Unforgiveness Motivations in Romantic Relationships Experiencing Infidelity: Negative Affect and Anxious Attachment to the Partner as Predictors

fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 22 March 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00434 Edited by: Alfonso Osorio, University of Navarra, Spain Reviewed by: David L. Rodrigues, Centro de Investigação e de Intervenção Social (CIS-IUL), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal Carlos Chiclana, CEU San Pablo University, Spain *Correspondence: Inmaculada Valor-Segura [email protected] Specialty section: This article was submitted to Gender, Sex and Sexuality Studies, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology Received: 10 December 2018 Accepted: 13 February 2019 Published: 22 March 2019 Citation: Beltrán-Morillas AM, Valor-Segura I and Expósito F (2019) Unforgiveness Motivations in Romantic Relationships Experiencing Infidelity: Negative Affect and Anxious Attachment to the Partner as Predictors. Front. Psychol. 10:434. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00434 Unforgiveness Motivations in Romantic Relationships Experiencing Infidelity: Negative Affect and Anxious Attachment to the Partner as Predictors Ana M. Beltrán-Morillas, Inmaculada Valor-Segura*and Francisca Expósito Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center, Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Infidelity is considered an unforgivable betrayal. However, not all behaviors considered unfaithful affect the person who suffers them in the same way. Therefore, to have a better understanding of unforgiveness according to different extradyadic behaviors, two studies were designed. Study 1 (N= 240) explored which extradyadic behaviors are considered as more indicative of infidelity. The results revealed that sexual behaviors were considered more unfaithful when compared with technological, emotional/affective, and solitary behaviors. Study 2 (N= 378) examined the influence of experienced extradyadic behaviors on unforgiveness, negative affect, and anxious attachment to the partner. The results showed that (a) sexual and technological behaviors were less frequently forgiven and promoted a more intense negative affect, (b) anxious attachment was predictive of unforgiveness for sexual and technological behaviors, and (c) negative affect mediated the relationship between anxious attachment and unforgiveness for sexual and technological behaviors. These findings and their possible implications for romantic relationships are discussed. Keywords: anxious attachment, infidelity, negative affect, romantic relationships, unforgiveness INTRODUCTION Of the many betrayals that can occur within the context of romantic relationships, infidelity is considered the most severe and threatening to the stability of the relationship (Dillow et al., 2011;Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015). This is typically considered an act of unforgivable betrayal, given the high expectations of loyalty and commitment that people hold for their partners (Watkins and Boon, 2016;Fincham and May, 2017) and the time and effort invested in preserving their relationships (Dillow et al., 2011;Fife et al., 2013). In other words, people usually acquire a relational commitment with their partners (i.e., they share property, experiences, time, children, etc.), so they do not expect their partners to engage in acts of intolerable betrayal, such as infidelity (e.g., Dillow et al., 2011;Watkins and Boon, 2016). However, not all types of infidelity are likely to affect people in the same way, given the wide variety of extradyadic behaviors that can be considered unfaithful (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016a). Moreover, within the context of romantic relationships, variables such as anxious attachment to the partner and negative affect have been positively related to unforgiveness (e.g., Prieto-Ursúa et al., 2012;Kimmes and Durtschi, 2016). Nevertheless, although these data shed light on how anxious attachment and negative affect are associated with non-absolution, Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 2 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors the way in which these variables are related to unforgiveness motivations (revenge and avoidance) when people are faced with various extradyadic behaviors has not yet been addressed. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to examine the role of extradyadic behaviors as well as the anxious attachment and negative affect of the offended person on unforgiveness motivations toward the transgressive partner. BETRAYAL OF INFIDELITY: JUDGMENTS AND ASSOCIATED BEHAVIORS Although there are many definitions that have been proposed to explain the concept of infidelity, there is still no agreement regarding its meaning (e.g., Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b; Thompson et al., 2017). An acceptable definition of infidelity could refer to it as a violation of the commitment of relational exclusivity, which can adopt a sexual, emotional, and/or mixed format of short or long duration (Dillow et al., 2011;Fife et al., 2013), with people other than the main partner (Dillow et al., 2011). However, one aspect to be taken into consideration is that the concept of infidelity could differ depending on the culture (e.g., whereas infidelity is not accepted in Western countries such as Spain, Britain, or the United States, Eastern countries such as Thailand tend to be more tolerant because sex has traditionally been commercialized and acceptance of extradyadic sex has increased; Mackay, 2001) and the type of relationship established (e.g., polyamorous couples or some same-sex couples who conceive their relationships away from the traditional romantic relationships and create explicit marriage agreements to make compulsory extradyadic behaviors; Martell and Prince, 2005;Moller and Vossler, 2015). Similarly, this definition is not acceptable if a diversity of opinions and judgments about behaviors that can be considered unfaithful are considered, because they are usually met with some disagreement from one person to another depending on his or her involvement or not with episodes of infidelity. Thus, people tend to judge their partner’s behavior as more indicative of infidelity than their own behavior (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b). Thompson and O’Sullivan (2016a) classified different extradyadic behaviors that people believe to be constitutive of infidelity, establishing four groups of behaviors: (a) behaviors of a sexual nature (e.g., vaginal and or anal penetration or oral sex); (b) technological (e.g., sending someone sexually explicit and or affectionate text messages or emails); (c) emotional/affectionate (e.g., sharing secrets with a person other than the partner); and (d) solitary (e.g., masturbation). Under this classification, recent research shows that behaviors of a sexual nature are judged to be more indicative of infidelity because they tend to include more explicit behaviors and are not ambiguous (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b, 2017;Thompson et al., 2017). Instead, evaluations based on patterns involving technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary behaviors are usually considered more ambiguous behaviors and judged as indicative of infidelity depending on the particularities of the situation which occurred (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b, 2017). According to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, infidelity of a sexual nature is seen as the most serious and the least likely to be forgiven (Pettijohn and Ndoni, 2013;BeltránMorillas et al., 2015). However, with the development of new technologies, the way in which people communicate and access information has changed, which has a considerable impact on romantic relationships (Clayton, 2014). That is, the opportunities to get involved in a relationship other than the primary relationship have increased, as extradyadic behaviors that make up this type of infidelity are easier to cover and deny (Vossler, 2016). Therefore, although infidelity has traditionally been approached from a perspective that implies