69807147-Hungry for Love

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2012, 152(1), 6174

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Hungry for Love: The Influence ofSelf-Regulation on Infidelity

NATALIE J. CIAROCCOJESSICA ECHEVARRIA

GARY W. LEWANDOWSKI, JR.Monmouth University

ABSTRACT. The current research examines the effect of self-regulation on the likelihoodof committing infidelity. Thirty-two college students in exclusive romantic relationshipsinteracted through a private chat room with an opposite-sex confederate. Prior to thisinteraction, a food-restriction task depleted half the participants of self-control. As pre-dicted, depleted levels of self-regulation increased the likelihood of infidelity. Specifically,depleted participants were more likely to both accept a coffee date from and supply apersonal telephone number to the confederate than non-depleted participants. Weakenedself-control may be one potential cause for the levels of infidelity occurring in romanticpartnerships today.

Keywords: infidelity, interpersonal understanding, relationship, self, self-regulation

INFIDELITY IS TYPICALLY DISCOURAGED and viewed negatively through-out most cultures (Barta & Kiene, 2005), yet is a pervasive phenomenon in bothmarriage and dating partnerships. In addition to the personal and relationshipcharacteristics that may lead to infidelity, individual levels of self-control maybe a factor. In this paper we apply the limited resource model of self-regulation totest ones ability to refrain from engaging in infidelity.

Researchers estimate that 30 to 60% of all married individuals in the UnitedStates will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (Buss &Shackelford, 1997; Whisman & Snyder, 2007). Additionally, 60% to 75% ofcollege students report partaking in some type of extradyadic (i.e., with a per-son outside of the relationship dyad) involvement while in a serious romanticrelationship (Barta & Kiene, 2005). Infidelity has numerous negative effects onthose individuals involved. Infidelity frequently leads to feelings of inadequacy,

Address correspondence to Natalie J. Ciarocco, Monmouth University, Department ofPsychology, 400 Cedar Ave., West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA; [email protected](e-mail).

61

62 The Journal of Social Psychology

self-doubt, anger, and depression in the betrayed partner (Boekhout, Hendrick, &Hendrick, 2000) and is the leading cause of marriage dissolution (Barta & Kiene,2005). Infidelitys frequent occurrence and harmful effects make it imperative toidentify situational factors influencing this behavior.

When examining relationship infidelity it is important to distinguish betweenthe two distinct types: sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. Sexual infi-delity occurs when ones long-term partner engages in sexual activity withsomeone else, while emotional infidelity includes directing romantic love, time,attention, and other emotional resources to someone outside the partnership(Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Each type of infidelity has a distinct set of behavioralcues which indicates the likelihood of occurrence. Sexual infidelity, for example,is associated with changes in normal sexual behavior with the partner, while emo-tional infidelity is associated with a reluctance to spend time with the partner(Shackelford & Buss, 1997).

While two types of infidelity exist, they are not mutually exclusive. Researchon the double-shot hypothesis supports the idea that women often think thatemotional infidelity on the part of a man will eventually lead to sexual infi-delity, while men believe sexual infidelity on the part of women will lead toan emotional connection (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). Therefore, most believeemotional infidelity and sexual infidelity are not independently occurring eventsas one type of infidelity will eventually lead to the other. In fact, participantsreport being equally upset by both types of infidelity (Lishner, Nguyen, Stocks, &Zillmer, 2008).

There are a number of factors related to the decision to engage in infi-delity. Particular individual differences such as low self-esteem, high narcissism,and weak religious beliefs all relate to infidelity (Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav,2007). Characteristics of the relationship itself are also powerful indicators of infi-delity. For example, infidelity is more frequent in couples that argue about trust(Atkins, Yi, Baucom, & Christensen, 2005), have high levels of marital dissatis-faction (Whisman et al., 2007), and who feel the relationship provides insufficientopportunities for self-expansion (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006).

