Home page
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Analysis
References
Appendixes
Discussion
Contact me

Traditional Approaches to the Study of Infidelity

Traditional psychological research into gendered aspects of behaviour may be seen to be based on ‘essentialist’ notions of inherent gender differences (Willott & Griffin 1997:108). From an essentialist stance, women’s experiences are a product of their ‘women-ness’ rather than the systems of social meaning that shape their life (Stokoe 2000:553). In the case of infidelity, research has often concentrated on gendered aspects of this behaviour. This theoretical approach to human relationship behaviour can also be seen to present ‘realist’ and ‘positivist’ assumptions. Realists can be seen to be committed to the view that there are underlying structures to all human behaviour that can be described and quantified (Parker 1994:9). In a similar fashion a positivist can be seen to assert that there are underlying laws that govern behaviour and will seek to discover the relationship between variables, such as ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ (Parker 1994:4). When working from within such a framework it is believed that through the implementation of rigorous scientific methods facts about the world and relationship behaviours will be discovered and hence behaviour-governing laws can be deduced.

Within such a theoretical framework research conducted into the nature of infidelity has often concluded that there are innate gender differences in the occurrence and response to infidelity. For example, it is asserted that males are more likely to be promiscuous due to their fight for ‘Darwinian’ fitness. Those individuals who have the greatest reproductive fitness have the greatest chance of evolutionary success (Davies 1996:462). Furthermore based on evolutionary assumptions, it is asserted (Buss et al 1992) that there are gender differences in the exhibition of jealousy; males and females are innately predisposed to react differently to sexual and emotional infidelity. It is thought that males respond to the threat of sexual infidelity due to the biological threat of ‘cuckoldry’ (raising another males offspring with the false belief it is their own). Females are thought to respond to the threat of emotional infidelity more so than to the threat of sexual infidelity because of the feared loss of resources that emotional infidelity may produce (Daly & Wilson 1992, Bailey et al 1994). Such research into gender differences leads to a ‘reification of gender dualism’ and may further perpetuate stereotypes resulting in a culture of exaggerated of sex differences (Hollway 1994, Crawford 1995, Hare-Mustin and Maracek 1994; cited in Stokoe 2000:553).

An example of such research is that of Christine Harris (2000) who conducted research into the psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity. The aim of this study was to replicate previous findings of gender differences in jealousy by Buss et al (1992), and further still to specifically test the ‘jealousy as a specific innate module’, ‘JSIM. The rationale for this study was based on evolutionary assumptions that there are gender differences in the exhibition of jealousy to the threat of infidelity. This study measured physiological responses whilst participants imagined scenes of either sexual or emotional relationship infidelity. Sexual infidelity was defined as sexual intercourse. Emotional infidelity was defined as ‘falling in love and forming an emotional attachment’ (Harris 2000:1084). The study also employed a forced-choice question method, for which participants had to select which type of infidelity they found most threatening. The researcher employed counterbalancing of scenarios and power analysis of the null results to ensure validity of the responses.

The study provided incomplete evidence to support Buss et al’s findings. The results were reported as showing that there were significant effects for the male responses to the two types of infidelity, but no evidence was found to support the JSIM model in females. Harris draws several conclusions from her results; Firstly she suggests that both genders are equally distressed by sexual infidelity, it may be the case that males may be more successful at imagining sexual imagery rather than emotional imagery. Secondly, because there was an inconsistency between the data produced from the forced-choice questions and the physiological data, it was concluded that the evidence was not ‘robust’ enough to support the specific innate modular view of jealousy.

Such research into the gendered nature of behaviour relating to infidelity would seem to constitute and substantiate the idea that there are gendered aspects to infidelity. However, approaching infidelity in this way neglects several shortcomings of the research process. Firstly, it is believed that it is possible to screen out individual interpretation to gain a clear and unmediated representation of the object of study (Parker 1994:2). Secondly, Harris does not question the validity of the JSIM, rather she questions the ‘robustness’ of the evidence collected. This is because it is believed that reliable and valid (true) knowledge can be obtained about the real nature of infidelity if the right procedures are followed (note Harris’ implementation of counterbalancing and power analysis) (Wetherell & Still 1998:104). Finally that the researcher is central to what sense is made is ignored (Parker 1994:20), as are the subsequent theories, ‘causes’ and explanations that are drawn upon to explain the results. Personal interests shape research questions; the questions we ask mould and form the results generated. As Di Stefano states, ‘In asking how basic gender differences are, we are asking how basic we want them to be’ (Di Stefano 1990:66, cited in Hare-Mustin & Marecek 1994).