purely sexual and emotional behaviors, new forms of infidelity are currently being incorporated that involve adulterous behavior of a technological nature, and they also have very harmful consequences for the person who suffers them (Henline et al., 2007;Vossler, 2016). In this context, one of the most agreed-upon definitions of technological infidelity was suggested by Hertlein and Piercy (2008), who defined it as “a romantic or sexual contact facilitated by Internet use that is seen by at least one partner as an unacceptable breach of their marital contract of faithfulness” (p. 484). In this regard, several authors have claimed that a nuance that has remained unchanged in the different definitions is the secret (e.g., people who perform extradyadic behavior can remove applications from their smartphones without leaving clear evidence of their existence because they do not show activity history; Hertlein and Piercy, 2006;Schneider et al., 2012). A recent theoretical–empirical review by Vossler (2016) about the impact of technological infidelity revealed that betraying or deceiving the partner through this type of behavior has devastating effects, in some situations more significant than traditional sexual infidelity (Zitzman and Butler, 2005;Schneider et al., 2012). In this way, people who suffer technological infidelity tend to consider it a real episode of infidelity (Whitty and Quigley, 2008), which raises in the offended person the imperative need to demand therapeutic assistance to face the resulting traumatic impact (Schneider et al., 2012). This impact could be considered from the family ecological perspective, which focuses on the environmental result of ecological influences in romantic and family relationships. More specifically, the family ecological perspective emphasizes how the use of the Internet and new technologies generates changes in the way members of the couple or the family relate (Hertlein and Stevenson, 2010;Hertlein and Blumer, 2014). Thus, Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) conducted an in-depth review of the factors that represent the individual ecological vulnerabilities derived from technological infidelity and revealed the existence of seven factors known as the “Seven As”: anonymity (i.e., people can hide their true identity), accessibility (i.e., people have access to social networks and the Internet from different areas, and can interact with other people), affordability (i.e., Internet products and applications can be downloaded at a very low cost), approximation (i.e., social networks and the Internet let people meet each other face-to-face outside the virtual world), acceptability (i.e., people can develop romantic relationships through new technologies because they are usually a means of common use), accommodation (i.e., new technologies Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 3 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors provide people with new opportunities to behave according to their true self, rather than as they should be), and ambiguity (i.e., communication and determining some behaviors as problematic or questionable may vary between people). Such factors have shown severe consequences for people who suffer this type of extradyadic behavior (Hertlein and Blumer, 2014). Consequently, technological infidelity—like traditional sexual infidelity—induces strong negative feelings in the offended person (e.g., feelings of anger, fear, shame or guilt; Whitty, 2005; Zitzman and Butler, 2005;Schneider et al., 2012), undermines marital quality, and results in loss of trust in the partner (e.g., Whitty, 2005;Schneider et al., 2012;Valenzuela et al., 2014), commonly concluding in separation or divorce (Whitty, 2005). In this regard, for instance, Whitty (2005) analyzed the perceptions of technological infidelity and its impact on the romantic relationship and found that participants referred to technological behaviors as infidelity. Similarly, the results of the study indicated that the participants noticed similar effects to those reported for traditional sexual infidelity, such as guilt, shame, loss of trust in the partner, and ending the relationship. At this point, it is not surprising that infidelity has been considered a common phenomenon that affects many couples regardless of their nature (e.g., marriage, cohabiting, or dating relationships; Treas and Giesen, 2000;Lishner et al., 2008;Fife et al., 2013), so much so that infidelity rates fluctuate significantly according to various studies (Baucom et al., 2006;Abrahamson et al., 2012;Watkins and Boon, 2016;Fincham and May, 2017), with estimations of its prevalence at just over 60% (Abrahamson et al., 2012;Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b). Around 40% is attributed to men and approximately 20–25% to women (Abrahamson et al., 2012;Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b; Fincham and May, 2017). As far as the Spanish population is concerned, a study conducted in 2015 by the Ipsos Institute of Research and Marketing revealed that 35% of men and 26% of women confessed to having been unfaithful to their partner at some point in their lives, resulting in a higher percentage than in other countries of the European Union. According to some data provided by the General Council of the Judiciary in 2016, the divorce rate in Spain has increased, alleging infidelity as one of the main reasons, together with the facilities to access the Internet and social networks as precursors of such extradyadic behaviors. NEGATIVE AFFECT AND ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT ON UNFORGIVENESS MOTIVATIONS IN THE FACE OF INFIDELITY Unforgiveness is a response that the offended person manifests as a result of an act of betrayal, transgression, or severe interpersonal offense which generates a stressful or threatening situation for the ego (e.g., Berry et al., 2005;Wenzel and Okimoto, 2010). According to Berry et al. (2005) unforgiveness covers different motivations oriented toward revenge and/or avoidance of the person who transgresses the personal limits. In this sense, the motivation for avoidance has been defined as “the attempt to reduce stress by regulating one’s emotions and cognitions about the situation (e.g., venting emotions, accepting the problem, reinterpretation, and rumination), which often means assigning a new meaning to the event” (Strelan and Wojtysiak, 2009, p. 99). On the other hand, motivation for revenge has been conceptualized in various ways. For example, Govier (2002) stated that “when we seek revenge, we seek satisfaction by attempting to harm the other (or associated persons) as a retaliatory measure” (p. 2). In the same way, other social psychologists define it as “the intention to see the transgressor suffer” (Schumann and Ross, 2010, p. 1193). Hence, according to various authors, the most common occurrence of revenge motivation is the willful intention to inflict damage on the person who transgresses (e.g., Frijda, 1994;Carlsmith et al., 2008; McCullough et al., 2013;Gausel et al., 2018). Considering the above motivations, Worthington and Scherer (2004) pointed out that when an interpersonal event ensues, the offended person experiences a sense of injustice that he or she tries to restore, either through evasive behavior or through a manifest motivation for revenge in the form of repressive or coercive behavior against the transgressor. However, such behaviors arise mainly when severe situations such as infidelity occur, which is perceived by the offended party as an unforgivable betrayal (Fitness, 2001; Morrissette, 2012). In connection with the aforementioned issues, constructs such as negative affective state and anxious attachment to the partner could influence the type of initial motivation that the offended person manifests as a consequence of infidelity, as shown by numerous studies that examined the role of negative affect and anxious attachment in unforgiveness (e.g., Finkel et al., 2007;McCullough et al., 2007;Zhang et al., 2015;Kimmes and Durtschi, 2016). Negative affect tends to manifest itself naturally when one of the parties is hurt by the action of the other, which is called ongoing negative affect (ONA; Merolla, 2008). This negative