Additionally, situational factors surrounding the couple influence the deci-sion to engage in infidelity. A lack of social support from friends and family (Zaket al., 2002) and higher rates of income (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001)correlate with rates of infidelity. Others suggest infidelity is about situational fac-tors such as spending time apart (Atkins et al., 2005) and sexual opportunities inthe workplace (Treas & Giesen, 2000). Yet opportunity alone cannot explain thedecision to engage in infidelity because given the opportunity, not everyone doesso. Previous research has not fully examined the immediate situational factorsfostering infidelity. We propose more than opportunity alone impacts infidelityand apply the limited resource model of self-regulation to test ones ability toregulate or control the impulse to engage in infidelity (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,Muraven, & Tice, 1998).

Ciarocco, Echevarria, & Lewandowski 63

Self-regulation, or self-control, is the ability to overcome ones desires, feel-ings, and habitual patterns of behavior (Baumeister et al., 1998). Self-regulationis vital to the decision making process and personal ethical standards. The limitedresource model of self-regulation suggests levels of self-regulation deplete afterperforming tasks involving self-control, such as making choices, thought suppres-sion, and breaking habits (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Schmeichel, Vohs, &Baumeister, 2003; Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987), making later actsof self-control difficult. This theory implies self-regulation works like a mus-cle becoming fatigued after strenuous exercise. Depleted levels of self-regulatoryresources have been found to impair accuracy on intelligence tests and the abilityfor higher order cognition (Schmeichel et al., 2003), the ability to regulate emo-tion and physical stamina (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998) and persistenceon a difficult task (Wegner et al., 1987). Depleted levels of self-control also hurtones ability to refrain from a negative behavior, such as the ability to restrainfrom alcohol consumption (Muraven, Collins, & Neinhaus, 2002), and the abil-ity to restrict food intake (Vohs & Heatherton, 2000). Self-regulation impacts notonly intrapersonal behaviors and functioning, but interpersonal ones as well.

Successful interpersonal functioning and maintaining social relationships areimportant to psychological well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). However,forming and maintaining such relationships with others requires a great deal ofself-regulation (Heatherton & Vohs, 1998). Self-regulation influences the waypeople process information about others. For example, when people experi-ence depletion of self-regulatory resources they are more likely to base theirimpressions on limited and incomplete information than non-depleted participants(Webster, Richter, & Kruglanski, 1996). Impression management also exerts self-regulation. Participants asked to self-present in an atypical way later displayedimpairments in self-control (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). While self-regulation plays a role in general interpersonal functioning, it also has a role inromantic relationships.

To maintain a committed relationship, one must be able to resist the desirefor alternative partners, which may be difficult when depleted of self-control.Depleted participants involved in romantic relationships spent more time look-ing at photos of others than their non-depleted counterparts (Vohs, Twenge,Baumeister, Schmeichel, & Tice, 2009). Additionally, in hypothetical scenariosin which participants imagined being in a relationship, those depleted of self-control reported a higher intent to engage in sexual infidelity than participants notdepleted did (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). However, self-report data of intendedbehavior may be faulty (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). While the studies provideinsight into the role of self-regulation in the susceptibility of infidelity, it is alsounclear from this research whether depletion results in actual infidelity with anextradyadic partner. The present study expands on previous work by examiningthe role of self-regulation in infidelity. Instead of relying on hypothetical scenariosand self-report, we measured behavior to determine if a loss of self-control is acontributing factor to infidelity.


