See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353849748

Justify my love: Cognitive dissonance reduction among perpetrators of online

and offline infidelity

Article in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · August 2021

DOI: 10.1177/02654075211037740

CITATIONS READS

3 859

1 author:

Cassandra Alexopoulos
University of Massachusetts Boston
25 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cassandra Alexopoulos on 28 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Special Issue: Communication Technologies JSPR
and Relationships

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Justify my love: Cognitive 1–23
ª The Author(s) 2021
dissonance reduction among Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

perpetrators of online DOI: 10.1177/02654075211037740

journals.sagepub.com/home/spr

and offline infidelity

Cassandra Alexopoulos
University of Massachusetts Boston, USA

Abstract
A longitudinal survey study was conducted to examine which strategies for reducing
cognitive dissonance were used among men engaging in infidelity. Data were collected
in two waves, 1 month apart (ntime1 ¼ 1514, ntime2 ¼ 425), from a sample of male users
of Ashley Madison, a “married dating” site targeting users who are seeking to engage
in infidelity. Because perpetrators of infidelity may justify their behaviors differently
depending on whether they cheated in an online environment, both online and offline
infidelity behaviors were considered. Results indicated that attitude change and self-
concept change were positively related to online infidelity, while only self-concept
change was positively related to offline infidelity, suggesting their differential effec-
tiveness for various communication media. Self-concept change, attitude change, and
denial of responsibility were negatively related to psychological discomfort and per-
ceived negative impact at time 2, indicating their relative success for reducing negative
psychological outcomes compared to other strategies such as adding consonant
cognitions.

Keywords
Cognitive dissonance, infidelity, online infidelity

Corresponding author:
Cassandra Alexopoulos, Communication Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey
Blvd, Boston, MA 02125, USA.
Email: c.alexopoulos@umb.edu
2 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Though the study of infidelity has been a persistent focus of marriage and family studies,
the widespread use of dating sites and mobile applications has prompted scholars to
question what the online environment means for people seeking alternative partners
outside of their exclusive relationships (e.g., Timmermans et al., 2018; Weiser et al.,
2018). Despite the frequency of infidelity, the vast majority of North Americans report
believing that infidelity is morally wrong (Brenan, 2019). This may be due to the neg-
ative social and psychological effects on both the perpetrator and victim, including
stress, anxiety, and relationship termination (Shrout & Weigel, 2020). To better
understand this discrepancy, the current study uses a two-wave longitudinal survey
design to examine how men engaging in infidelity cognitively frame their experience
with infidelity. Specifically, using cognitive dissonance theory as a framework (Fes-
tinger, 1957), this study explores the extent to which perpetrators of infidelity justify
their behaviors and engage in methods of reducing cognitive dissonance. Previous
studies examining people’s experiences with infidelity have employed cross-sectional
designs (Jackman, 2015; Weiser et al., 2018; Whitty, 2003). Thus, to better capture these
variables over time, data were collected in two waves approximately 1 month apart.
Users of an online dating site targeting people seeking infidelity reported their cheating
behaviors and dissonance reduction strategies at time 1, and their psychological and
emotional outcomes at time 2.
One important contextual factor that may influence how perpetrators of infidelity
rationalize their behaviors is the medium in which the infidelity occurs. For example,
between 10% and 25% of adults in the United States aged 18–49 reported having sexual
intercourse with someone outside of their marriage (Wang, 2018). However, it is quite
common for “modern day” infidelity to begin online before transitioning to face-to-face
communication. The Internet and, by extension, mobile applications have provided
people the opportunity to fulfill their emotional and sexual desires through various
digital platforms. Married individuals who have perhaps never considered cheating on
their spouses before can use the Internet to participate in extramarital relations with
relative impunity and anonymity. The rising popularity of dating apps has indeed made it
easier for people in committed relationships to simply explore the dating market; one
study found that approximately 40% of college students and non-college adults were on a
dating app while in romantic relationship (Alexopoulos, Sharabi, et al., 2020) and
between 20% and 40% reported having messaged another person on a dating app while
in an exclusive romantic relationship (Alexopoulos, Timmermans, & McNallie, 2020;
Weiser et al., 2018). Another study found that 23% of participants reported having sexted
with someone outside of their primary relationship (Falconer & Humphreys, 2019).
Despite the assumed innocuousness of online infidelity, people whose partners have
engaged in online cheating behaviors have described the acts as being hurtful (Varga
et al., 2011; Whitty, 2005) and have endured separation or divorce following the dis-
covery of online infidelity (Groothof et al., 2009). In addition, more than half of those
who engaged in extradyadic cybersex reported losing interest in relational sex (American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy [AAMFT], n.d.). Thus, another important
goal of this study is to investigate whether perpetrators’ strategies to reduce cognitive
dissonance vary depending on whether infidelity was enacted online versus offline.
Alexopoulos 3

Cognitive dissonance associated with infidelity

People who generally agree that infidelity is immoral may experience cognitive dis-
sonance while and after committing infidelity. According to cognitive dissonance theory,
people experience unpleasant feelings, otherwise known as cognitive dissonance, when
their behaviors are discrepant from their cognitions and attitudes related to those
behaviors (Festinger, 1957). People are motivated by these unpleasant feelings to engage
in psychological work, and attempt to rationalize their behaviors to reach some sort of
consistency (Frey et al., 1982). For example, a person who considers themselves to be a
loyal, committed person may attempt to justify their cheating behaviors by assuring
themselves that their infidelity was out of character.
Cognitive dissonance has been associated with negative outcomes, including psy-
chological discomfort and negative affect (Harmon-Jones, 2001). Those experiencing
cognitive dissonance may engage in one or more strategies in order to avoid these
outcomes. In a review of the cognitive dissonance literature, McGrath (2017, p. 2) noted
that an important question in the field remains: “Which change will a person make?” In
other words, when faced with a host of negative psychological outcomes that are rooted
in the decisions we make about our behavior, it is presently unclear which strategies of
reducing cognitive dissonance are preferred. Because perpetrators of infidelity have
reported engaging in various forms of rationalization to ease their psychological dis-
comfort (Scuka, 2015), this study investigates which strategies of reducing cognitive
dissonance are most effective for attenuating negative psychological outcomes when
confronting one’s engagement in infidelity. First, someone who has committed infidelity
may engage in trivialization (Festinger, 1957). During this process, the individual
minimizes the importance of their infidelity behaviors, for example, by claiming, “It was
not a big deal. We just kissed.” One study, for example, manipulated participants to
believe that they had committed infidelity in a previous relationship. These participants,
compared to those that did not believe they were previously unfaithful, were more likely
to trivialize the importance of their actions in response to experiencing psychological
discomfort (Foster & Misra, 2013).
Second, denial of responsibility is a helpful tool for shifting blame for past behaviors.
When evaluating a person’s undesirable behavior, perceptions of that person’s inten-
tionality are negatively related to forgiveness. For example, when asked to imagine
themselves as having committed infidelity, people reported lower levels of guilt when
they perceived their behaviors as unintentional (Mongeau et al., 1994). People may also
be motivated to deny their responsibility for their cheating behaviors in an effort to repair
their primary relationship. One study found that, for both hypothetical and actual
experiences with infidelity, students reported higher levels of jealousy when a partner’s
infidelity was attributed to internal and controllable causes compared to external,
uncontrollable causes (Bauerle et al., 2002). In another study, people were asked to recall
a romantic partner’s hurtful behavior. Those who perceived the hurtful behavior as
intentional reported destructive communication strategies (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006).
Thus, because people are generally more tolerant of infidelity when the perpetrator is
thought to be less personally responsible for their behaviors, perpetrators may rely on
this strategy to reduce the likelihood of experiencing negative outcomes.
4 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