emotional state induces in the offended person a subjective experience of “non-forgiveness” that leads him or her to respond with revenge or avoidance behaviors toward the other person (Prieto-Ursúa et al., 2012). Emotions such as anger, fear, guilt, or resentment have been related to a greater motivation for revenge (McCullough et al., 2007;Rijavec et al., 2013), whereas other emotions such as shame or sadness have been associated with greater motivation to avoid the offending person (Schmader and Lickel, 2006;Leventhal, 2008). Conversely, the configuration of attachment relationships that is established in the early stages of life is considered a relevant particularity in human beings for the adequate development of affective and romantic bonds in adult life (Bowlby, 1973; Hazan and Shaver, 1987;Cirhinlio˘ glu et al., 2016). Thus, the style of attachment in adulthood may develop in a double slope: secure attachment (Hazan and Shaver, 1987;Cirhinlio˘ glu et al., 2016) or insecure attachment that, in turn, can result in an avoidant attachment style or an anxious attachment style (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007;Cirhinlio˘ glu et al., 2016). More specifically, anxious attachment has been described as a deep yearning for intimacy, a high agitation about the feelings of the other person, and excessive fear of rejection or abandonment by the partner (Valor-Segura et al., 2009;Morey et al., 2013), Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 4 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors conceiving the most pathological dimension of the concept of interpersonal dependency on the partner when related to higher incidence of suffering affective, depressive, and anxiety disorders (Valor-Segura et al., 2009). Empirical evidence has shown that people who are high in anxious attachment frequently exhibit different surveillance strategies (e.g., Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007;Simpson and Rholes, 2015), as well as try to behave in a way that attracts or brings them closer to their partner (e.g., getting involved in infidelity to get their partner’s attention; for further review see McDaniel et al., 2017). Focusing on the first aspect, it has been argued that people with high anxious attachment experience discomfort when their needs to approach the partner are not met, expressing hypervigilance, control and intrusion behaviors, which would be oriented toward achieving closeness, care and attention by the partner (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007;Simpson and Rholes, 2015). However, with regard to the relationship between anxious attachment and unforgiveness, several studies have shown that people with high levels of anxious attachment are driven by strong motivations for avoidance and revenge toward the partner (Finkel et al., 2007;Kimmes and Durtschi, 2016), mainly when the situation is perceived as risky for the continuity of the relationship (e.g., witnessing the infidelity of the partner; see Besser and Priel, 2009). According to various scholars, this is related to the fact that these people have difficultly disassociating themselves from perceived threats to their relationship (Mikulincer et al., 2002). Consequently, people with high levels of anxious attachment seem to react against disturbing situations with intense negative emotions (Barry et al., 2007;Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007;Marshall et al., 2013) and a high motivation not to forgive his or her partner (Finkel et al., 2007;Besser and Priel, 2011) because he or she experiences higher levels of jealousy (Barry et al., 2007;Marshall et al., 2013). More specifically, infidelity has been established as the main reason for divorce and conjugal violence (Fife et al., 2013; Watkins and Boon, 2016;Fincham and May, 2017), having a significant negative impact on both members of the relationship and especially on the person who suffers it (e.g., Fincham and May, 2017). Therefore, because infidelity is considered an act of serious and threatening betrayal for the continuity of the relationship—mainly sexual and technological, perceived as similar in terms of seriousness (e.g., Schneider et al., 2012; Vossler, 2016)—it is likely that the offended person with a high level of anxious attachment experiences an intense negative affect formed by various emotions, which, in turn, may be related to his or her motivation not to forgive his or her transgressive partner. It is worth noting that among the two types of insecure attachment, this research will focus on the construct of anxious attachment, because studies have indicated that anxious attachment is associated more with the predictive variables related to infidelity (e.g., Russell et al., 2013). In the same way, it is noteworthy to focus on the unforgiveness motivations, given that several studies have shown that unforgiveness is negatively associated with the psychological well-being of the offended person (e.g., Gordon et al., 2005;Kluwer and Karremans, 2009) because if he or she does not forgive his or her partner, then he or she sustains the debt established by the betrayal (Kluwer and Karremans, 2009). THE CURRENT RESEARCH Research addressing the topic of infidelity is important; however, the vast majority of existing studies used a methodology of scenarios or forced choice dilemmas (e.g., Sabini and Green, 2004;Lishner et al., 2008;Pettijohn and Ndoni, 2013) and focused exclusively on sexual and emotional infidelity (e.g., Sabini and Green, 2004;Lishner et al., 2008;Pettijohn and Ndoni, 2013;Buss, 2018). Moreover, so far there is no evidence of researchers who have explored in the Spanish population the role of unforgiveness in relation to the various extradyadic behaviors experienced by the offended person. That is why, given the scarcity of studies that refer to infidelity in the Spanish context—despite infidelity being considered one of the main reasons for divorce—it is imperative to study the effects of this phenomenon on the Spanish population. Most current studies regarding anxious attachment addressed the influence of this orientation on the performance of individual patterns of mate retention (e.g., Barbaro et al., 2016;McDaniel et al., 2017). Likewise, existing investigations on infidelity approached it from the perspective of the perpetration of this betrayal, that is, how anxious attachment can be a predictor of engaging in an act of infidelity (e.g., Russell et al., 2013; Drouin et al., 2015). However, to date there are no known studies that considered the relationship of anxious attachment to the partner and negative affect on the various motivations for unforgiveness (revenge and avoidance) based on the extradyadic behaviors that make up each type of infidelity and considering the perspective of the offended person. Therefore, to provide greater knowledge to this field of research, two studies were designed: The first study was a pilot study to explore what kind of behaviors the Spanish population judges as more indicative of infidelity. It was expected that sexual behaviors (vs. technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary) would be evaluated as more constitutive of infidelity (Hypothesis 1). The purpose of the second study was to examine the role of extradyadic behaviors, anxious attachment, and negative affect on unforgiveness (motivation for revenge and avoidance) toward the transgressive partner. Although sexual infidelity has been considered the most severe, and those behaviors are recognized more explicitly (e.g., Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015;Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b, 2017), recent literature has shown that, when it comes to a real episode of infidelity, behaviors that involve patterns of a technological nature can cause similar or even greater affliction than sexual ones (e.g., Schneider et al., 2012;Vossler, 2016). Therefore, the study was intended to do the following: (a) analyze the role of the extradyadic behaviors suffered on the motivations for revenge and avoidance toward the partner, expecting to find greater unforgiveness in the face of behaviors that involve to sexual and technological infidelity (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary; Hypothesis 2); (b) analyze the role of extradyadic behaviors experienced on negative affect, expecting to find more intense negative emotions in response to sexual and technological behaviors (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary; Hypothesis 3); (c) analyze the role of extradyadic behaviors and anxious attachment on unforgiveness motivations (revenge and avoidance), expecting that anxious attachment Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 5 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors would be predictive of less forgiveness of sexual and technological behaviors (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary; Hypothesis 4); (d) analyze the role of extradyadic behaviors and negative affect on unforgiveness motivations, expecting that negative affect would be predictive of less forgiveness of sexual and technological behaviors (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary; Hypothesis 5); and e) examine whether the relationship between anxious attachment and negative affect is associated, in turn, with greater unforgiveness, especially in the face of extradyadic behaviors of a sexual and technological nature (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary; Hypothesis 6). PILOT STUDY (STUDY 1) Methods Participants The initial sample consisted of 240 participants from the general population (120 women and 120 men), aged between 18 and 58 years (M= 27.06, SD = 7.26). Eight participants were excluded from the analysis because they did not complete the measure of interest. Thus, the final sample consisted of 232 participants from the Spanish population who were currently in a relationship (118 women and 114 men), with an average age of 27.54 (SD = 7.72; range from 18 to 59). Of the sample, 59.5% reported maintaining a dating relationship, 31.9% were living with their partner, and 8.6% reported being in a marriage. The average duration of the relationship was 59.55 months (SD = 76.65). In addition, 31.9% reported having suffered an incident of infidelity at some point in their lives. Design and Procedure Participants voluntarily filled out an online questionnaire through the Qualtrics research platform and did received no monetary compensation for their participation. The research was disseminated through various platforms and social networks (Facebook and Twitter), requiring that participants were Spanish and were currently in a romantic relationship. Before they completed the questionnaire, they were informed that the general purpose of the study was to examine “different emotional and motivational aspects involved in maintaining interpersonal relationships.” They were also informed of the anonymity of their responses and were guaranteed total confidentiality. Then, to provide their consent, participants had to check a box with the statement, “After being informed of the above, I agree to participate in the study.” We would like to add the Participants gave informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The research was carried out after receiving the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada. An intra-subject factorial design was used involving an exploratory survey methodology (Balcells-Junyent, 1994) by means of which participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they believed that each of the different behaviors could be considered infidelity. The behaviors were grouped into four blocks (sexual, technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary) according to the typology of extradyadic behavior proposed by Thompson and O’Sullivan (2016a). Instruments Sociodemographic characteristics Data about sex, age, if they were currently in a relationship, the duration of the relationship, relationship status, and if they had ever experienced an incident of infidelity were collected. The definitions of infidelity questionnaire (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016a) This questionnaire consists of 32 items structured in four subscales describing the different extradyadic behaviors that can be considered unfaithful: sexual/explicit behavior (seven items; e.g., “Engaging in penile–vaginal intercourse with someone,” “Receiving oral sex from someone”); online/technological behaviors (seven items; e.g., “Sending sexually explicit messages by text or email to someone,” “Receiving affectionate/flirtatious texts or emails from someone”); emotional/affectionate behaviors (thirteen items; e.g., “Receiving close emotional support from someone,” “Sharing secrets with someone”); and solitary behaviors (five items; e.g., “Engaging in masturbation alone,” “Viewing pornographic magazines alone”). A translation and back-translation process was carried out (English–Spanish/Spanish–English) according to the usual standards. This measure has a Likert-type response format with seven response options ranging from 1 (not at all unfaithful) to 7 (very unfaithful). The original measure has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, revealing an internal consistency of 0.95 for sexual behaviors, 0.91 for online/technological behaviors, 0.95 for emotional/affectionate behaviors, and.88 for solitary behaviors. It has also demonstrated test–retest reliability, with a 6-week interval = r(156) = 0.96, p<0.001. The alpha coefficient obtained in the present study for the subscales was 0.94 for sexual behaviors, 0.91 for online/technological behaviors, 0.94 for emotional/affectionate behaviors, and 0.88 for solitary behaviors. Analysis Strategy To inquire about what kinds of behaviors are estimated to be more unfaithful, a repeated measures mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used, including as covariates the duration and status of the couple’s relationship as well as if they had suffered an incident of infidelity. Results Type of infidelity and extradyadic behaviors To verify whether behaviors involving sexual patterns (vs. technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary) are judged as more indicative of infidelity (Hypothesis 1), a repeated-measures mixed ANOVA was performed.1In this analysis, the previously mentioned elements were included as covariates. First, it should be noted that no significant results of sex were found, nor any interaction between the type of infidelity X sex on extradyadic behaviors. The results 1Sex was analyzed as an exploratory variable between subjects to check if the results obtained differed according to the sex of the participants. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 6 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors showed that the type of infidelity influenced the perception of extradyadic behaviors, F(1,227) = 342.28, p<0.001, η2 p= 0.60, so that sexual behaviors were considered more constitutive of infidelity (M= 6.32, SD = 1.20), followed by technological (M= 5.23, SD = 1.51), emotional/affectionate (M= 1.54, SD = 0.77), and solitary behaviors (M= 1.35, SD = 0.73), confirming Hypothesis 1. Likewise, pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test revealed significant differences between all types of extradyadic behaviors, thus establishing distinctions between sexual/technological (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.888,1.300]), sexual/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.4.542,5.023]), sexual/solitary (p<0.001, 95% CI [4.718,5.208]), technological/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [3.443, 3.934]), technological/solitary (p<0.001, 95% CI [3.602, 4.136]), and emotional/solitary behaviors (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.062,0.298]). In addition, it is important to note that these results were found regardless of the relationship duration, relationship status, and experience with infidelity. STUDY 2 The results of the previous study show that sexual behaviors (vs. technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary) are judged to be the most indicative of infidelity given their ostensible and severe character (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b, 2017;Thompson et al., 2017). However, in light of the real experience of infidelity, extradyadic behaviors of a technological nature also have very harmful