In the present study, we manipulated high and low levels of self-regulation bythe restriction of food intake (Baumeister et al., 1998). We then measured likeli-hood of infidelity through two behavioral indicators and a self-report measure. Forethical reasons, we did not explore the opportunity to engage in sexual infidelity.Instead we offered behavioral opportunities which allowed participants to engagein emotional infidelity in the form of accepting a coffee date and giving their per-sonal phone number to a confederate. The coffee date is a common first date activ-ity perceived to involve deeper conversation and less mingling with others whencompared to other dating activities (Morr Serewicz, & Gale, 2008). Consistentwith emotional infidelity, the acceptance of a coffee date or the supplying of apersonal telephone number reveals an intention to redirect time and attention fromyour partner to someone outside the relationship. We predict that participants whoexperience depleted levels of self-control will be more likely to engage in thebehaviors of disclosing their telephone number and accepting a coffee invitationfrom a confederate than those participants not depleted of self-control.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study included 13 males and 19 females from amedium sized private university in the northeast United States.1 Participantsranged in age from 18 to 23 (M = 19.66). The majority of the participants(96.90%) were Caucasian and 3.10% were African American. At the time ofstudy, all participants were currently in romantic relationships self-categorized asexclusive. The average relationship length was 15.34 months (SD = 11.83). Therewas no preexisting difference between those assigned to the depletion condition(M = 7.24; SD = 5.67) and those not (M = 7.43; SD = 4.47) in the reported num-ber of hours since last consuming food (t(17) = .08, p = .94, Cohens d = .04).Participants were recruited using a convenience sample from the undergradu-ate participant pool and received class credit for participation. The experimenterprevented anyone with food allergies from participating in the study.

Materials and Procedure

The experimenter collected data on an individual basis. After informedconsent, participants completed a demographic questionnaire which includedquestions on relationships status and length of current relationship. In addition,we asked participants about food allergies and diet restrictions, the last time offood consumption, and general demographic information.

As a cover story, the experimenter told participants the purpose of the studywas to examine the effectiveness of techniques implemented by a local speed


dating service. The experimenter asked the participant to complete a short inter-personal questionnaire and took a photograph of the participant who was ledto believe that another participant (who was actually a confederate) would see.The questionnaire asked the participants interest in various activities to helpsupport the cover story. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the participant par-took in the food taste task, based on the manipulation used in previous research(Baumeister et al., 1998). Each participant sat in front of two plates of food. Theplates held either five radishes or five warm and freshly-baked chocolate chipcookies. Based on random assignment, participants received one of two sets ofinstructions.

The experimenter told those randomly assigned to the depletion condition totaste test the radishes by eating three pieces of radish and refraining from eatingthe cookies. The experimenter told those randomly assigned to the control con-dition to taste test the cookies by eating three cookies and refraining from eatingthe radishes. All participants had five minutes to focus on the assigned food, afterwhich they completed a taste-test questionnaire. The experimenter noted the foodintake of participants during the taste-testing activity. None of the participantsviolated their instructions to only eat a particular food.

While the participants completed the taste test, the experimenter left theroom for the supposed purpose of exchanging interpersonal questionnaires withthe confederate. To ensure a level of similarity, the confederate filled out a fauxinterpersonal questionnaire which matched three out of the four interpersonalquestions. This was to ensure there was a common topic to potentially discussin a future interaction. The experimenter then returned to the room with thefaux interpersonal questionnaire. After completing the taste test, the experimentergave the participant the faux interpersonal questionnaire and asked the participantto quickly review the confederates answers and picture. Based on piloting, weprovided participants with an opposite-sex picture of above average attractiveness.

Participants then engaged in a ten minute on-line conversation with the con-federate who was blind to experimental condition. The confederate used a scriptof responses and questions to sustain conversation. The experimenter told par-ticipants the conversation was a private exchange. Within the timeframe of theinteraction, the confederate asked for the participants phone number and askedfor the participant to make a coffee date. Specifically the confederate wrote Doyou have a number I could text you at? You seem like definitely the kind of personI would really like to get to know more, and Do you think you would want tomeet up for a coffee date with me sometime soon? We used the opportunity forthe participant to give a personal phone number and make a coffee date as ourbehavior measures because they were ethically sound and rated as above the scalemidpoint of inappropriate behavior for a monogamous partner in piloting.