A third strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance includes adding consonant cog-
nitions, or seeking out information that supports one’s behavior (Cotton, 1985; Frey,
1986). This strategy was supported in an experiment in which researchers presented
participants with pre-recorded pro- or anti-smoking messages. Because the messages
were continuously interrupted with static, the participants had to press a button in order
to hear the message clearly. As expected, smokers tended to push the button more when
listening to a pro-smoking message, and non-smokers tended to push the button more
when listening to an anti-smoking message (Brock & Balloun, 1967). Naturally, the
Internet and social media platforms facilitate this process of selective exposure (e.g.,
Messing & Westwood, 2014). Though much of the selective exposure literature has
focused on political beliefs, it seems reasonable to assume that a perpetrator of infidelity
may engage in selective exposure by compiling resources that indicate that infidelity is
harmless, common, or even widely accepted. A qualitative study found that college-aged
men who were motivated to remain monogamous, but were struggling with the abundant
opportunities for recreational sex at college, were motivated to seek information that
glorified monogamy and problematized nonmonogamy (Anderson, 2010).
In order to justify engaging in a behavior, a person may attempt to change their
attitudes about the behavior in question (Cooper, 2007). A longitudinal study examining
attitudes related to risky sexual behavior reported that safe sex attitudes changed as a
function of previous risk behavior (Huebner et al., 2011). Although previous research has
found that one’s attitude toward infidelity is a key predictor in future infidelity behaviors
(Treas & Giesen, 2000), research has also suggested that perpetrators of infidelity may
be motivated to shift their evaluations regarding infidelity following their transgressions.
For example, in a vignette study, people with prior infidelity experience found the
cheating character of their same gender significantly more acceptable and forgivable
than the unfaithful character of the other gender. In addition, people who reported no
history of infidelity reported infidelity as generally unacceptable (Sharpe et al., 2013).
The fifth and final cognitive dissonance reduction strategy explored in this study is
self-concept change. People experience changes to their self-concept, or how they view
themselves, by developing, maintaining, and terminating romantic relationships (Mat-
tingly et al., 2014; McIntyre et al., 2020). Although self-concept change can take the
form of self-concept degradation, whereby a person adopts bad habits or negatively
valenced characteristics from being in the relationship, relationships can also induce
self-concept improvement, whereby a person sheds their negative qualities and takes on
more positive self-concept content. A cross-sectional study of people who participate in
an online infidelity website found that people generally experienced self-concept
improvement (Alexopoulos, Sharabi, et al., 2020). A person who has committed infi-
delity may attempt to rationalize their behavior by altering their views of themselves, for
example, by claiming that their infidelity is justified since they have become more
interesting, exciting, and sexually fulfilled.
Because methods of reducing cognitive dissonance serve to mitigate negative psy-
chological and affective outcomes, this study considers trivialization, denial of
responsibility, adding consonant cognitions, attitude change, and self-concept change as
potential methods for reducing cognitive dissonance among self-identified perpetrators
of infidelity. The following hypotheses are proposed:
Alexopoulos 5

H1: Engaging in infidelity will be positively associated with the use of cognitive
dissonance reduction strategies.
H2: The use of cognitive dissonance reduction strategies will be negatively asso-
ciated with a) psychological discomfort, b) negative affect, and c) perceived
negative impact of infidelity.

Online vs. offline infidelity

Despite society’s disapproval of infidelity, perceptions may differ depending on whether
infidelity was committed in an online vs. offline environment. There are several char-
acteristics of online infidelity that suggest that perpetrators may rationalize their
cheating behaviors differently when enacted in an online environment. Hertlein and
Stevenson (2010) identified several defining features of online infidelity, some of which
focus on the how Internet infidelity facilitates intimacy-related problems within the
primary relationship. For example, online emotional and sexual interactions seem to
closely approximate offline interactions. This may be exemplified with the case of
pornography: Few people consider viewing pornography alone to be infidelity. How-
ever, the reciprocal act of engaging sexually with someone using communication
technologies seems to be more distressing than viewing pornography to people rating the
severity of these behaviors (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016). The shared act of creating
and responding to sexually explicit content (either online or via mobile phone) is viewed
as much more personal than a solitary sexual behavior, and therefore a greater act of
betrayal.
Although it is rare for dating sites to allow users to be completely anonymous, aside
from basic personal information, users are able to decide which and how much
information to divulge to other users (Suler, 2005). In other words, communicating
online allows users to engage in selective self-presentation regarding their profile
information and think about the content of the message and how they wish to respond
(Walther, 2007). In addition, Internet users may not consider the same words to be
unacceptable or embarrassing online (Hertlein & Piercy, 2012). This sense of anon-
ymity provides users the opportunity to dissociate their online actions from their
offline identity.
People tend to perceive online cheating behaviors as more ambiguous compared to
offline: Research has shown that online infidelity behaviors are more ambiguous and
more difficult for people to label as “real” infidelity than behaviors that involve physical
touch (Vossler & Moller, 2020). Those who communicate solely online do not experi-
ence physical contact, which has been demonstrated as a common threshold for what
constitutes a sexual betrayal within a committed relationship (Feldman & Cauffman,
1999). What remains on the spectrum of online sexual behavior includes trading nude
photos, engaging in cybersex, and performing sexual acts on oneself or describing them
via webcam or voice transmitters (Fricker, 2006). Interestingly, though, research has
provided varying results on whether participants assess these actions as infidelity
(Vossler, 2016). Because of this, the lack of a physical connection can sometimes
diminish the level of guilt felt by the cheater (Hackathorn & Harvey, 2010; Whitty &
Quigley, 2008), but can nevertheless result in feelings of hurt and betrayal by the partner.
6 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

In one study, an actor-observer difference was found for online behaviors such as
browsing an online dating website or receiving sexually explicit messages by text from
someone, likely due to the ambiguity of these behaviors compared to, for example,
sexual intercourse (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016). Cognitive dissonance reduction
strategies may serve to exempt the perpetrator from accepting responsibility, and thus
their role in facilitating recurrent infidelity is worthy of attention. The current study aims
to compare the use and effectiveness of cognitive dissonance reduction strategies for
online versus offline infidelity for a better understanding of the driving forces behind
short-term and recurrent infidelity. Given that perpetrators of online infidelity may
cognitively frame their behaviors differently than perpetrators of offline infidelity:

RQ1: Do cognitive dissonance reduction strategies differ among people who

engage in online vs. offline infidelity behaviors?

