The study tries to find and analyze the factors of alternative monitors of potential romantic partners. With a small sample of 76 people who are in some committed romantic relationship, Niehuis draws on from the literature the most probable predictors that motivate infidelity in the partners. These predictors are categorized into three categories: qualities that partners bring into the relationship (e.g. permissive sexual values, low conscientiousness, low emotional stability etc.); inter-personal feelings and behavior towards each other in the relationship (e.g. lack of trust, lack of commitment and love etc.); and impact of social network (e.g. how the friends, relatives feel about the relationship and its impact).
The sample comprised of equal numbers of male and female participants with an average age of 22 for men and 21 for women. The researcher used McCrae and Costas (1985) Big Five Fersonality measure to rate their own and perception of their partner’s personality. Braiker and Kelleys (1979) Love, Conflict, and Ambivalence scales were used for evaluating the strength of their love in varying situations. Felmlee, Sprecher, and Bassins (1990) 6-item Social Support Scale was used for looking at the extent to which others’ views influence the relationship. Stanley and Markmans (1992) Dedication Commitment, Availability of Fartners, Structural Investment, Social Fressure, and Altemative Monitoring scales were used to evaluate the degree of these characteristics within the partners. Use of Larzelere & Huston’s (1980) dyadic trust scale greatly facilitated to gauge the degree of influence of these predictors in infidelity. Hierarchical regression analysis was carried out with gender as control variable. The study found that interpersonal feelings and behavior was largely responsible for alternative monitoring and males are more prone to be unfaithful.
I find the study particularly interesting because in the