Afterward, participants completed a questionnaire assessing the interaction.Among filler questions, we included two single-item indicators to assess self-reported likelihood of infidelity including, How likely are you to give yourtelephone number to the person you just engaged in conversation with? and


How likely are you to meet up for coffee with the person you just engaged inconversation with? The participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = not at alllikely; 7 = extremely likely).

Lastly, the experimenter administered a post-experimental questionnaire,which served as a manipulation check. The questions mimicked those of previousresearch (Baumeister et al., 1998) and included, How difficult was it for you toeat the assigned food in the food tasting task? and How difficult was it to resistthe alternative food that was not assigned to you? Participants responded using a7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 = completely). An open-ended item asked partic-ipants to report what they thought the study was about. None of the participantswere able to detect the true nature of the experiment. The experimenter thoroughlydebriefed, thanked, and dismissed the participants. None of the participantsreported any post-experimental stress to the experimenter during debriefing.

Results

Behavioral Measures of Infidelity

We used a chi-square test of independence to examine the relationshipbetween condition (i.e., depletion or no depletion) and the disclosure of atelephone number (i.e., disclosure or nondisclosure). As predicted, participantsdepleted of self-regulation were significantly more likely to disclose a personaltelephone number to the confederate, compared to participants not depleted ofself-regulation. The relationship between levels of self-regulation and likelihoodof disclosing a telephone number was significant (2 (1, N = 32) = 7.43, p < .01; = .48; see Figure 1).

The chi-square test of independence also tested the relationship betweencondition (i.e., depletion or no depletion) and the acceptance of a coffee date(i.e., acceptance or non-acceptance). As expected, participants depleted in self-regulation were also significantly more likely to accept a coffee date with theconfederate, compared to those participants not depleted in self-regulation. Therelationship between levels of self-regulation and likelihood of accepting a coffeedate was significant (2 (1, N = 32) = 5.78, p < .05; = .43; see Figure 1).The behavioral measures indicated that those depleted of self-control were morelikely to engage in infidelity than non-depleted ones.

Self-Reported Likelihood of Infidelity

An independent samples t-test examined the difference between thosedepleted and those not depleted on self-reported likelihood of disclosing apersonal telephone number. The analysis revealed no significant difference(t(30) = 1.51, p = .14; d = 0.58; see Figure 2). An additional independent sam-ples t-test examined the difference between the two levels of self-regulation and


100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%Per

cen

tag

e E

ng

agin

g in

Beh

avio

r

31%

79%

Depletion Condition Non-depletion Condition

74%

31%

Disclosed Phone Number Accepted Date

Behavior

FIGURE 1. Percentage of participants engaging in each type of behavior bycondition.

5.21

4.08

5.164.69

Depletion Condition Non-depletion Condition

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00Mea

n L

iklih

oo

d o

f E

ng

agin

gin

Beh

avio

r

Disclosing Phone Number

Behavior

Accepting Coffee Date

FIGURE 2. Mean self-reported likelihood of engaging in each behavior on a7-point scale. No significant differences were found.

self-reported likelihood of accepting a coffee date. The analysis was not signifi-cant (t(30) = 0.88, p = .39; d = 0.33; see Figure 2). As depletion was successfullymanipulated, the non-significant findings may be a result of low power given thesmall sample size, as the effect sizes are small to moderate and the means are inthe predicted direction.2