Method
Sample and procedure
To explore this study’s research questions and hypotheses, an online two-wave long-
itudinal survey was conducted among users of Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison is a
“married dating” site targeting users who are seeking to engage in infidelity. After
gaining approval from the Institutional Review Board at the author’s university, Ashley
Madison users received an email containing the study invitation and a link to the online
survey.1 The time 1 survey (n ¼ 2367) was available for 2 weeks, and the time 2 survey
(n ¼ 455) was deployed approximately 1 month later and was available for 2 weeks. It
should be noted that Ashley Madison attracts both single users and users in committed,
exclusive relationships. Because the focus of this study is on cognitive dissonance
related to committing infidelity, only participants indicating that they were married or in
another form of romantic relationship and those who were not in a consensually non-
monogamous relationship at the time of taking the survey at time 1 were included in the
sample (time 1: 69.0% of the full sample, n ¼ 1654, ages 18 to 86, M ¼ 57.6, SD ¼ 10.5;
time 2: 27.2% retention from time 1, n ¼ 450, ages 31–85, M ¼ 61.3, SD ¼ 10.5).2 The
sample consisted of mostly male users of Ashley Madison (time 1: n ¼ 1514, 91.5%,
time 2: n ¼ 425, 94.4%). Because the findings would largely generalize to men, the data
were analyzed with male participants only.3
An additional filter was used wherein, at both time points, participants reported on
their frequency of engaging in specific online and offline sexual and romantic behaviors
with someone other than their romantic partner. If they indicated that they engaged in
any of the behaviors listed below with at least one person other than their romantic
partner, they were told that the following questions would ask them about the behaviors
they just described. Demographic characteristics of participants are reported in Table 1.

Measures
All items described below were averaged for each measure unless otherwise stated.
Alexopoulos 7

Table 1. Participant demographic information.

Demographic n % n %
Time 1 (n ¼ 1514) Time 2 (n ¼ 425)
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Asian or Asian American 41 2.7 8 1.9
Black or African American 111 7.3 26 6.1
European, European American, or White 1233 81.5 361 84.9
Latinx or Latin-American (Hispanic) 114 7.5 25 5.9
Native American or American Indian 33 2.2 5 1.2
Pacific Islander 8 0.5 1 0.2
Other or prefer not to say 38 2.5 9 2.1
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 1429 94.4 396 93.2
Bisexual 70 4.6 22 5.2
Gay or lesbian 0 0 1 0.2
Other orientation not listed 6 0.4 4 0.9
Prefer not to say 9 0.6 2 0.5
Relationship Status
Single — — 104 24.5
Casually dating — — 20 4.7
Seriously dating 174 11.5 38 8.9
Engaged to be married 298 1.8 5 1.2
Married 1312 86.7 258 60.7
Notes: Participants could select multiple racial/ethnic identities.
Only participants who were seriously dating, engaged, and married in time 1 were included in the final sample;
some participants may have ended their relationships or changed their relationship status by time 2.

Engagement in infidelity
Number of cheating partners. Participants were asked to report on the frequency with
which they engaged in certain behaviors with someone other than their primary romantic
partner. They indicated with how many people they engaged in five online behaviors
with other users including initiated conversations, responded to other users, engaged in
romantic behaviors (e.g., sharing feelings, intimate details), engaged in sexual talk/
conversation, and engaged in sexual behaviors (e.g., showing body, masturbating, etc.)
via image- or text-based communication. Next, they indicated with how many people
they engaged in each of four face-to-face behaviors with other users including met face
to face, engaged in romantic behaviors (e.g., sharing feelings, intimate details), engaged
in sexual talk/conversation, and engaged in sexual behaviors (e.g., showing body,
masturbating, etc.) when they met face to face. Response options for all items included 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5–6, 7–9, 10–19, 20 or more, and does not apply/have never been in an
exclusive relationship. Only participants reporting one or more extradyadic partner were
presented with the cognitive dissonance reduction measures. Participants reported
engaging in online behaviors with approximately four to five partners (M ¼ 4.46, SD ¼
2.39), and offline behaviors with approximately three partners M ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 2.45).
Of the 948 participants who completed this measure at time 1, 907 (95.7%) reported
engaging in online or offline infidelity behaviors with at least one person outside of their
8 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

primary relationship. More specifically, participants indicated that they engaged in

online behaviors with more partners than offline: All participants who committed infi-
delity (n ¼ 907, 100.0%) reported engaging in online infidelity behaviors with at least
one other person, whereas 590 (62.2%) reported engaging in offline infidelity behaviors
with at least one other person. Finally, 549 (57.9%) participants indicated that they
engaged in online and offline behaviors with at least one other person outside of their
primary relationship.
An exploratory factor analysis using a promax rotation was conducted to determine
whether online and offline infidelity behaviors would load onto two distinct factors. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling adequacy yielded a score of .90, and Bar-
tlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant, X2 ¼ 10102.27, p < .001. The two factors
explained 82.93% of the variance. Online behaviors loaded onto the first factor (factor
loadings ranged from .63 to .94, a ¼ .94, M ¼ 3.3, SD ¼ 2.0) and offline behaviors
loaded onto the second factor (factor loadings ranged from .73 to 1.00, a ¼ .98, M ¼ 2.6,
SD ¼ 2.1). A mean composite measure was then created for the number of online
partners and another measure was created for the number of offline partners.
Frequency of cheating behaviors. Participants also reported how often they engage in
each of the behaviors listed above. Response options included 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ almost
never, 3 ¼ once a month, 4 ¼ multiple times a month, 5 ¼ once a week, 6 ¼ multiple
times a week, 7 ¼ every day, 8 ¼ multiple times a day, and 9 ¼ does not apply/have
never been in an exclusive relationship. An exploratory factor analysis indicated
again that online behaviors loaded onto the first factor (loadings ranged from .55 to .98,
a ¼ .91, M ¼ 3.20, SD ¼ 1.65) and offline behaviors loaded onto the second factor
(loadings ranged from .82 to 1.01, a ¼ .96, M ¼ 2.39, SD ¼ 1.71). The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure of Sampling adequacy yielded a score of .90, and Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity was significant, X2 ¼ 9324.45, p < .001. Together, these factors explained
82.01% of the variance. A mean composite measure was then created for the frequency
of online behaviors and another measure was created for the frequency of offline
behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance strategies