Another example of research into infidelity from a socio-biological perspective is the work by Boekhout et al (1999). They tackled the issue of infidelity in relationships by looking at the perceived ‘relationship loss’ experienced. An ‘Extrarelationship Involvement Survey was conducted to gather data on the experience of loss after the occurrence of sexual and emotional infidelity in a relationship. This research was based on the ‘loss of illusions’ framework of Janoff-Bulman and Frantz (1996), which states that individuals hold three basic assumptions about their inner world; their world is benevolent, their world is meaningful, they are worthy. It is thought that this ‘undergirding positivity may color our approach to life’ (Boekhout et al 1999:98). It is asserted that because of the overwhelming negative effect of infidelity on the individual, the individual’s emotional and psychological well-being depends on a committed relationship with a significant other (Boekhout et al 1998:98). The researchers conducted an analysis of variance, which showed a significant difference in the male and female reactions to infidelity and also the reasons given for infidelity (the type of infidelity was not distinguished). ‘Physical’ reasons, such as sexual excitement in a new relationship and sexual incompatibility in a current relationship, were thought to be used more often by males than females to justify infidelity. ‘Relationship’ reasons, such as lack of commitment or communication in a current relationship, emotional satisfaction or companionship in new relationship, were thought to be used more by females than males to justify infidelity. The researchers draw several conclusions from the results. They acknowledge the diversity and contradictory nature of some of the findings (Boekhout et al 1998:115). The researchers assert that because men are able to separate love and sex, men do not perceive their own infidelity as damaging to their existing relationship (Boekhout et al 1998:116). Furthermore it was concluded that male responses to infidelity are consistent with Darwinian ‘male reproductive strategies’ and ‘mate guarding’ concepts (Boekhout et al 1998:116-117). It was also concluded that females’ greater reactivity to infidelity might also have a socio-biological explanation; that women will seek a more stable mating relationship in order to increase their reproductive fitness.

Again we see an example of infidelity research conducted within a traditional methodological framework that is underpinned with the aforementioned assumptions. Mainstream social psychologists have theorized aspects of intimate relationships, they have ‘measured’ and ‘categorised’ such notions as ‘love’ and ‘infidelity’ with little regard for the wider historical and social contexts that constitute and ‘make sense’ of such categorisations (Burns 2000:482). Such research reproduces notions regarding the gendered aspects of relationship behaviour, for example that males may commit infidelity due to ‘biological, reproductive’ reasons; because such research neglects to make explicit the epistemological positions upon which they are founded, the outcomes of such research may come to be thought of as ‘fact’. Even the mere investigation of ‘gender differences’ in relationship behaviour ‘warrants’ asking the question of gender difference. Any commentary that treats women and men as different ‘groups’ reinforces the dichotomy (Stokoe 2000:554). Feminist theorists have noted that often the question of ‘power’ and ‘power inequalities’ are made invisible throughout the research process. Underlying political interests and ideologies are present within the research process, the research process is always biased because investigated phenomena are imbued with culture-specific qualities, attributes and associated behaviours that are never neutrally assessed. Researchers invoke ‘Gender’ as an analytic category without reference to the assumptions upon which the category is based (Stokoe 2000:552). From a social constructionist position it is believed that scientific knowledge produces a particular image of the world, which then operates within the world as if it were true (Parker 1994:9). A specific example of this is how the reproductive theory has been used to account for male infidelity in relationships. Through continual usage this theory gained credibility, and can now be used as a ‘valid’ explanatory device of male infidelity. Research conducted about personal relationships and infidelity from within a social constructionist framework tackles the ‘constructive’ nature of accounts generated about infidelity. From a social constructionist position it is believed that such accounts of relationships actually ‘construct’ and ‘constitute’ the relationship ‘reality’ that we experience.  
 

