Extramarital guys classified in four classes: Loyal, confiding, deceptive, & unfaithful; individuals differed significantly in ways that are consistent with the investment model and attachment theory

Rodriguez, L., DiBello, A., Øverup, C., & Lin, H. (2018). A Latent Class Analysis Approach to Extradyadic Involvement. Journal of Relationships Research, 9, E7. doi:10.1017/jrr.2018.6

Abstract: Extradyadic involvement — emotional, romantic, or sexual involvement with another person outside of one's romantic relationship — may have serious personal and relational consequences. The current research examines extradyadic involvement in two samples of individuals in relationships and identifies subgroups of people based on their engagement in different types of extradyadic behaviour. To assess involvement in such behaviour, we created a new behavioural inventory intended to broaden the conceptualisation of types of extradyadic behaviours. Subgroups of individuals who engage in these behaviours were extracted using latent class analysis. Study 1 assessed undergraduate students in relationships (N = 339), and results revealed four classes of individuals: loyal, confiding, deceptive, and unfaithful. Follow-up tests demonstrated that these classes of individuals differed significantly in ways that are consistent with the investment model and attachment theory. Study 2 (N = 202) replicated the four-class solution, as well as the group differences in relationship functioning and attachment orientations. Results suggest theoretically consistent typologies of extradyadic behaviour that may be useful in differentiating deceptive behaviour in close relationships in a more precise way.

---
In contrast, a series of eight studies by DeWall and colleagues (2011) found no association between attachment anxiety and infidelity.Infidelitywasoperationalised in a variety of ways (e.g., attitudes toward infidelity, engagement in overt or physical extradyadic behaviours, interest in meeting alternative partners, a validated selfreport wherein participants rated how emotionally and physically intimate they had been with an alternative partner). This final method of operationalising infidelity most closely resembles the way the current study wished to define levels of extradyadic behaviour, but in DeWall et al. (2011), the ratings were summed to create a composite infidelity index after items showed high reliability. Considering the desire of anxiously attached individuals to feel close and connected to important others (e.g., DeWall et al., 2011), measuring a range of emotional extradyadic behaviours, and not just interest in or physical attraction to alternatives, may be more important for linking anxious attachment to infidelity. This may be why a robust set of studies supporting associations between avoidant attachment and infidelity (described below) did not find significant associations between anxious attachment and infidelity.

Research on attachment avoidance paints a clearerpicture, likely driven by avoidant individuals’ fear of intimacy and desire for more independence (Brennan et al., 1998). Avoidant individuals showed greater interest in alternatives and a greater propensity for infidelity — associations that were mediated by lower levels of relationship commitment (DeWall et al., 2011). Additional work has found associations between attachment avoidance and infidelity (Fish et al., 2012) and that avoidant individuals reported the highest number of extradyadic partners compared with both anxious and secure individuals (Allen & Baucom, 2004). Thus, greater attachment avoidance may be associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in behaviours of sexual infidelity, such as kissing, heavy petting and sexual intercourse, particularly in more casual situations (Feeney, Noller, & Patty, 1993; Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998). Moreover, attachment avoidance might also be associated with the greater use of deceptive extradyadic behaviours, as avoidantly attached individualstendtodislikeconflict(Domingue&Mollen, 2009). Using deception may be a way to avoid potential conflict situations with partners and maintain emotional and general independence. In contrast, Russell et al.’s (2013) longitudinal studies on newlywed couples found no association between one’s own attachment avoidance and infidelity; however, in one of the two studies, a partner effect of attachment avoidance on infidelity emerged, where one was less likely to cheat if his or her partner was higher in avoidance. These studies, which ran for three to four years, asked both spouses to report on their own perpetrated infidelity or discovery of their partner’s infidelity at each time point, with the definition of infidelity being left open to each participant.