Trivialization. Participants completed 4 items regarding the importance of the beha-
viors they described (i.e., online and offline sexual and romantic behaviors with someone
other than their romantic partner). These items were modified from previous measures of
trivialization (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ a whole lot, Foster & Misra, 2013; Simon et al., 1995).
Sample items included, “How much could a person infer/assume about you from
engaging in these behaviors?” and “How important is the extent to which you engaged in
these behaviors?” Items were reverse-coded and then averaged such that higher scores
indicated more extensive trivialization (time 1: a ¼ .81, M ¼ 3.6, SD ¼ 1.4).
Denial of responsibility. One item from the responsibility subscale of the relationship
attribution measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992) assessed participants’ respon-
sibility (e.g., “I deserve to be blamed for engaging in these behaviors”). Responses
ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), but were reverse-coded such that
Alexopoulos 9

a higher score indicates a greater denial responsibility for the infidelity behaviors (time
1: M ¼ 3.3, SD ¼ 2.2).
Adding consonant cognitions. Based on the behaviors described in Harmon-Jones and
Mills (2019), 6 items were created to measure participants’ practices of adding con-
sonant cognitions related to infidelity (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree).
Participants reported whether they seek out information from the news or online that
highlights the positive outcomes of engaging in infidelity, information about how
common infidelity is, and information on factors that are more damaging to a rela-
tionship than committing infidelity. They also reported whether they seek out these
three types of information in conversations with their friends or acquaintances (time 1:
a ¼ .92, M ¼ 2.5, SD ¼ 1.5).
Attitude change. Participants completed the 12-item Attitudes toward Infidelity Scale,
which measures the extent to which they are accepting of infidelity (Whatley, 2012; 1 ¼
strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). Sample items included, “It is natural for people to
be unfaithful,” and “Infidelity is morally wrong in all circumstances regardless of the
situation.” One item was dropped (“It would be acceptable for me to have an affair, but
not my significant other”) to increase scale reliability from .68 to .70. Scores for each of
the remaining 11 items were summed for a total attitude score where higher scores
indicated more positive attitudes toward infidelity (time 1: a ¼ .70, M ¼ 44.0, SD ¼ 8.9).
Self-concept change. Participants completed a modified version of the 12-item measure
of relationship self-change (Mattingly et al., 2014). To make reference to participants’
online and offline sexual and romantic behaviors reported, participants read, “By
engaging in these behaviors,” before completing each item. Sample items included “I
have learned many great new things,” and “My bad habits have diminished.” Overall
self-concept change was calculated using the four components of self-change, with 3
items measuring each component: Self-expansion, self-pruning, self-contraction, and
self-adulteration (Mattingly et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from .77 to .91
for these four components. The following equation was used to calculate participants’
self-concept change:
ðself  expansion þ self  pruningÞ  ðself  contraction þ self  adulterationÞ
A score above zero indicated an overall improvement to the self-concept and a score
below zero indicated an overall diminishment of the self-concept (time 1: M ¼ 2.8, SD ¼
4.2).

Outcomes
Psychological discomfort. Participants’ psychological discomfort was measured by
asking participants to report how uncomfortable, uneasy, and bothered they felt at the
moment (1 ¼ does not apply at all, 7 ¼ applies very much; Elliot & Devine, 1994)
(time 2: a ¼ .95, M ¼ 3.0, SD ¼ 1.7).
Negative affect. Participants reported on their negative affect by rating on how
disappointed, guilty, and annoyed they felt at the moment (1 ¼ does not apply at all;
7 ¼ applies very much; Elliot & Devine, 1994) (time 2: a ¼ .79, M ¼ 3.1, SD ¼ 1.5).
10 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Perceived negative impact. Participants reported the extent to which their partner would
feel upset, hurt, angry, or fearful if they found out about the behaviors they described
(1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ very much; Denes et al., 2015) (time 2: a ¼ .92, M ¼ 5.5, SD ¼ 1.8).

Results
Analysis and preliminary findings
Variable correlations are reported in Table 2 (time 1) and Table 3 (time 2). Additionally,
descriptive statistics for individual infidelity behaviors are reported in Table 4, and
paired samples t-tests results comparing online vs. offline infidelity behaviors are
reported in the Online Supplement (Table A). Due to the low retention rate from time 1
to time 2, independent samples t-tests were conducted with survey completion entered as
the independent variable (completed time 1 only ¼ 0 vs. completed time 1 and time 2).
With the exception of attitudes toward infidelity (t ¼ 2.32, p ¼ .02), wherein parti-
cipants who completed both surveys reported more positive attitudes toward infidelity,
there were no significant differences between samples for the cognitive dissonance
reduction strategies (trivialization: t ¼ 0.43, p ¼ .67, denial of responsibility: t ¼ 0.30,
p ¼ .76, adding consonant cognitions: t ¼ 0.38, p ¼ .71, self-concept change: t ¼ 1.21,
p ¼ .23) or outcomes (psychological discomfort: t ¼ 0.22, p ¼ .83, negative affect:
t ¼ 0.67, p ¼ .50, perceived negative impact: t ¼ 0.94, p ¼ .35).
Demographic variables significantly associated with any of the study’s independent
or dependent variables were entered into all models as covariates. These included par-
ticipants’ age, marital status (coded as married ¼ 1, not married ¼ 0), and sexual
orientation (coded as heterosexual ¼ 1, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or another orientation not
listed ¼ 0). Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was conducted to address RQ1
regarding the difference between online and offline infidelity (time 1), and to address
H1, which predicted that engaging in infidelity (time 1) would be positively associated
with participants’ use of cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (time 1). In each
analysis, covariates were entered into step 1, and measures of online infidelity and
offline infidelity were entered into step 2.
Next, H2a–c was tested, which predicted that the use of cognitive dissonance
reduction strategies at time 1 would be negatively associated with psychological com-
fort, negative affect, and the perceived negative impact of infidelity at time 2. For each
analysis, covariates were entered into step 1, which also included each psychological
outcome at time 1. Then, all five cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (trivialization,
denial of responsibility, adding consonant cognitions, attitude change, and self-concept
change) were entered into step 2.