Social Constructions Of Personal Relationships

Within the following sections discursive/social constructionist approaches to the study of personal relationships are introduced, focusing on the constructive discourses that relate to male and female positions within personal relationships and also specific ‘relationship’ discourses. There are of course degrees of overlap between the discourses as they are interdependent. The body of research conducted from a social constructionist perspective represents dissatisfaction among some psychologists to traditional sex difference research with essentialist readings and reproductions of gender (Stokoe 2000:553). Therefore critical psychologists now ‘turn to language’ and investigate the discourses that are worked up within interactions that constitute particular ways of being. Discursive patterns in language are no longer viewed as pointers to underlying cognitive structures, such as ‘attitudes’, but are now viewed as regularities in spoken or written text (Willott & Griffin 1997:109).  
 

Exploration of ‘male’ discourse

From a feminist perspective men are seen as gendered beings (Willott & Griffin 1997:108), the discursive accomplishment of ‘doing gender’ is dynamic and socially constituted, ‘gender’ is primarily located in interactions and is routinely achieved during conversational activity (Stokoe 2000:553-554). Hegemonic masculinity is therefore routinely achieved during conversations, and can often only retain its ‘hegemonic’ status in relation to subordinate and marginalized constructs (Connell 1995, cited in Willott & Griffin 1997:108) such as women being constituted as the ‘object’ within dominant ‘male’ discourses. Similarly, becoming ‘successfully’ masculine pressures young men into sexual strategies that are mechanisms for subordinating women (Holland et al 1993:3, cited in Kitzinger & Powell 1995:347). Hegemonic masculinity is discursively achieved within predominant relationship discourses, and is continually reproduced throughout cultural media representations; this ensures that women see themselves, to some extent, through men’s eyes (Crawford et al 1994:573). ‘The discourses available in the contemporary western language community within which we speak about sex are geared to articulating men’s interest and accounts of sexuality’ (Gilfoyle et al 1992:224, cited in Crawford 1994:574). Furthermore through the use of ‘Romantic’ discourses men are again privileged because they are continually represented as the ‘romantic object’ or the ‘central ‘working’ figure’, this reproduces and reconstitutes the centrality of men’s involvement in heterosexual relationships (Burns 2000:484).

The discourse of the ‘male sex drive’ has entered popular discourse and has become a powerful stereotype (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:360) it is drawn on frequently when exploring male relationship behaviour (Hollway 1984, Crawford et al 1994, Kitzinger and Powell 1995). Hollway (1984:54) details ‘The Discourse of Male Sexual Drive’, within this discourse men are seen to be driven by the biological necessity to seek out (heterosexual) sex, the discourse relies on the more general claim that sex is natural and ‘not’ mediated socially (Hollway 1984:54). Similarly, Crawford et al state that within this discourse men are viewed as having a strong sex drive which is largely uncontrollable’ (Crawford et al 1994:576), this discourse is driven by the sociobiological myth that in the animal kingdom the male has an imperative to pursue and procreate (Crawford 1994:576). Women’s sexuality is positioned within this discourse as being governed by the biological need to reproduce (Hollway 1984:54), again women are located with reference to the dominant male discourse of sexuality. Of course such a discourse comes into question given the (mere) cultural ‘performance’/phenomenon of female bisexuality or female homosexuality. Crawford et al (1994) also detail how the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse is mobilized around negotiations of sexual encounters in relationships. The man involved is often expected to take the active role (Crawford et al 1994:577) and it is likely that the man’s understanding of the sexual encounter is privileged and it is his wishes that prevail (Crawford et al 1994:574). Furthermore it is reasoned that the discourse is more directly involved and drawn upon during episodes where pressures are exerted, for example when the man failed to listen during sexual negotiations when the women said ‘no’ or ‘stop’ (Crawford et al 1994:578). The ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse is also drawn upon to excuse male infidelity in relationships, as this discourse locates such behaviour as opportunistic and as normalised (Burns 1999:410).