We used point-biserial correlations to explore the associations between thebehavioral and self-report dependent variables. First, we examined the behaviorof disclosing a telephone number (i.e., disclosure or nondisclosure) and self-reported likelihood of disclosing a phone number on a 7-point scale. Those notdisclosing their telephone number self-reported a lower likelihood of disclosure(rpb(30) = .75, p < .01). Additionally we explored the association between thebehavior of accepting the coffee date (i.e., acceptance or non-acceptance) andself-reported likelihood of accepting a coffee date on a 7-point scale. Those notaccepting the coffee date reported a lower self-reported likelihood of acceptance(rpb(30) = .50, p < .01). The behavioral measures and self-report measureswere associated, supporting the notion that the lack of difference in self-reportedinfidelity between conditions was an issue of power.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine if self-regulation has a role in infi-delity. As predicted, depleted levels of self-regulation significantly increased thelikelihood of engaging in both behavioral measures of infidelity. Participants cur-rently involved in an exclusive romantic relationship and depleted of self-controlby resisting cookies were more likely to make a coffee date with and disclose theirpersonal phone number to a confederate than their non-depleted counterparts.There was a significant relationship between behavioral measures of infidelity andself-reported measures. However, there was no difference in self-reported likeli-hood of engaging in either behavior based on condition. Those in the depletioncondition self-reported the same likelihood of accepting a coffee date and givinga personal phone number as those not depleted. Although participants reportedno more likelihood of infidelity when depleted of self-control than not, they weremore likely to actually engage in infidelity.

Implications and Interpretations

The present study expands upon the infidelity literature. Relationship factorssuch as marital satisfaction (Whisman et al., 2007), lack of self-expansion withinthe relationship (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006), and time apart (Atkins et al.,2001) all increase the likelihood of infidelity, as do personality factors, such asnarcissism and low self-esteem (Whisman et al., 2007). There is also evidencethat sexual opportunities, such as in the workplace, increase the likelihood ofinfidelity (Treas & Giesen, 2000). However, researchers have yet to investigatethe involvement of transient situational factors, such as level of self-control. Thisstudy provides evidence of the theoretically supported link between lapses in self-control and infidelity. In the lab, exclusively dating participants stripped of theirability to regulate, were more likely to engage in infidelity than their counterparts.


This finding supports the idea that infidelity is not about opportunity alone, asparticipants randomly assigned to both conditions had the same opportunity toengage in the behaviors. The opportunity combined with weakened self-controlled to infidelity, regardless of specific relationship or personality factors of theparticipants. Anyone already depleted of self-control, perhaps by trying to controlemotions, stopping unwanted thoughts, restricting eating or spending, or engagingin any activity relying on self-control is at a greater risk for engaging in infidelity.

Previous work in self-regulation reveals that depleted levels of self-controllead to engaging in undesirable behaviors, such as alcohol consumption (Muravenet al., 2002) and unrestricted eating (Vohs & Heatherton, 2000), but these behav-iors have been intrapersonal in nature. The current study expands this workinto intimate relationships, finding depleted levels of self-regulation significantlyincreased the undesirable behavior of infidelity. Additionally, the present studysupports previous research which found a higher self-reported likelihood of infi-delity in hypothetical situations for those depleted of self-control than those notdepleted (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007).

This study also found no significant difference between depleted partici-pants and non-depleted participants in self-reported likelihood of giving theirphone number or accepting a coffee date. Given the significance of the behav-ior measures, the manipulation may have a stronger effect on actual behaviorthan intention. Although many depleted participants had just engaged in suchbehaviors, they self-reported they were no more likely to do so than non-depletedparticipants. One possible explanation is that participants were led to believe theinternet chat was private and only the confederate knew the nature of the conver-sation. Although the self-report was confidential, participants may have perceivedit as less private because the researcher would retain a record of their response.Most cultures view infidelity negatively (Barta & Kiene, 2005). Participants mayhave employed the social desirability bias to preserve public image. It is also pos-sible that participants fail to account for situational factors, making them poorpredictors of their own behavior and less reliable (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

The behavioral measures of infidelity were the main focus of this work and assuch the low sample size may have provided insufficient power for the self-reportmeasures. In fact, the behavioral and self-report measures were significantly asso-ciated. In addition, the means in the analyses of the self-report data were in thepredicted directions with moderate effects sizes, supporting this notion. Given alarger sample, the self-report may have fully supported the behavioral measures.Additionally, the self-report data consisted of single-item indicators which mayalso hurt the reliability of these results.