Hypothesis testing
Number of cheating partners. Results for RQ1 and H1 with number of cheating partners as
the independent variable are reported in Table 5 (online infidelity) and Table 6 (offline
infidelity). Findings indicated that, contrary to expectations, participants’ number of
online infidelity and offline infidelity partners negatively predicted trivialization. Offline
 Table 2. Time 1 variable correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. # Online Partners
2. # Offline Partners .70***
3. Frequency Online .54*** .44***
4. Frequency Offline .38*** .54*** .67***
5. Trivialization .16*** .16*** .18*** .62***
6. Denial .04 .07 .004 .01 .05
7. Cognitions .05 .04 .08* .08* .14*** .02
8. Attitude Change .09* .04 .08* .07* .07 .19** .18***
9. Self-Concept Change .17*** .20*** .17* .22*** .16*** .15*** .14*** .25***
10. Discomfort .02 .05 .03 .06 .01 .18*** .05 .30*** .24***
11. Neg. Affect .02 .06 .02 .09* .01 .20* .04 .30*** .32*** .73***
12. Neg. Impact .01 .02 .04 .05 .17*** .29*** .03 .10* .21*** .27*** .25***
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

11
12
Table 3. Time 2 variable correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. # Online Partners
2. # Offline Partners .76***
3. Frequency Online .56*** .49***
4. Frequency Offline .41*** .64*** .77***
5. Trivialization .23*** .14* .21** .07
6. Denial .19** .11 .02 .05 .19**
7. Cognitions .05 .06 .002 .08 .12* .01
8. Attitude Change .01 .04 .10 .09 .07 .21*** .21***
9. Self-Concept Change .10 .13* .13* .11 .12 .22*** .05 .17**
10. Discomfort .03 .02 .04 .002 .15* .27*** .14* .28*** .35***
11. Neg. Affect .05 .07 .002 .03 .14* .27*** .16** .25*** .45*** .68***
12. Neg. Impact .19* .15 .19* .18* .24** .37*** .12 .20* .18* .32*** .37***
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Alexopoulos 13

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for infidelity behaviors.

# Partners M (SD) Frequency M (SD)

Infidelity Behaviors
Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
(n ¼ 1514) (n ¼ 425) (n ¼ 1514) (n ¼ 425)
Initiating conversations online 5.88 (2.67) 5.68 (2.75) 3.73 (1.86) 3.81 (1.80)
Responding to others online 4.77 (2.71) 4.60 (2.79) 3.47 (1.92) 3.30 (1.78)
Engaging in online romantic behaviors 4.18 (2.81) 3.97 (2.84) 3.08 (1.93) 2.92 (1.89)
Engaging in online sexual talk 4.14 (2.82) 3.99 (2.88) 3.13 (1.99) 2.96 (1.91)
Engaging in online sexual behavior 3.28 (2.73) 3.01 (2.83) 2.57 (1.86) 2.41 (1.84)
Meeting face to face 3.16 (2.54) 2.99 (2.68) 2.30 (1.62) 2.25 (1.64)
Engaging in offline romantic behaviors 2.87 (2.53) 2.79 (2.60) 2.36 (1.85) 2.33 (1.89)
Engaging in offline sexual talk 3.17 (2.66) 3.02 (2.78) 2.44 (1.85) 2.38 (1.91)
Engaging in offline sexual behavior 3.12 (2.66) 2.98 (2.78) 2.44 (1.86) 2.39 (1.92)

Note: Response options for # partners included 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5–6, 7–9, 10–19, 20 or more, and does not apply/
have never been in an exclusive relationship.
Response options for frequency of behaviors included never, almost never, once a month, multiple times a
month, once a week, multiple times a week, every day, multiple times a day, and does not apply/have never
been in an exclusive relationship.

Table 5. Regression analyses for the impact of # online infidelity partners (time 1) on the use of
cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (time 1).

Triv. Denial Consonant Cog. Attitudes Self-Concept

Step 1
Age .11** .04 .01 .05 .02
Sex .06 .07 .05 .06 .15***
Marital status .04 .12** .08* .03 .06
SO .02 .12 .03 .03 .003
Step 2
Online infidelity .15*** .05 .04 .09* .17***
R2 .04 .02 .01 .01 .03
R2 change .02*** .003 .002 .01* .03***

Notes: ntime1 ¼ 1514, ntime2 ¼ 425.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
SO ¼ sexual orientation.

infidelity, but not online infidelity, negatively predicted denial of responsibility. Neither
online infidelity nor offline infidelity significantly predicted adding consonant cogni-
tions. Online infidelity, but not offline infidelity, positively predicted attitude change.
Finally, both online infidelity and offline infidelity positively predicted self-concept
change. In summary, the number of infidelity partners was positively associated with
attitude change and self-concept change. However, contrary to what was expected, the
number of infidelity partners was negatively related to trivialization and denial of
responsibility.
14 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Table 6. Regression analyses for the impact of # offline infidelity partners (time 1) on the use of
cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (time 1).

Triv. Denial Consonant Cog. Attitudes Self-Concept

Step 1
Age .11** .04 .01 .05 .02
Sex .06 .07 .05 .06 .15***
Marital status .04 .12** .08* .03 .06
SO .02 .01 .03 .03 .003
Step 2
Offline infidelity .15*** .08* .03 .04 .20***
R2 .04 .02 .01 .01 .04
R2 change .02*** .01* .001 .001 .04***
Notes: ntime1 ¼ 1514, ntime2 ¼ 425.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
SO ¼ sexual orientation.

Frequency of cheating behaviors. Results for RQ1 and H1 with frequency of cheating
behaviors as the independent variable are reported in the online supplement (Tables B
and C). Results remained largely consistent with number of cheating partners, with two
exceptions: The frequency of online and offline infidelity behaviors significantly and
positively predicted adding consonant cognitions, and frequency of offline behaviors no
longer significantly predicted denial of responsibility.

Outcomes related to cognitive dissonance. Results for H2a–c are reported in Table 7. Of
note, self-concept change negatively predicted psychological discomfort at time 2.
Adding consonant cognitions positively predicted negative affect at time 2. Denial of
responsibility negatively predicted perceived negative impact at time 2. In summary,
these findings suggest that self-concept change and denial of responsibility were
effective strategies for reducing negative outcomes.