Another discourse pertaining to male relationship behaviour is that of the ‘emotional illiterate’ male. The construction that ‘women are supposed to do the romance in relationships and men are supposed to do the sex’ (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:345-6) is commonly drawn upon to differentiate between male and female relationship behaviour (Kitzinger & Powell 1995, Burns 1999, Jackson 1993). Kitzinger & Powell (1995) draw on several areas of research that distinguish between the gendered constructions of personal relationships. For example, Hite (1981) reported that the meanings of monogamy and infidelity in relationships differ dramatically between the genders (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:346). Kitzinger and Powell themselves conclude that the meanings of fidelity held by the genders vary dramatically, where women emphasised the emotional components of the relationship and relied heavily on the ‘language of love’, men tended to rely on sexual terminology and sexualised relationships (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:366). This also parallels with Stenner’s (1993) reading of the ‘laddish’ story discourse, where sex is privileged and is seen as the main function of the relationship, and also where there is a tension with the alternative (female) discourse which prioritises companionship and friendship (Stenner 1993:123-124). Furthermore, in Kitzinger & Powell’s study there was an absence of ‘emotion’ words in stories written by their male participants, hence ‘inexpressive maleness’ is performed once again. Furthermore, males’ reactions to female infidelity was characterised by violence and aggression; resembling the betrayed and jealous men of stereotype and literature (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:360).

Dominant discursive constructions of hegemonic masculinity have been examined in terms of how these are continually (re)constructed, (re)constituted and (re)produced within common discourse. Such constructions are specific to the particular historical and social setting within which they are produced. It can be seen that these gender constructs are continually contested and that there is always a potential for (re)negotiation (Willott & Griffin 1997:109).  
 

Exploration of ‘female’ discourses

As we have seen ‘male’ discourses being produced, it is the case that conversely ‘female’ discourses are also constituted. Each of the discourses are mutually dependent, they imply aspects of the ‘Other’. Within the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse female sexuality is positioned as complimentary to male sexuality. Female desire is absent from the male sex drive discourse; the woman must accept her status as object, she has no voice and her desires are voiced by others (Crawford et al 1994:576). Women’s sexuality is seen as being governed by the biological need to reproduce (Hollway 1989), and hence a woman’s role is to be acquiescent and receptive (Crawford et al 1994:576) to male advances. In Crawford et al’s study (1994) women illustrated the operation of an economy of exchange between men and women; women’s bodies are the commodity for exchange between men and women (Crawford et al 1994:576). On the one hand we have women positioned within the male sex drive discourse as the receptive objects given no voice and on the other we have women positioned in contrast to the ‘emotionally illiterate’ male as the ‘emotional being’. As Kitzinger & Powell (1995) comment, women are assigned the ‘emotional labour’ in relationships (Hochschild 1983, cited in Kitzinger & Powell 1995:356), in their study female participants often reflected on the emotional quality of the relationship. Female infidelity in relationships was constructed as a result of a lack of emotional closeness and intimacy in the relationship, in contrast male infidelity was constructed as occurring from excessive intimacy (Kitzinger & Powell 1995:358). When women position themselves within romantic discourse they usually do so self-consciously and reflexively, women’s reflexive resistance of the ‘romantic’ love discourse positions them as ‘emotionally literate’ (Burns 2000:484). Unfortunately the domination of male discourses is then reinforced because women’s emotions are only understood in relation to, and as reactions, to such dominant male discourses of emotion (Burns 2000:484). Burns also comments, that from feminist perspectives, the female positions available within romantic discourse disguises such gender inequality and women’s oppression in intimate heterosexual relationships (Burns 2000:481). Relatedly, Crawford et al (1994:572) comment upon sex educational programmes, specifically an AIDS prevention campaign which urged women to be more assertive, which positioned women as passive and weak; and rather paradoxically as being responsible for safe sex within relationships. It is argued further that such relationship behaviour is undertaken ‘within frameworks of taken-for-granted understandings that enshrine the power imbalance of gender difference’ (Crawford et al 1994:572) and as such, relationship behaviour will continue to reconstitute this power imbalance.

With the above contrasting of male and female discourses it can be seen that ‘gender’ is constantly being ‘done’ through language. Gender constructs are dynamic and flexible phenomenon’s that are constantly being constructed and contested within interactions (Willott & Griffin 1997:109).  
 

