Psychology
2012. Vol.3, No.2, 161-164
Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.32024
Are There Sex Differences in Reaction to Different Types of
Sexual Infidelity?
T. Joel Wade, Ryan Kelley , Dominique Ch urch
Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, USA
Received October 31st, 2011; r evised November 30th, 2011; accepted December 25th, 2011
Evolutionary theory based research shows that women and men can differ in their responses to sexual and
emotional infidelity. However, research has not examined the question of whether men and women react
similarly or differently to a partner’s engagement in different types of sexual infidelity. The present re-
search sought to answer this question. Based on the aforementioned prior research, and short term mating
desires, sex differences in reactions to different types of sexual infidelity were not expected. Both women
and men were expected to report higher levels of upset when a partner engaged in sexual intercourse ra-
ther than when a partner engaged in oral sex, heavy petting, or kissing with another person. The results
were consistent with the hypothesis. Both men and women were most upset by a partner’s engagement in
sexual intercourse with another person. These findings are discussed in terms of prior research.
Keywords: Sexual Infidelity; Oral Sex; Intercourse; Heavy Petting; Kissing
Introduction
Some research finds that men are more upset by their part-
ner’s sexual infidelity while women are more upset by their
partner’s emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Sem-
melroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Cra-
mer, Abraham, Johnson, & Manning-Ryan, 2001-2002; Gol-
denberg, Landau, Pyszczynski, Cox, Greenberg, Solomon, &
Dunnam, 2003; Harris & Christenfeld, 1996, 1998; Pietrzak,
Laird, Stevens, & Thompson, 2002; Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno,
Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003; Schützwohl, 2004; Wiederman &
Allgeier, 1993; Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). Men are more
upset by sexual infidelity because it diminishes their paternity
certainty and women are more upset by emotional infidelity
because it may lead to diminished parental investments from
their male partners (Buss et al., 1992; Buss, 1999; Schützwohl,
2004; Symons, 1979; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993; Wieder-
man & Kendall, 1999). But, this pattern of findings is not very
robust (Sabini & Green, 2004) and some researchers have not
found the aforementioned difference (Bassett, 2005; Geary,
Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard; 1995; Sabini & Green, 2004;
Sabini & Silver, 2005; Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000;
Wade & Fowler, 2006). Additionally, Sagarin (2005) reports
that out of 11 studies examining this issue only 4 show signifi-
cant differences consistent with the aforementioned pattern.
Also, the sex difference does not occur when continuous rather
than categorical measures are used (Harris, 2003). Furthermore,
Mathes (2005) reports that in short term mating contexts both
men and women are most upset by a partner’s commission of
sexual infidelity. Sexual infidelity is more upsetting in short
term mating contexts due to the heightened desire for, and
competition to, find suitable partners.
While researchers have demonstrated that men and women
can differ in what types of infidelity most upset them, no re-
search has examined the question of whether or not sex differ-
ences occur in reaction to a partner’s commission of different
types of sexual infidelity. Would men and women be equally
upset by a partner’s engagement in intercourse, heavy petting,
oral sex, and kissing? Since pregnancy can be a direct result of
sexual intercourse one would expect men to be most threatened
by a partner’s engagement in sexual intercourse with someone
else. In addition, following good genes theory where women
are most concerned with sexual access and there is heightened
competition for sexual access one would also expect women to
be most upset about sexual infidelity that involves sexual in-
tercourse since genetic transmission can only occur with inter-
course. With this in mind, not surprisingly Greitemeyer (2005)
found that women and men view kissing, making out, and
switching partners equally. However, Greitemeyer’s (2005)
research did not examine reactions to sexual infidelity rather it
was an investigation of receptivity to sexual offers. Thus, the
answer to the question is indefinite. Using a repeated measures
design and continuous measures the present research seeks to
determine if there are sex differences in responses to different
types of sexua l infi delity in a short term mating context.
Hypotheses
Since some prior research has found that men and women are
most upset by sexual infidelity (Bassett, 2005; Geary, Rumsey,
Bow-Thomas, & Hoard; 1995; Sabini & Green, 2004; Sabini &
Silver, 2005; Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000; Wade &
Fowler, 2006), Greitemeyer (2005) reports that men and wom-
en view kissing, making out, and switching partners equally,
Mathes (2005) finds that sex differences do not occur in short
term mating contexts, and continuous measures are utilized, sex
differences are not expected. Men and women are both hy-
pothesized to be most upset about a partner’s engagement in
sexual intercourse with another individual.

T. J. WADE ET AL.
Method
Participants
Participants were 40 women and 39 men ranging in age from
18 to 22, M = 19.28, SD = 1.03, recruited from classes on a
college campus in the northeastern US. Their participation was
in partial fulfi llment of course requireme nts, or voluntary.