Discussion
The current study examined which cognitive dissonance reduction strategies outlined in
the literature would be most effective for perpetrators of infidelity, and whether the use
of these strategies would differ depending on whether infidelity was committed online or
offline. Both romantic and sexual communication can occur in mediated and non-
mediated contexts, and people have reported considering both online and offline beha-
viors as a violation of their relationship boundaries (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016;
Thompson et al., 2017). However, there are several characteristics unique to online
communication (the most obvious of which includes the lack of physical contact) that
may affect the cognitive dissonance reduction process for perpetrators of infidelity.
Some have argued that, in pursuit of reducing one’s cognitive dissonance related to
infidelity, the perpetrator engages in a form of permission-giving, which allows the
perpetrator to experience less anxiety and internal conflict about the affair (Jeanfreau
et al., 2016). Overall, this study highlights which strategies facilitate this permission-
Alexopoulos 15

Table 7. Regression analyses for the impact of cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (time 1)
on psychological outcomes (time 2).

Psychological Discomfort Negative Affect Perceived Negative Impact

Step 1
Age .02 .07 .01
Sex .001 .04 .14*
Marital status .08 .01 .06
SO .12 .03 .01
Psych. Discomfort .59*** — —
Neg. Affect — .58*** —
Neg. Impact — — .82***
Step 2
Trivialization .02 .09 .08
Denial .11 .01 .15*
Consonant Cog. .001 .20** .01
Attitudes .06 .03 .13*
Self-concept .15* .05 .002
R2 .40 .39 .72
R2 change .03 .05* .04*
Notes: ntime1 ¼ 1654, ntime2 ¼ 425.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
SO ¼ sexual orientation.

giving. Further, the findings contribute to the infidelity literature by accounting for
multiple dissonance reduction strategies in response to one’s own infidelity and by
investigating the effectiveness of these strategies using a longitudinal design.
Notably, this study’s sample consisted of only male participants, limiting the findings
in their generalizability to non-heterosexual and non-male participants. Because infi-
delity experiences seem to be informed by sociocultural and gender norms (e.g., Barta &
Kiene, 2005), the strategies chosen and their relative effectiveness may be influenced by
a variety of individual differences that should be considered in follow-up studies.
Nevertheless, investigating cognitive dissonance among Ashley Madison users allowed
for a sample saturated with individuals who have actively sought or are actively seeking
to commit infidelity, a sample of individuals that may otherwise be difficult to reach.
Attitude change and self-concept change were positively associated with engaging in
online infidelity. These findings are consistent with expectations that engaging in infi-
delity would co-occur with the use of cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (Jean-
freau et al., 2016). Previous research has found that the online environment is unique in
its ability to offer users a sense of escape (Young et al., 2000), particularly for those who
experience loneliness or a lack of emotional connection in their offline relationships.
Attitude change and self-concept change, compared to the other strategies included in the
current study, perhaps function as a dissociative tactic for perpetrators of infidelity who
are struggling with psychological discomfort. Specifically, modifying one’s outlook of
infidelity (e.g., “Being unfaithful never hurt anyone”) and outlook of oneself (e.g., “I feel
re-energized for the first time in a long time,” “This me is the real me”) may allow the
16 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

perpetrator of online infidelity to separate their online selves from their offline selves.
This finding may also reflect participants’ internal motivation to adjust their self-
perceptions as they continue to communicate with a greater number of extradyadic
partners.
One of the few strategies for reducing cognitive dissonance that was positively
associated with offline infidelity behaviors was self-concept change. Because users of
Ashley Madison must initiate encounters and relationships with other users before
meeting face to face, it is possible that more developed relationships, such as those that
advance from meeting online to face-to-face encounters, are required for perceived
changes to the self-concept (e.g., becoming more adventurous, taking better care of one’s
health, hygiene, and physical appearance) to take place. Research has shown that it is
indeed possible for individuals to incorporate aspects of a potential relationship partner
into the self-concept during the relationship initiation phase (e.g., Slotter & Gardner,
2009). However, for self-concept change to function as an effective method for reducing
negatively valenced cognitive states, a stronger attachment to and greater emotional
closeness with one’s extradyadic partner(s) may be necessary for perpetrators to rely on
this justification. It should also be noted that participants were asked to reflect on
changes to their self-concept content specifically as a result of being on Ashley Madison,
as opposed to another aspect of one’s life influencing their self-image.
Trivialization and denial of responsibility were found to be negatively associated with
online and offline infidelity behaviors. These negative relationships were inconsistent
with the logic that more frequent participation in infidelity would lead perpetrators to
more greatly rely on cognitive dissonance reduction strategies. However, the use of these
strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance may only be relevant for perpetrators of infi-
delity who have had relatively few extradyadic encounters. For denial and trivialization
to be effective and logical in the perpetrator’s mind, it is likely that the strategies are
being used after having committed a one-time transgression (e.g., “I didn’t mean for it to
happen,” “What I did was wrong, but it says nothing about me as a person”). Once the
perpetrator has engaged with numerous partners or has cheated multiple times with a
single partner, it may be that the strategy of denying one’s intention to cheat becomes
unreasonable.
Denial of responsibility, attitude change, and self-concept change were negatively
related to measures of negative psychological outcomes at time 2. The findings suggest
that, compared to the other strategies included in the current study, these three strategies
were relatively effective for reducing these outcomes. The negative associations between
these strategies and negative psychological outcomes may speak to the strategies’ long-
term potential in their utility for justifying infidelity. Changes to one’s infidelity attitudes
self-concept require modifications to how perpetrators of infidelity view themselves and
evaluate their behaviors. Thus, it seems reasonable that perpetrators would strengthen
their beliefs that they are becoming a better person as they incur more extradyadic
experiences. Similarly, people who engage in denial in response to their infidelity may
be tapping into the fundamental aspects of their self-image and self-concept content
while claiming that their infidelity does not suggest anything about their character.
People who are higher in self-complexity, for example, are able to organize their self-
knowledge using a greater number of aspects, and with greater distinction among these
Alexopoulos 17

