse (Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988) and can be categorized into three categories: (a) ambiguous behaviors, such as talking on the Internet or hugging another person; (b) explicit behaviors, such as sexual intercourse or oral sex; and (c) deceptive behaviors, such as lying to, or withholding information from, the partner (Mattingly et al, 2010;Wilson et al, 2011). Ambiguous behaviors are perceived as the least indicative of infidelity, deceptive behaviors as moderately indicative of infidelity and explicit behaviors as the most indicative of infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999;Wilson et al, 2011).…”
Section: Sociosexuality and Perceptions Of Infidelitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on infidelity traditionally focus on its correlates and predictors, reactions to infidelity and consequences for the relationship (McAnulty & Brineman, 2007;Shaw, Rhoades, Allen, Stanley, & Markman, 2013). More recently, research started to focus on which behaviors are perceived as infidelity (Mattingly, Wilson, Clark, Bequette, & Weidler, 2010;Wilson, Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, & Bequette, 2011). Although individuals in relationships generally disapprove infidelity, acts of infidelity are somewhat prevalent (Hall & Fincham, 2009;Jackman, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Outra variável relevante diz respeito à religiosidade (Allen et al, 2005;Atkins et al, 2001;Mattingly, Wilson, Clark, Bequette, & Weidler, 2010;Treas & Giesen, 2000). A infidelidade tem sido, de forma consistente, mais reportada por indivíduos que não têm afiliação religiosa comparativamente aos que têm (Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore, 2007;Forste & Tanfer, 1996), ainda que outros tenham reportado resultados contraditórios.…”
unclassified
“…Specifically, the infidelity scale was based on the work of Atkins and Kessel (2008), Kumar, Stern, and Achrol (1992), and Mattingly et al (2010). The punitive actions scale was derived from the factor "punishment of mate infidelity threat" of Mate Retention Inventory scale developed by Shackelford, Goetz, and Buss (2005).…”
Section: Scale Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to relational factors, future research could also explore the antecedent roles of: (a) Finally, since infidelity has various drivers (e.g., those associated with the person, partner, relationship, and the context) (Allen et al 2005), is bespoken in different ways (e.g., explicit, deceptive, ambiguous) (Mattingly et al 2010), and centers mainly on interpersonal relationships, it would be advisable to engage in more in-depth investigation of the subject, by complementing quantitative research with qualitative studies. For example, researchers could explore which specific actions in different cultures are considered as infidelity.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%