Procedure
Participants were given a questionnaire that included ques-
tions regarding their age, sex, and sexual orientation, whether
or not they had been in a sexual relationship, what their current
relationship status was, whether or not they were on any pre-
scribed medications, or currently taking birth control, and four
hypo thetical se xual infid elity scenarios: kissing another person,
heavy petting with another person, having oral sex with another
person, and sexual intercourse with another person. The sce-
narios were modified versions of scenarios used by Wiederman
and Kendall (1999) and Wade and Fowler (2006). The follow-
ing scenarios were presented to participants in different orders
to control for possible order of scenario presentation effects:
Infidelity Scenarios
It is revealed that your partner kissed someone else passion-
ately, but did not have intercourse with this person. You are
sure that your partner still loves you very much and values your
relationship. You also realize that what your partner had with
this other person was a one time occurrence and that your part-
ner will never see this person again.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not upset very upset
You find out that your partner had sexual intercourse with
someone else. You are sure that your partner still loves you
very much and values your relationship. You also realize that
what your partner had with this other person was a “one-night
stand” and that your partner wil l never see this person again.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not upset very upset
You find out that your partner had oral sex with someone
else, but did not have intercourse with this person. You are sure
that your partner still loves you very much and values your
relationship. You also realize that what your partner had with
this other person was a “one-night stand” and that your partner
will never see this person again.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not upset very upset
You find out that your partner engaged in some heavy petting
with someone else, but did not have sexual intercourse with this
person. You are sure that your partner still loves you very much
and values your relationship. You also realize that what your
partner had with this other person was a one time occurrence
and that your partner will never see this person again.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not upset very upset
Participants were instructed to rate their expected level of
reaction to each scenario, using a 1 = not upset to 7 = very up-
set scale. Lastly, participants completed a short version of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale to determine whether
or not social desirability biases play a role in participants’ re-
sponses.
Results
A series of repeated measures ANOVAs across sex of par-
ticipant, order of scenario presentation, relationship status, me-
dication use, and sexual orientation, were computed. Addition-
ally, participant’s social desirability scores were included as a
covariate in the analyses. No significant effects occurred for
order of presentation, sex of participant, relationship status,
medication use, or sexual orientation. In addition, there were no
significant effects for social desirability. A significant multi-
variate effect occurred for infidelity scenario, F(3,71) = 6.43, p
< .001, eta squared = .28, observed power = .96. This effect
was accompanied by a significant univariate effect for scenario,
Huynh-Feldt corrected F(2.43, 178.03) = 2.44, p < .0001, eta
squared = 14, observed power =.998. Sexual intercourse was
perceived as most upsetting (M = 6.45, SD = .99), followed by
oral sex (M = 6.01, SD = 1.17), while heavy petting (M = 4.85,
SD = 1.64) and kissing (M = 4.58, SD = 1.62) are least upset-
ting. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections based
on the number of comparisons computed revealed that all of the
means differ significantly from one another except the means
for heavy petting and kissing.
An additional repeated measures ANOVA examining the ef-
fect of birth control usage on women participants’ responses
revealed no significant effect for birth control usa ge.
Discussion
The findings were consistent with the hypothesis. The mean
levels of upset reported show that sexual infidelity involving
sexual intercourse is most upsetting. This is consistent with
prior research examining reactions to sexual and emotional
infidelity (Bassett, 2005; Geary et al., 1995; Sabini & Green,
2004; Sabini & Silver, 2005; Sagarin, 2005; Shackelford et al.,
2000, Wade & Fowler, 2006). This result is a product of the
short term context of the infidelity and the mating context for
this population. Prior research shows that the mating context
for the present sample follows a short term (Flack, Daubman,
Caron, Asadorian, D’Aureli, Kiser, Hall, Gigliotti, & Stine,
2007) and the sexual infidelities in the present research were
described such that they indicate a short term liaison. Mathes
(2005) reports that both women and men find sexual infidelity
more upsetting in a short term context.
The pattern of findings for men can also be explained as a
product of male parental investment concerns. Following pa-
rental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) men should be most
upset by sexual infidelities involving intercourse since inter-
course can lead to pregnancy. With a partner’s commission of
sexual intercourse with another partner men run the risk of
being cuckolded in to caring for and raising another man’s child.