aspects (Linville, 1985). Someone who has been having an affair may naturally feel
guilty that they have not been a faithful spouse; however, someone with higher self-
complexity is less likely to let any negative self-evaluations about themselves as a spouse
carry over into other aspects of their identity. As a result, people with greater self-
complexity are also less likely to experience negative affect in response to negative
feedback (Linville, 1987; McConnell et al., 2009). On the contrary, people with lower
self-complexity are more likely to experience negative affect in response to negative
feedback because they assume the negative feedback speaks to their entire self-concept.
People who are able to successfully reduce these negative outcomes using denial and
self-concept change may therefore require greater self-complexity in order to maintain a
positive evaluation of the non-cheating aspects of their identity. Though one key strength
of the current study is the use of longitudinal data, future research on this topic would
benefit from data collected over a longer period of time to bolster these speculations.
Adding consonant cognitions was not significantly associated with the number of
online or offline infidelity partners and was positively associated with reports of negative
affect. However, as expected, this strategy was positively associated with the frequency
of online and offline infidelity behaviors. The differential effects of number of partners
versus frequency of infidelity behaviors on adding consonant cognitions are worth
noting. It is possible that this strategy is more feasible for someone engaging in infi-
delity, for example, multiple times per week but with the same extradyadic partner. In
this case, the cheater may be thinking about developing a more serious relationship and
starting a life with this affair partner. In contrast, someone who seeks out multiple
extradyadic partners may have difficulty finding comfort from their peers. Prior work
has suggested that people are more willing to engage in infidelity if they perceive others
to engage in infidelity, and if they perceive that they would garner social approval (e.g.,
Banfield & McCabe, 2001; Buunk & Bakker, 1995; Drake & McCabe, 2000). Seeking
out information from others that supports one’s behaviors is an inherently social process;
however, it is possible that adding consonant cognitions was not an effective strategy for
reducing negative psychological outcomes because many perpetrators of infidelity feel
they must conceal their infidelity from close others in their lives. Among college
undergraduates, the majority of participants reported having a friend who used Tinder
while in a committed, exclusive relationship (Weiser et al., 2018), suggesting a greater
level of information sharing about one’s desire for and intention to cheat. In contrast,
most participants in the current study were older and married, and thus may be more
likely to manage and maintain their privacy (e.g., Kezer et al., 2016). This information-
seeking strategy opposes the strategy of distraction, and thus the men in the current
sample may have been better able to justify their actions using dissociative techniques as
opposed to active information-seeking and rumination.

Limitations
This study had limitations. First, the retention rate for this study was approximately 30%.
Though most of the study’s key variables did not significantly differ between partici-
pants who completed both surveys and participants who completed time 1 only, there is a
potentially elevated risk of participant self-selection. Future research should explore
18 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

ways to better encourage participants to take part in follow-up studies when monetary
compensation is not an option. Second, the current study examined the use of various
strategies for justifying one’s cheating behavior in light of cognitive dissonance theory.
However, though outcomes related to cognitive dissonance (i.e., psychological dis-
comfort) were assessed, participants’ cognitive dissonance was not directly measured.
Additional measures, such as resistance to behavior change (Vaidis & Bran, 2018) and
self-concept conflict (Foster & Misra, 2013), should be considered in follow-up research.
Nevertheless, the current findings strengthen our understanding of the cognitive pro-
cesses that serve perpetrators of infidelity as they engage in online and offline com-
munication with an increasing number of extradyadic partners.
Third, as it would be difficult and onerous to examine all possible strategies for
reducing cognitive dissonance, only those strategies deemed to be most relevant to
committing infidelity were analyzed. Other strategies, such as distraction (Zanna &
Aziza, 1976) and forgetting (Elkin & Leippe, 1986), were not included. Future research
employing mixed methods is encouraged because qualitative methods would allow for
perpetrators of infidelity to freely recall the rationalizations used before, during,
and after their extradyadic encounters. Fourth, these findings would be bolstered
with additional information on the participants’ cognitive states prior to committing
infidelity and details about their primary romantic relationships, such as occupation,
communication style, and sexual satisfaction. Previous research has shown that rela-
tional satisfaction and having been cheated on were significant predictors of infidelity
(Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010), so it is likely that the extent to which people experi-
ence conflict within their primary relationships influences their ability to rationalize
their behaviors. Finally, participants were asked to indicate the number of people with
whom they have engaged in romantic or sexual behaviors outside of their primary
relationship; however, their responses did not provide information on how many of
these extradyadic partners were found via Ashley Madison, another dating website or
app, or another medium altogether. It is possible for specific online platforms to elicit
differing feelings of wrongdoing depending on whether the encounter was pre-
meditated (for example, seeking a partner using a website like Ashley Madison) or
the result of a short-term “moment of weakness” (for example, giving in to the
advances of a colleague; Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2017).
Despite these limitations, this study adds to the literature by examining outcomes
related to cognitive dissonance outside of the laboratory setting, allowing participants
the choice among the available dissonance-reducing strategies (Walster et al., 1967).
Although one key strategy for reducing dissonance is to modify the behavior, behavior
change is unlikely if the behavior is satisfying, and if modifying the behavior would
result in some form of loss (Festinger, 1957). The current study serves as an initial
investigation of the extent to which people rely on other methods of justifying their
cheating behaviors, and demonstrates that those methods differ depending on whether
infidelity was enacted online.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Alexopoulos 19

ORCID iD
Cassandra Alexopoulos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2317-0291

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the
following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are
available upon request. The data can be obtained by contacting Dr. Cassandra Alexopoulos (c.
alexopoulos@umb.edu).

Notes
1. Participants received an email invitation to participate in this study directly from Ashley
Madison. Participants’ identifying information was anonymous to the research team.
2. It is likely that the retention rate from time 1 to time 2 is low because, per Ashley Madison’s
policy, participants were not offered any form of compensation to complete the study.
3. The analyses have been conducted with female participants included as well, and the findings
were largely consistent with the findings reported here.

References
Alexopoulos, C., Sharabi, L., Uhlich, M., & Timmermans, E. B. R. (2020). The ups and downs of
stepping out: Infidelity-induced self-concept change [Paper presentation]. International Com-
munication Association, Denver, CO.
Alexopoulos, C., Timmermans, E. B. R., & McNallie, J. (2020). Swiping more, committing less:
Unraveling the link between dating app use and intention to commit infidelity. Computers and
Human Behavior, 102, 172–180.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (n.d.). Online infidelity. https://www.
aamft.org/Consumer_Updates/Online_Infidelity.aspx
Anderson, E. (2010). “At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy”: Cheating and
monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 27(7), 851–872.
Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Relational quality and communicative responses
following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407506070476
Banfield, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Extra relationship involvement among women: Are they
different from men? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1002773100507
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The
roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 22, 339–360.
Bauerle, S. Y., Amirkhan, J. H., & Hupka, R. B. (2002). An attribution theory analysis of romantic
jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022871104307
20 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Brenan, M. (2019). Morally acceptable issues. https://news.gallup.com/poll/257858/birth-control-