effects on the person who suffers them (Vossler, 2016), which encourages thinking about the harmful consequences that new technologies can have for romantic relationships. That is why, because both types of behaviors have notoriously negative consequences, a second study was designed to examine what kinds of variables are related to the fact that people experiencing certain extradyadic behaviors (sexual/technological vs. emotional/solitary) manifest motivations for revenge and avoidance, and therefore greater unforgiveness toward the transgressive partner. Methods Participants The initial sample consisted of 378 participants from the general population (206 women and 172 men), aged between 18 and 60 years (M= 28.11, SD = 7.09). As in Study 1, 28 participants were removed from the analyses because they did not complete the measures of interest. The final sample consisted of 350 participants from the Spanish population who were in a relationship at present (195 women and 155 men), with an average age of 28.93 years (SD = 7.35, range from 18 to 59) and an average relationship duration of 64.96 months (SD = 66.58). Of the participants, 51.4% indicated that they were engaged in a dating relationship, 32.9% were living with their partner, and 15.7% were married. Finally, the reported prevalence of unfaithful behaviors experienced by the participants was 53.4% for those of a sexual nature, 56.6% for technological, 98% for emotional/affectionate, and 98.3% for solitary behaviors. Design and Procedure The same procedure as in Study 1 was followed. The participants voluntarily filled out an online questionnaire through the Qualtrics research platform and did not receive monetary compensation for their participation. The research required that participants were Spanish and were currently in a romantic relationship and was disseminated through various platforms and social networks (Facebook and Twitter). Participants were informed that the general purpose of the study was to examine “different emotional and motivational aspects involved in maintaining interpersonal relationships.” They were also informed of the anonymity of their responses and were guaranteed total confidentiality. Then, to obtain their consent, participants had to check a box with the statement, “After being informed of the above, I agree to participate in the study.” As in Study 1, the participants gave informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Similarly, the research was conducted after receiving the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada. An intra-subject factorial design was used whereby participants were presented with the different types of extradyadic behaviors (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016a) and asked to indicate which of them they had ever experienced in their relationship. As in Study 1, such behaviors were grouped into blocks according to their nature (sexual, technological, emotional/affectionate, and solitary). First, participants responded to the measure of anxious attachment to the partner, and then, after each block of behaviors, participants answered the measures of negative affect and unforgiveness motivations. Participants who indicated not having experienced any of the extradyadic behaviors of a block in question passed directly to another block of behaviors. Instruments Sociodemographic characteristics The same data as in Study 1 were collected. Spouse-specific dependency scale (Rathus and O’Leary, 1997; Spanish version of Valor-Segura et al., 2009) The anxious attachment subscale consisted of five items (e.g., “I feel rejected when my partner is very busy”). The response format is Likert-type with six response options ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). This scale has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in the measurement of the construct of anxious attachment to the partner in the Spanish context, showing an internal consistency of 0.90 in the adaptation of the scale to the Spanish population. For the sample, an alpha coefficient of 0.75 was obtained. The definitions of infidelity questionnaire (Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016a) This questionnaire was described in Study 1. Unlike in Study 1, participants were asked to report which of the 32 extradyadic behaviors they had experienced in their relationship. Participants answered using a binary response format “No” and “Yes,” which were coded as 0 and 1, respectively. Then, a composite score was created with the number of extradyadic behaviors suffered. That is, the affirmative answers belonging to each Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 7 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors category were added (sum of “Yes” responses). The alpha coefficients obtained in this study were 0.94 for sexual behaviors, 0.85 for technological behaviors, 0.82 for emotional/affectionate behaviors, and 0.61 for solitary behaviors. It is important to note that the internal reliability was calculated using the Kuder and Richardson Formula 20 (KR20), a particularity of the alpha coefficient used in special cases in which the items are binary measures (Kuder and Richardson, 1937). The positive and negative affect schedule (Watson et al., 1988; Spanish adaptation of Sandín et al., 1999) The Negative Affect subscale composed of 10 items assessing the negative affective state of the individual at a given time (e.g., “I felt sad,” “I felt anger”). It is a Likert-type response format with five options ranging from 1 (nothing) to 5 (a lot). For the present study, an alpha coefficient of 0.96 was obtained. Transgression-related interpersonal motivations scale-12-item form (McCullough et al., 1998) This scale assesses different motivations that people experience after an interpersonal offense. It consists of 12 items divided into two subscales: revenge (five items; e.g., “I will make him/her pay”) and avoidance (seven items; e.g., “I am finding it difficult to act warmly toward him/her”). The response format is Likert-type with five response options ranging from 1 (totally disagree) a 5 (totally agree). The scale has shown appropriate psychometric properties in studies developed with Spanish samples (e.g., Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015). In this sample, an alpha coefficient of 0.91 was obtained for the revenge subscale and 0.96 for the avoidance subscale. Analysis Strategy First, to obtain information about the way in which the variables of interest are associated with each type of extradyadic behavior, different analyses of bivariate correlations were conducted (see Table 1). To inquire about what kind of extradyadic behaviors cause greater unforgiveness motivations, as well as a negative affective state of greater intensity, different repeated measures mixed-design ANOVAs were performed, including the duration and status of the couple’s relationship as covariates. Subsequently, to test the initial predictions about the role of anxious attachment and negative affect on unforgiveness motivations, mainly in sexual and technological extradyadic behaviors, a multiple linear regression analysis was implemented (see Tables 3,4). Finally, to determine if the negative affective state mediates the relationship between anxious attachment and unforgiveness motivations in sexual and technological extradyadic behaviors (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary), several simple mediation analyses were performed using Model 4 of the PROCESS macro program (Hayes, 2013; see Tables 5,6and Figures 1,2). The duration and status of the couple’s relationship were included as covariates in said model. Results Type of extradyadic behaviors and unforgiveness motivations (avoidance and revenge) To examine whether the experienced behaviors of a sexual and technological nature (emotional/affectionate vs. solitary) TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables for different extradyadic behaviors (Study 2). Sexual behaviors Technological behaviors Emotional behaviors Solitary behaviors 1234123412341234 (1) Motivation for Revenge – – – – (2) Motivation for Avoidance 0.58∗ ∗ – 0.52∗ ∗ – 0.62∗ ∗ – 0.58∗ ∗ – (3) Anxious Attachment 0.26∗ ∗ 0.12 – 0.24∗ ∗ 0.12 – 0.08 0.09 – 0.08 0.04 – (4) Negative Affect 0.43∗ ∗ 0.54∗ ∗ 0.20∗ ∗ – 0.36∗ ∗ 0.46∗ ∗ 0.30∗ ∗ – 0.41∗ ∗ 0.50∗ ∗ 0.33∗ ∗ – 0.29∗ ∗ 0.40∗ ∗ 0.18∗ ∗ – M1.54 2.79 2.41 3.04 1.40 2.46 2.41 2.76 1.15 1.49 2.41 1.59 1.13 1.34 2.41 1.43 SD 0.83 1.50 0.97 1.55 0.70 1.38 0.97 1.35 0.42 0.90 0.97 0.88 0.38 0.79 0.97 0.76 ∗ ∗ p<0.01. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 8 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors give rise to greater unforgiveness motivations toward the partner (Hypothesis 2), a repeated-measures mixed ANOVA was carried out.2In this analysis, the covariates referred to above were included. In relation to sex, neither significant results nor results of interaction between the type of extradyadic behaviors and sex on avoidance and on revenge were found. The results showed that the extradyadic behaviors influenced avoidance, F(1,127) = 7.97, p= 0.006, η2 p= 0.06; both sexual (M= 2.98, SD = 1.48) and technological behaviors (M= 2.55, SD = 1.42) encouraged a greater avoidance toward the transgressive partner, followed by emotional/affectionate (M= 1.70, SD = 1.09) and solitary behaviors (M= 1.52, SD = 1.00). Furthermore, through the Bonferroni test, pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between all types of behaviors, except for emotional/affectionate and solitary behaviors (p>0.05). Thus, differences between sexual/technological (p= 0.001, 95% CI [0.138,0.722]), sexual/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.924,1.646]), sexual/solitary (p<0.001, 95% CI [1.082,1.831]), technological/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.499,1.211]), and technological/solitary behaviors (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.704,1.349]) were obtained. The results also showed that extradyadic behaviors influenced revenge, F(1,127) = 29.79, p<0.001, η2 p= 0.19; sexual (M= 1.63, SD = 0.89) and technological unfaithful behaviors (M= 1.48, SD = 0.76) promoted a greater revenge toward the transgressive partner, followed by emotional/affectionate (M= 1.24, SD = 0.53) and solitary behaviors (M= 1.20, SD = 0.48). As with the previous result, pairwise comparisons showed significant differences among all types of behaviors, except for sexual and technological, and for emotional/affectionate and solitary behaviors (p>0.05). In this way, differences were revealed between sexual/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.222,0.574]), sexual/solitary (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.233,0.645]), technological/emotional (p= 0.001, 95% CI [0.080,0.403]), and technological/solitary behaviors (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.106,0.460]). These results confirm Hypothesis 2. It is also noteworthy to point out that these results were obtained regardless of the duration and status of the couple’s relationship. Type of extradyadic behaviors and negative affect To analyze whether extradyadic behaviors of a sexual and technological nature (vs. emotional/affectionate and solitary) 2As in Study 1, sex was analyzed as an exploratory variable between-subjects to check if the results obtained differed according to the sex of the participants. cause a more intense negative affect in the person experiencing them (Hypothesis 3), a repeated-measures mixed ANOVA was performed. The duration and status of the couple’s relationship were included as covariates. The results revealed that extradyadic behaviors influenced negative affect, F(1,127) = 12.43, p= 0.001, η2 p= 0.09; behaviors of a sexual and technological nature (Msexual = 3.15, SD = 1.50; Mtechnological = 2.81, SD = 1.46) provoked a more intense negative affect in the person who suffered them, followed by emotional/affectionate (M= 1.75, SD = 1.03) and solitary behaviors (M= 1.51, SD = 0.84). These findings verify Hypothesis 3. Likewise, it should be mentioned that these results were obtained regardless of the covariates identified above. The results also showed an effect of interaction between the type of extradyadic behaviors and sex on negative affect, F(1,127) = 19.77, p<0.001, η2 p= 0.13; women experienced a greater negative affect when faced with all types of extradyadic behaviors compared to men (see Table 2). The Bonferroni test showed significant differences between all types of extradyadic behavior, except for emotional/affectionate and solitary behaviors (p>0.05). Thus, differences were found between sexual/technological (p= 0.002, 95% CI [0.095,0.593]), sexual/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [1.132,1.680]), sexual/solitary (p<0.001, 95% CI [1.341,1944]), technological/emotional (p<0.001, 95% CI [.778, 1.346]), and technological/solitary behaviors (p<0.001, 95% CI [0.993,1.605]). Type of extradyadic behaviors, anxious attachment to the partner, and negative affect on unforgiveness motivations (avoidance and revenge) To examine whether anxious attachment to the partner and negative affect are predictive of greater unforgiveness (motivation for avoidance and revenge), mainly in the face of sexual and technological behaviors (vs. emotional and solitary; Hypotheses 4 and 5), a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. The introduced predictive variables were sex (0 = men; 1 = women), anxious attachment and negative affect, and the motivations for revenge and avoidance were criteria variables. Similarly, the duration and status of the couple’s relationship were included as control variables. All scores were standardized before the corresponding analysis was performed, contrasting the effects of the control variables in the first step, the predictive variables in the second step, and interaction effects in relation to sex in the third step (see Tables 3,4). TABLE 2 | Mean scores and standard deviations of the participants on negative affect according to the different types of extradyadic behaviors (Study 2). Women Men SB TB EB SLB SB TB EM SLB M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Negative Affect 3.89 (0.16) 3.32 (0.17) 1.99 (0.13) 1.73 (0.10) 2.43 (0.16) 2.31 (0.17) 1.52 (0.12) 1.30 (0.10) SB, Sexual Behaviors; TB, Technological Behaviors; EB, Emotional Behaviors; SLB, Solitary Behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 9 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors TABLE 3 | Effect of anxious attachment and negative affect on motivation for avoidance depending on the type of extradyadic behaviors (Study 2). Motivation for avoidance SB TB EB SLB βt p βt p βt p βT p Step 1 Duration Relationship −0.22 −2.30 0.023 −0.12 −1.40 0.163 −0.01 −0.03 0.974 0.00 0.06 0.949 Status Couple’s Relationship 0.14 1.52 0.130 0.04 0.51 0.614 −0.04 −0.59 0.552 −0.02 −0.22 0.822 R20.028 0.011 0.002 0.000 Adjusted R20.017 0.001 −0.004 −0.006 Step 2 Sex −0.15 2.16 0.032 −0.14 2.03 0.043 −0.04 −0.73 0.464 0.01 0.23 0.821 Anxious Attachment 0.02 0.25 0.800 −0.01 −0.21 0.831 −0.08 −1.53 0.126 −0.04 −0.81 0.420 Negative Affect 0.60 8.69 <0.001 0.52 7.25 <0.001 0.54 10.67 <0.001 0.43 8.34 <0.001 R20.325 0.233 0.263 0.179 Adjusted R20.306 0.213 0.252 0.167 Step 3 A. Attachment ×Sex 0.15 1.60 0.111 −0.07 −0.69 0.492 −0.11 −1.46 0.144 −0.18 −2.40 0.117 N. Affect ×Sex −0.02 −0.24 0.811 −0.05 −0.51 0.608 0.00 0.01 0.990 0.25 2.59 0.710 R20.334 0.237 0.268 0.205 Adjusted R20.308 0.209 0.253 0.188 SB, Sexual Behaviors; TB, Technological Behaviors; EB, Emotional Behaviors; SLB, Solitary Behaviors. TABLE 4 | Effect of anxious attachment and negative affect on motivation for revenge depending on the type of extradyadic behaviors (Study 2). Motivation for revenge SB TB EM SLB βt p βt p βt p βt p Step 1 Duration Relationship −0.23 −2.44 0.016 −0.18 −2.08 0.039 0.04 0.56 0.573 0.04 0.56 0.575 Status Couple’s Relationship 0.11 1.17 0.244 0.05 0.59 0.553 −0.06 −0.76 0.448 −0.07 −1.16 0.248 R20.033 0.025 0.002 0.004 Adjusted R20.022 0.015 −0.004 −0.002 Step 2 Sex −0.11 −1.57 0.119 −0.07 −0.95 0.342 −0.09 −1.74 0.083 −0.08 −1.39 0.166 Anxious Attachment 0.19 2.84 0.005 0.14 2.03 0.044 −0.05 −0.98 0.330 0.03 0.67 0.503 Negative Affect 0.44 6.00 <0.001 0.34 4.60 <0.001 0.45 8.53 <0.001 0.31 5.70 <0.001 R20.247 0.169 0.185 0.098 Adjusted R20.227 0.147 0.173 0.085 Step 3 A. Attachment ×Sex 0.12 1.22 0.223 0.13 1.26 0.207 0.02 0.28 0.781 −0.16 −2.02 0.344 N. Affect ×Sex −0.09 −0.88 0.381 −0.02 −0.23 0.815 −0.04 −0.45 0.653 0.16 1.55 0.121 R20.256 0.176 0.186 0.113 Adjusted R20.226 0.145 0.169 0.094 SB, Sexual Behaviors; TB, Technological Behaviors; EB, Emotional Behaviors; SLB, Solitary Behaviors. As seen in Table 3, in relation to “motivation for avoidance,” the results showed that negative affect is predictive of greater avoidance in all types of extradyadic behaviors: sexual (β= 0.60, p<0.001), technological (β= 0.52, p<0.001), emotional/affectionate (β= 0.54, p<0.001), and solitary (β= 0.43, p<0.001). People with intense negative affect seem to show higher motivation to avoid and, therefore, not to forgive their partner, which is indicative of infidelity. In addition, the results revealed a main effect of sex when faced with behaviors of a sexual (β=−0.15, p= 0.032) and technological nature (β=−0.14, p= 0.043); men (MSB = 2.91, SD = 1.62; MTB = 2.50, SD = 1.41) compared to women (MSB = 2.67, SD = 1.36; MTB = 2.42, SD = 1.34) seemed to exhibit greater motivation for avoidance and, therefore, not to forgive their partner in light of this kind of extradyadic behavior. The duration of the relationship, included as a covariate, was significant only for sexual behaviors (β=−0.22, p= 0.023). That is, a shorter time committed to the relationship predicts greater motivation to avoid the transgressive partner. With respect to “motivation for revenge” (Table 4), the results revealed that anxious attachment is predictive of greater revenge in the face of behaviors of a sexual (β= 0.19, p= 0.005) and technological nature (β= 0.14, p= 0.044). People with high levels of anxious attachment seem to experience higher motivation to take revenge on their partner following sexual and technological extradyadic behaviors. Likewise, the results revealed that negative affect is predictive of greater revenge in all types of extradyadic behaviors: sexual (β= 0.44, p<0.001), Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 16 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors Kimmes, J. G., and Durtschi, J. A. (2016). Forgiveness in romantic relationships: the roles of attachment, attributions, and empathy. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 42, 645–658. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12171 Kluwer, E. S., and Karremans, J. (2009). Unforgiving motivations following infidelity: should we make peace with our past? J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 28, 1298–1325. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.10.1298 Knox, D., Zusman, M., and Nieves, W. (1997). College students’ homogamous preference for a date and mate. Coll. Stud. J. 31, 445–448. Kuder, G. F., and Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 2, 151–160. doi: 10.1007/BF02288391 Lemay, E. P., and Venaglia, R. P. (2016). Relationship expectations and relationship quality. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 20, 57–70. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000066 Leventhal, A. M. (2008). Sadness, depression, and avoidance behavior. Behav. Modif. 32, 759–779. doi: 10.1177/0145445508317167 Lishner, D. A., Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L., and Zillmer, E. J. (2008). Are sexual and emotional infidelity equally upsetting to men and women? Making sense of forced-choice responses. Evol. Psychol. 6, 667–675. doi: 10.1177/ 147470490800600412 Luchies, L. B., Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Eastwick, P. W., Coolsen, M. K., et al. (2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 673–694. doi: 10.1037/ a0031054 Mackay, J. (2001). Global sex: sexuality and sexual practices around the world. Sex. Relation. Ther. 16, 71–82. doi: 10.1080/14681990020021575 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., and Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav. Res. 39, 99–128. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., and Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: the relationship contexts of “non-relationship” sex. J. Adolesc. Res. 21, 459–483. doi: 10.1177/0743558406291692 Marcussen, K., Ritter, A., and Safron, D. J. (2004). The role of identity salience and commitment in the stress process. Sociol. Perspect. 47, 289–312. doi: 10.1525/ sop.2004.47.3.289 Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., and Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors of facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Pers. Relatsh. 20, 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x Martell, C. R., and Prince, S. E. (2005). Treating infidelity in same-sex couples. J. Clin. Psychol. 61, 1429–1438. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20192 Mattingly, B., Wilson, K., Clark, E., Bequette, A., and Weidler, D. (2010). Foggy faithfulness: relationship quality, religiosity, and the perceptions of dating infidelity scale in an adult sample. J. Fam. Issues 31, 1465–1480. doi: 10.1177/ 0192513X10362348 McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., and Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness: three longitudinal studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 490–505. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.490 McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., and Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 1–58. doi: 10.1017/ S0140525X11002160 McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., and Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 1586–1603. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586 McDaniel, B. T., and Coyne, S. M. (2014). “Technoference”: the interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 5, 85–98. doi: 10.1037/ ppm0000065 McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., and Cravens, J. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 66, 88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016. 09.031 Merolla, A. J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Commun. Stud. 59, 114–131. doi: 10.1080/10510970802062428 Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., and Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 881–895. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.881 Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Moller, N. P., and Vossler, A. (2015). Defining infidelity in research and couple counseling: a qualitative study. J. Sex Marital Ther. 41, 487–497. doi: 10.1080/ 0092623X.2014.931314 Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., and Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 1771–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019 Morrissette, J. (2012). Infidelity and revenge fantasies: an integrative couple therapy approach. J. Couple Relatsh. Ther. 11, 149–164. doi: 10.1080/15332691. 2012.666500 Pettijohn, T. F. II, and Ndoni, A. (2013). Imagined infidelity scenario forgiveness and distress: the role of method of discovery and specific cheating behavior. Res. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 1, 11–14. doi: 10.12691/rpbs-1-2-1 Prieto-Ursúa, M., Carrasco, M. J., Cagigal de Gregorio, V., Gismero, E., Martinez, M. P., and Muñoz, I. (2012). El perdón como herramienta clínica en terapia individual y de pareja [Forgiveness as a clinical tool in Individual and couple therapy]. Clín. Contemp. 3, 121–134. doi: 10.5093/cc2012a8 Rathus, J. H., and O’Leary, K. D. (1997). Spouse-specific dependency scale: scale development. J. Fam. Violence 12, 159–168. doi: 10.1023/A:102288462 Rijavec, M., Jurˇ cec, L., and Olˇ car, D. (2013). To forgive or not to forgive? Beliefs about costs and benefits of forgiveness, motivation to forgive and well-being. J. Gen. Soc. Issues 22, 23–40. doi: 10.5559/di.22.1.02 Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., and Pereira, M. (2016). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity, and perceptions of infidelity: data from the second love web site. J. Sex Res. 54, 241–253. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182 Rosenfeld, M. J. (2017). Marriage, choice, and couplehood in the age of the internet. Sociol. Sci. 4, 490–510. doi: 10.15195/v4.a20 Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 101–117. