Advanced Search 
Find in




Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

FIND IN Advanced
Search

INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS I: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,  Apr 2005  by Blow, Adrian J,  Hartnett, Kelley

Infidelity is perhaps the most complex issue encountered by couple therapists. Although clinical literature, opinion, and speculation on this topic are abundant, research literature is sparse. What little available research exists is, in most cases, neither robust nor helpful to the practicing therapist. This article provides, in both narrative and table format, a comprehensive methodological review of the available research literature on infidelity from 1980 to present. Topics addressed in the narrative include the lack of a consensus on the definition of infidelity; design challenges, such as retrospective research, confidentiality, measures, and variables; and sampling issues, such as diversity and randomization. Throughout the article, we offer suggestions for future research.

Three-thousand years ago, a Biblical epic unfolded when King David's affair with Bathsheba lead him to orchestrate her husband's murder. It is intriguing to speculate about the public's response to this scandal at the time and, perhaps, even more fascinating to wonder how a couple therapist might have approached the situation. Curiosity about infidelity and its ramifications certainly exists in contemporary society. For therapists, the interest relates to the challenge of treating couples who are deeply hurt because of the betrayal and secrecy that are almost always associated with infidelity. For the public, the attraction lies more in the sordid details and often bizarre twists of these kinds of relationships; after all, realities of infidelity in public life range from broken hearts to murder to exposures and resignations of high-profile leaders.

Advertisement

Atkins, Baucom, and Jacobson (2001) report that "infidelity is a common phenomenon in marriages but is poorly understood" (p. 735). Indeed, in the practice of any couple therapist, it is common for a percentage of couples to present with infidelity-related grievances. Couple therapists are too well aware of the tremendous pain and heartache expressed by clients caught up in the throes of an affair-whether they are the "perpetrator" or the "victim." Infidelity is undeniably harmful-often devastating-to individuals and relationships, and its repercussions present significant treatment challenges (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997).

Clearly, the topic of infidelity is one that is of great importance to the practice of therapists-and even more important to the couples affected. Nevertheless, there is a surprising lack of robust and rigorous research on the topic. Make no mistake: There is no shortage of information-many excellent books address the subject, internet sites and chat forums reach out to wounded partners and repentant "perpetrators," television talk shows and other programs devote airtime to couples struggling in infidelity's aftermath, and tantalizingly written news articles and magazine exposés lure sympathetic and voyeuristic readers. Although there is an inundation of speculation, commiseration, and curiosity surrounding infidelity, the research in this area is extremely diverse in focus, includes many limited research designs, has produced contradictory results, and is, in short, not particularly helpful to the practicing clinician.

As we discuss later in this article, there is little consensus in the literature on what, exactly, infidelity is; neither do researchers agree on what behaviors ought to be considered under the category of infidelity. Therefore, writers use any number of phrases to describe infidelity. For consistency's sake, we will generally use the term infidelity throughout this article. If we choose another word or phrase, we do so only to remain true to the language or variables of the studies we reviewed.

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

This article, the first of two, has one primary purpose-to provide a methodological review and critique of the main scholarly research articles that focus on the subject of infidelity in committed relationships. The second article is a substantive review of the research findings (Blow & Hartnett, this issue).

Atkins et al. (2001) report that the research on infidelity has "suffered serious methodological problems" (p. 736). Similarly, in our review of the infidelity literature, we found that research articles make up only a very small proportion of it, and the few articles that do exist have many methodological limitations. In fact, most of the major works on infidelity (although excellent sources) are based largely on opinion, clinical experience, or limited research of the authors (e.g., Brown, 1999, 2001; Glass, 2002; Pittman, 1989; Spring, 1996). Although these are respected clinicians, their views are limited to their specific worlds and unique clients.

In this article, we review all of the major research studies on infidelity since 1980, and we focus on the methodological strengths and limitations that exist in the research. We do this for two reasons. First, because couple therapy is a scientific field, it is insufficient for practitioners to base their work solely on conjecture and descriptions of authors' clinical experiences. Unfortunately, however, some of the most widely cited clinical literature addressing infidelity is based on opinion and case study information. Further, many infidelity researchers have drawn conclusions based on data derived from methodologically weak studies. When couple therapists turn to literature to inform their practice, it is critical that they cull data from the most methodologically sound studies-or that they at least recognize the limitations of the studies informing their practice. Second, by critically examining the methodologies of infidelity research, we can provide clarity for future research in this key area.


1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  Next