tops-list-morally-acceptable-issues.aspx
Brock, T. C., & Balloun, J. L. (1967). Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021225
Buunk, B. P., & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive
norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499509551804
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. SAGE.
Cotton, J. L. (1985). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillman, & J. Bryant (Eds.),
Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Denes, A., Lannutti, P. J., & Bevan, J. L. (2015). Same-sex infidelity in heterosexual romantic
relationships: Investigating emotional, relational, and communicative responses. Personal
Relationships, 22, 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12087
Drake, C. R., & McCabe, M. P. (2000). Extrarelationship involvement among heterosexual males:
An explanation based on the theory of planned behavior, relationship quality, and past beha-
vior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1421–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2000.tb02528.x
Elkin, R. A., & Leippe, M. R. (1986). Physiological arousal, dissonance, and attitude change:
Evidence for a dissonance–arousal link and a “don’t remind me” effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.55
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dis-
sonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
382–394.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Warber, K., & Halford, J. (2010). Reasons for (non) engagement in
infidelity. Marriage & Family Review, 46(6–7), 420–444.
Falconer, T., & Humphreys, T. P. (2019). Sexting outside the primary relationship: Prevalence,
relationship influences, physical engagement, and perceptions of “cheating”. The Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality, 28, 134–142.
Feldman, S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin’ heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of
sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 9, 227–252. https://doi.
org/abs/10.1207/s15327795jra0903_1
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship
attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.457
Foster, J. D., & Misra, T. A. (2013). It did not mean anything (about me): Cognitive dissonance
theory and the cognitive and affective consequences of romantic infidelity. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 30, 835–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512472324
Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 41–80). Academic Press.
Frey, D., Irle, M., Möntmann, V., Kumpf, M., Ochsmann, R., & Sauer, C. (1982). Cognitive
dissonance: Experiments and theory. In M. Irle (Ed.), Studies in decision making (pp.
281–310). de Gruyter.
Fricker, J. (2006). Predicting infidelity: The role of attachment styles, lovestyles, and the invest-
ment model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Swinburne University of Technology.
Alexopoulos 21

Groothof, H., Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: The case of Internet
infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265407509348003
Hackathorn, J., & Harvey, R. (2010). Sexual double standards: Bias in perceptions of cyber-infi-
delity. Sexuality and Culture, 15, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-010-9082-x
Harmon-Jones, E. (2001). The role of affect in cognitive-dissonance processes. In J. P. Forgas
(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 237–255). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an
overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive disso-
nance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (pp. 3–24). American Psychological Asso-
ciation. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
Hertlein, K., & Piercy, F. (2012). Internet infidelity: A critical review of the literature. The Family
Journal, 20, 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480706290508
Hertlein, K. M., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “As” contributing to Internet-related intimacy
problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyber-
space, 4(3). https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4230
Huebner, D. M., Neilands, T. B., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2011). Sorting through
chickens and eggs: A longitudinal examination of the associations between attitudes, norms,
and sexual risk behavior. Health Psychology, 30, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021973
Jackman, M. (2015). Understanding the cheating heart: What determines infidelity intentions?
Sexuality & Culture, 19(1), 72–84.
Jeanfreau, M. M., Herring, A., & Jurich, A. P. (2016). Permission-giving and marital infidelity.
Marriage & Family Review, 52, 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2015.1124354
Kezer, M., Sevi, B., Cemalcilar, Z., & Baruh, L. (2016). Age differences in privacy attitudes,
literacy and privacy management on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 10, article 2. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-1-2
Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one
cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3, 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1985.3.1.94
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and
depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676. https://doi.org/10.103
7/0022-3514.52.4.663
Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/
worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships,
21, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12025
McConnell, A. R., Rydell, R. J., & Brown, C. M. (2009). On the experience of self-relevant
feedback: How self-concept organization influences affective responses and self-evaluations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 695–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.
03.011
McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, e12362. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12362
McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Gorban, S. A., & Cope, M. A. (2020). Implications of
relationship-induced self-concept change across partners: An Actor-Partner Interdependence
Model approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 1554–1562. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265407520903799
22 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorse-
ments trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research,
41, 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
Mongeau, P. A., Hale, J. L., & Alles, M. (1994). An experimental investigation of accounts of
attributions following sexual infidelity. Communication Monographs, 61, 326–344. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03637759409376341
Scuka, R. F. (2015). A clinician’s guide to helping couples heal from the trauma of infidelity.
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14, 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.
2014.953653
Sharpe, D. I., Walters, A. S., & Goren, M. J. (2013). Effect of cheating experience on attitudes
toward infidelity. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-
9169-2
Shrout, M. R., & Weigel, D. J. (2020). Coping with infidelity: The moderating role of self-esteem.
Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.
109631
Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten mode of dissonance
reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 247 –260. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.68.2.247
Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory,
motivated self–other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013882
Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic
Studies, 2, 184–188.
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Drawing the line: The development of a compre-
hensive assessment of infidelity judgments. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(8), 910–926.
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2017). Understanding variations in judgments of infidelity:
An application of attribution theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39, 262–276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350578
Thompson, A. E., Zimmerman, C. N., Kulibert, D., & Moore, E. A. (2017). Sex differences and the
effect of rival characteristics on adults’ judgments of hypothetical infidelity. Evolutionary
Psychological Science, 3, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0076-2
Timmermans, E. B. R., De Caluwé, E., & Alexopoulos, C. (2018). Why are you cheating on
Tinder? Exploring users’ motives and (dark) personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior,
89, 129–139.
Treas, J., & , & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x
Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2018). Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its
reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12411
Varga, C. M., Gee, C. B., & Munro, G. (2011). The effects of sample characteristics and expe-
rience with infidelity on romantic jealousy. Sex Roles, 65, 854–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-011-0048-8
Vossler, A. (2016). Internet infidelity 10 years on: A critical review of the literature. The Family
Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1066480716663191
Alexopoulos 23

Vossler, A., & Moller, N. P. (2020). Internet affairs: Partners’ perceptions and experiences of
Internet infidelity. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0092623X.2019.1654577
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Barclay, A. (1967). A determinant of preference among modes of
dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 211– 216. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0024992
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyper-
personal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior,
23, 2538–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
Wang, W. (2018). Who cheats more? The demographics of infidelity in America. Retrieved from
https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america
Weiser, D. A., Niehuis, S., Flora, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Arias, V. S., & Baird, R. H. (2018).
Swiping right: Sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on
Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2017.10.025
Whatley, M. A. (2012). Attitudes toward infidelity scale. In D. Knox, & C. Schacht (Eds.), Choices
in relationships: An introduction marriage and the family (11th ed., p. 415). Thompson Wads-
worth Publishing.
Whitty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward online and
offline infidelity. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493
103322725342
Whitty, M. T. (2005). The realness of cybercheating: Men’s and women’s representations of
unfaithful Internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 57–67. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0894439304271536
Whitty, M. T., & Quigley, L. (2008). Emotional and sexual infidelity offline and in cyberspace.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.
2008.00088.x
Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (2000). Online infide-
lity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment.
Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 7, 59–74. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10720160008400207
Zanna, M. P., & Aziza, C. (1976). On the interaction of repression-sensitization and attention in
resolving cognitive dissonance. Journal Personality, 44, 577– 593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-6494.1976.tb00139

View publication stats