Exploration of ‘relationship’ discourses

Relationship discourses encompass many of the aforementioned constructive features, these discourses are draw upon within interactions to characterise and locate aspects of personal relationships. People position themselves within these discourses to achieve particular discursive manoeuvres, they are flexible phenomenon that are constantly reconstructed and constituted through talk. Rachel Lawes (1999), in her paper ‘Marriage: An analysis of discourse’, examines the discursive resources and techniques used by participants to construct accounts of marriage. Lawes explores two relationship discourses, the ‘Realist’ repertoire and the ‘Romantic’ repertoire. The realist repertoire constructs such notions as ‘permanence’, ‘fidelity’ and ‘happy marriages’ as existing only as theory or supposition (Lawes 1999:7). The realist repertoire is ‘a discourse of fatalism and passivity’ (Lawes 1999:10), and as such relationship failure is rationalised and need not be attributed to any one party involved, conversely relationship success may be ascribed to ‘luck’ (Lawes 1999:10). The romantic repertoire is impinged on such issues as ‘commitment’, ‘exclusivity’ and ‘permanence’ in marriage. ‘Commitment’ is viewed as an ‘event’, as a ‘process’, the function of which is to guarantee a partner’s intentions and to justify an expectation that the relationship will be permanent (Lawes 1999:7-8). ‘Romantic’ explanations of relationships’ failure draw heavily on notions of ‘not making the effort and not working’ (Lawes 1999:9). Participants may mobilize around both repertoires, from this are they able to emphasise the importance of such things as ‘commitment’, ‘security’ and ‘working at relationships’, whilst presenting undisguised cynicism and moral relativism (Lawes 1999:16).

Hollway (1989) details the ‘Have/Hold’ relationship discourse. Within this discourse sex is constructed as having to take place within a framework of a lasting relationship. Within this discourse ‘sex’ is seen as a ‘carrier variable’ (Seu 2001) that comes imbued with meanings such as ‘commitment’, ‘security’. This discourse could theoretically be ‘gender blind’, though in practice it is applied more stringently to women (Hollway 1989:55), the discourse was ‘commonly invoked to produce the required norms of conduct in women’ (Hollway 1989:55) and as such implicitly reproduces the ‘Male Sex Drive’ discourse through the objectification/regulation of women. As discourses are historically/socially located, relationships ascribed to the ‘have/hold’ discourse are located amongst the various ‘prescriptions of the epoch that govern sexuality, contraception, child-bearing and monogamy’ at that ‘cultural moment’ (Hollway 1989:53).

Hollway (1989) also details the ‘Permissive’ discourse that is juxtaposed to the ‘have/hold’ discourse. Within this discourse ‘permissive’ sex is constructed as the central feature. Both sexes have the right to express their sexuality in anyway they choose (as long as no-one gets hurt) because of its ‘asocial’ existence (Hollway 1898:55-56). In contrast to the previously discussed ‘male sex drive’ discourse, this discourse constructs women as ‘equal subjects’ in the expression of sexual desires, and not as objects. Rather than challenging the biological, asocial nature of the ‘male sex drive’ discourse, the permissive discourse has encompassed this construct; the permissive discourse has become the logical extension of the idea that sex is purely physical and separate from social relations and is unmediated by social significations (Hollway 1989:57). This discourse counters the ‘have/hold’ discourse, as ‘free’ sexual expression is privileged over the ‘partnership’ (Hollway 1989:56).

Through the explication of these discourses Hollway (1989) has highlighted multiplicity and contradictions involved in constructing meanings and desires encompassed within personal relationship discourses (Hollway 1989:58). Such research highlights how ‘common sense’ accounts, associated with dominant western assumptions (Hollway 1989:50) have generated these discursive constructions and how, to a degree, they have now become constituted as ‘facts’ regarding personal relationships.  
 

The Study in Hand:

This study is concerned with explicating constructions of ‘infidelity’ and ‘monogamy’ as contextualized by accounts of personal relationships. The study is firmly located within a social constructionist framework, which involves seeing any accounts generated by participants or socially available texts investigated as ‘negotiated products’ (Stenner 1993:115) developed and ‘worked up’ during interactions. For a media text discourse to ‘work’ it is dependent (as are all others) upon a shared understanding or agreed ‘convention of realism’ (Stenner 1998) regarding the subject matter, between author and audience. Accounts would therefore be read as constituting and constructing infidelity and monogamy as they are read as narrations of experience. From a feminist poststructuralist perspective discourses will be examined for their complex and, at times, contradictory constructions of power relationships (Willott & Griffin 1997:108); which may be seen to be taking place within interactions and existing outside of them.