The pattern of findings for women can also be explained as a
product of women’s short term sexual strategies. Women can
engage in short term mating to find good genes, or acquire bet-
ter mates (Greiling & Buss, 2000). A partner’s commission of
sexual intercourse with another diminishes a woman’s opportu-
nity to continue to reap genetic benefits or acquire a better mate
since she is competing with other women for these same bene-
162

T. J. WADE ET AL.
fits. Also, such behavior on the part of a partner would not al-
low a woman the possibility of finding a short term mate that
could turn into a long term mate. Buss and Schmitt (1993) re-
port that women can use short term mating to test for/find long
term mates.
Limitations and Future Study
Since the present research involved hypothetical responses to
infidelity scenarios future research should examine the re-
sponses of men and women who have actually experienced the
various types of sexual infidelity. Also, since an individual’s
mate value characteristics can affect feelings of jealousy ex-
perienced (Brown & Moore, 2003), future research should also
examine how men and women’s mate value characteristics as
well as their rivals’ mate value characteristics affect feelings of
jealousy experienced with different types of sexual infidelity.
Additionally, the sample included in this research is from the
same shared environment which could influence their responses.
Therefore, additional research with samples from diverse envi-
ronments should be conducted. Since culture can interact with
evolutionary adaptations (Buss, 1995; Crawford & Anderson,
1989) it is possible that in other environments the degree of
similarity in responding may be lower. Similarly, future re-
search should examine how the characteristics of rivals affect
men and women of different cultures’ responses to the various
types of sexua l infi delity.
REFERENCES
Bassett, J. F. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy in response to a part-
ner’s imagined sexual or emotional infidelity with a same or different
race other. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 71-84.
Brown, W. M., & Moore, C. (2003). Fluctuating asymmetry and ro-
mantic jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 113-117.
doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00148-4
Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through
sexual selection. Ame ric an Psychologist, 50, 164-168.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the
mind. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bac on .
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.
Psychological Science, 3, 251-155.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204-229. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Buss, D. M., Shackelford , T. K., Kirkp atrick, L. A., Ch oe, J. C., Li m, H.
K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy an d
the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses
about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Per-
sonal Relationships, 6, 125-150.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex
differences in jealousy in evolutionary perspective: Tests from the
Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science,
7, 359-363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x
Carlson, R. A., & Willis, F. N. (1993). Singles ads: Gender, social class,
and time. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29, 387-405.
doi:10.1007/BF00289431
Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B.
(2001-2002). Current psychology: Developmental, learning, person-
ality, social. 20, 327-336. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1015-2
Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environ-
mental discipli ne? American Psychologist, 44, 1449- 1459.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1449
Flack, W. F., Dau bman, K. A., Caron, M., Asadorian , J., D’Aureli, N.,
Kiser, S., Hall, A., Gigliotti, S., & Stine, E. (2007). Risk factors and
consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking
up, alcohol, and stress response, Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
22, 139-157. doi:10.1177/0886260506295354
Geary, D. C., Desoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., & Cooper,
M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy. Human Nature, 12,
299-320. doi:10.1007/s12110-001-1001-2
Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995).
Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of
sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 16, 355- 383. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00057-7
Goldenberg, J. L., Landau, M. J., Pyszczynski, T., Cox, C. R., Green-
berg, J., Solomon, S. & Dunnam, H. (2003). Gender-typical re-
sponses to sexual and emotional infidelity as a function of mortality
salience induced self-esteem striving. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 29, 1585-1595.
doi:10.1177/0146167203256880
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hid-
den dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 28, 929-963. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8
Greitemeyer, T. (2005). Receptivity to sexual offers as a function of sex,
socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the
offer. Pers on al Relationships, 12 , 373-386.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00121.x
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy,
including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interper-
sonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 7, 102-128.
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason.
Psychological Science, 7, 364-366.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00390.x
Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual strate-
gies and sexual jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96 , 29-35.
doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.29-35
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002).
Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-
choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the
same subjects. Ev olution and Human Behavior, 23, 83-94.
doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00078-2
Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and
emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, sam-
ples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
1375-1388. doi:10.1177/0146167204264012
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (2005). Gender and jealousy: Stories of infidel-
ity. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 713-727.
Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconside ring evolved sex differences in jea l o u s y:
Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view, 9, 62-75. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Mil-
levoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy. The
moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation
of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 17-23.
doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00106-X
Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which type of infidelity makes you more jeal-
ous? Decision strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emo-
tional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 121-128.
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional
reactions to infidelity. Cognition and Em otion, 14, 643-659.
doi:10.1080/02699930050117657
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.
Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp.
136-179). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.
Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in responses to sex-
ual and emotional infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness
and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychol-

T. J. WADE ET AL.
164
ogy, 4, 37-50. doi:10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.1.3
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in
sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation? Ethology
and Sociobiology, 14, 115- 140. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)90011-6
Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, K. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy:
Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 20, 121-128. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00046-4