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.45.1.101 Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., and Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Pers. Relatsh. 5, 357–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998. tb00177.x Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., and Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: theory and preliminary empirical evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 53–78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 60.1.53 Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., and McNulty, J. K. (2013). Attachment insecurity and infidelity in marriage: do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage? J. Fam. Psychol. 27, 242–251. doi: 10.1037/a0032118 Sabini, J., and Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 1375–1388. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264012 Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., Joiner, T. E., Santed, M. A., and Valiente, R. M. (1999). Escala PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: validación factorial y convergencia transcultural [PANAS scale of positive and negative affect: factorial validation and transcultural convergence]. Psicothema 11, 37–51. Schmader, T., and Lickel, B. (2006). The approach and avoidance function of guilt and shame emotions: comparing reactions to self-caused and other-caused wrongdoing. Motiv. Emot. 30, 42–55. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9006-0 Schneider, J. P., Weiss, R., and Samenow, C. (2012). Is it really cheating? Understanding the emotional reactions and clinical treatment of spouses and partners affected by cybersex infidelity. Sex. Addict. Compulsivity 19, 123–139. doi: 10.1080/10720162.2012.658344 Schumann, K., and Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4, 1193–1205. doi: 10.1111/j.17519004.2010.00322 Selterman, D., and Koleva, S. (2015). Moral judgment of close relationship behaviors. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32, 922–945. doi: 10.1177/0265407514554513 Selterman, D., Moors, A. C., and Koleva, S. (2018). Moral judgment toward relationship betrayal and those who commit them. Pers. Relatsh. 25, 65–86. doi: 10.1111/pere.12228 Sharpe, D., Walters, A., and Goren, M. (2013). Effect of cheating experience on attitudes toward infidelity. Sex. Cult. 17, 643–658. doi: 10.1007/s12119-0139169-2 Simpson, J. A., and Rholes, S. W. (2015). Attachment Theory and Research: New Directions and Emerging Themes. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434 fpsyg-10-00434 March 20, 2019 Time: 18:5 # 17 Beltrán-Morillas et al. Unforgiveness Motivations and Extradyadic Behaviors Slater, D. (2013). Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating. New York, NY: Penguin. Strelan, P., and Wojtysiak, N. (2009). Strategies for coping with interpersonal hurt: preliminary evidence for the relationship between coping and forgiveness. Couns. Values 53, 97–111. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)2161-007X Tagler, M. J. (2013). Sex difference in attitudes toward partner infidelity. Evol. Psychol. 11, 821–832. doi: 10.1177/147470491301100407 Thompson, A. E., and O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016a). Drawing the line: the development of a comprehensive assessment of infidelity judgments. J. Sex Res. 53, 910–926. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1062840 Thompson, A. E., and O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016b). I can but you can’t: inconsistencies in judgments of and experiences with infidelity. J. Relatsh. Res. 7, 1–13. doi: 10.1017/jrr.2016.1 Thompson, A. E., and O’Sullivan, L. F. (2017). Understanding variations in judgments of infidelity: an application of attribution theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 39, 262–276. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2017.1350578 Thompson, A. E., Zimmerman, C. N., Kulibert, D., and Moore, E. A. (2017). Sex differences and the effect of rival characteristics on adults’ judgments of hypothetical infidelity. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 3, 97–108. doi: 10.1007/s40806-0160076-2 Treas, J., and Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabitating Americans. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 48–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York, NY: Penguin press. Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., and Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being and divorce: survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Comput. Hum. Behav. 36, 94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034 Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., and Moya, M. (2009). Desarrollo y validación de la versión española de la Spouse-Specific Dependency Scale (SSDS). Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 9, 479–500. Vossler, A. (2016). Internet infidelity 10 years on: a critical review of the literature. Fam. J. 24, 359–366. doi: 10.1177/1066480716663191 Wade, T. J., Kelley, R., and Church, D. (2012). Are there sex differences in reaction to different types of sexual infidelity? Psychology 3, 161–164. doi: 10.4236/psych. 2012.32024 Wang, C. D., King, M. L., and Debernardi, N. R. (2012). Adult attachment, cognitive appraisal, and university students’ reactions to romantic infidelity. J. Coll. Couns. 15, 101–116. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2012.00009.x Watkins, S. J., and Boon, S. D. (2016). Expectations regarding partner infidelity in dating relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 33, 237–256. doi: 10.1177/ 0265407515574463 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Weiser, D. A., Niehuis, S., Flora, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Arias, V. S., and Baird, R. H. (2018). Swiping right: sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Pers. Individ. Dif. 133, 29–33. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.025 Wenzel, M., and Okimoto, T. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 401–417. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.629 Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., and Chatav, K. C. (2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. J. Fam. Psychol. 21, 320–324. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.320 Whitty, M. T. (2005). The ’Realness’ of Cybercheating: men and women’s representations of unfaithful Internet relationships. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 23, 57–67. doi: 10.1177/0894439304271536 Whitty, M. T., and Quigley, L. (2008). Emotional and sexual infidelity offline and in cyberspace. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 34, 461–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008. 00088.x Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., and Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 942–966. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 Wilson, K., Mattingly, B., Clark, E., Weidler, D., and Bequette, A. (2011). The gray area: exploring attitudes toward infidelity and the development of the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale. J. Soc. Psychol. 151, 63–86. doi: 10.1080/ 00224540903366750 Worthington, E. L. Jr., and Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychol. Health 19, 385–405. doi: 10.1080/ 0887044042000196674 Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J., and Zhang, J. (2015). The Emotional side of forgiveness: a cross-cultural investigation of the role of anger and compassion and face threat in interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation. J. Int. Intercult. Commun. 8, 311–329. doi: 10.1080/17513057.2015.108 7094 Zitzman, S., and Butler, M. (2005). Attachment, addiction, and recovery: conjoint marital therapy for recovery from sexual addiction. Sex. Addict. Compulsivity 12, 311–337. doi: 10.1080/1072016050036 2652 Zitzman, S. T., and Butler, M. H. (2009). Wives’ experience of husbands’ pornography use and concomitant deception as an attachment threat in the adult pair-bond relationship. Sex. Addict. Compulsivity 16, 210–240. doi: 10. 1080/10720160903202679 Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright © 2019 Beltrán-Morillas, Valor-Segura and Expósito. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 434