Limitations and Strengths

While the current work measures behaviors indicative of infidelity, it is pos-sible some may not consider these behaviors infidelity, preferring to rely instead


on physical intimacy with an extradyadic partner as the sole definition. However,the acceptance of a coffee date and the offering of a personal telephone numberis an indicator of emotional infidelity because time, attention and other emo-tional resources spent during the subsequent coffee date and phone conversationare being redirected to someone outside the partnership (Shackelford & Buss,1997). Furthermore, the negative consequences associated with emotional infi-delity make the empirical examination of its antecedents worthwhile. While anethical measurement of physical infidelity in a lab is not possible, emotional infi-delity is measureable. Emotional and sexual infidelity are not mutually exclusiveand are often perceived as a signal that the other type of infidelity is occurring, orwill be in the near future (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). By engaging in these behav-iors our participants displayed a willingness to redirect their emotional energyand pursue an extradyadic relationship with a fellow research participant whowas attractive and thought to be single. At the least, engaging in these behav-iors indicates the participant is paying greater attention to alternative relationshippartners, a behavior known to negatively correlate with commitment to onespartner (Miller, 1997). In addition, research also shows greater attention to alter-natives relates to greater susceptibility to infidelity (VanderDrift, Lewandowski, &Agnew, 2011).

For ethical reasons, we debriefed participants before they could potentiallyfollow through with their intended behavior. Participants were not given theopportunity to meet later for the coffee date or continue their conversation (i.e.,phone communication) with the confederate. Therefore the continuation of infi-delity is uncertain. Given the temporary influence of self-regulatory depletionmanipulations, with time participants may have not followed through on theseinitial behaviors. Yet in the moment of reduced self-control, participants weremore likely to accept a date and give their personal phone number to a confeder-ate than when self-control was not reduced. If in the same setting the participanthad the opportunity to engage in other forms of emotional infidelity, or even sex-ual infidelity, they may have done so. Although participants in the lab may nothave not made a conscious decision to engage in behaviors of infidelity, in lifeit is unlikely most people make a willful and motivated decision to engage inemotional infidelity. Instead they are likely to slip into these behaviors withoutmaking a conscious decision, especially at times when the regulatory resourcesare naturally depleted.

We cannot rule out the alternative explanation that depletion impactedfriendliness and sociability rather than infidelity. Although from the relationshippartners standpoint infidelity is an antisocial behavior (Barta & Kiene, 2005),engaging in infidelity requires demonstrating sociability and friendliness towardthe extradyadic person. These behaviors are inextricably linked with the behav-ior of infidelity. The limited resource model of self-regulation suggests all acts ofself-control are governed by the same limited resource (Baumeister et al., 1998).Thus, it is possible depletion made participants more likely to engage in cheating


behaviors than non-depletion because they were unable to withhold friendly andsociable behavior when interacting with the confederate.

Another limitation of this study is the ability to generalize the findings. Thesample was a typical college convenience sample consisting of a general agegroup from 18 to 22 years of age. Younger participants may be less committedto their partner than older and/or married individuals. However, younger partic-ipants with relatively new relationships (i.e., the average relationship length wasjust over a year) may still be in the honeymoon phase of their relationship. Theheightened levels of love and satisfaction felt in the early stages of a relationshipmay actually discourage infidelity. Additionally, the low number of participantsinvolved in data collection may be of concern. However, the manipulation of self-regulation often has powerful effect sizes in behavioral data allowing for a smallnumber of participants in data collection (Baumeister et al., 1998).

The present research goes beyond the survey research commonly used tostudy infidelity by experimentally examining situational factors influencing thephenomenon. The strength in this study lies in the measurement of actual behav-ior rather than depending on hypothetical scenarios, as was done in research ofinfidelity and self-regulation in the past (Gailliot & Baumesiter, 2007). As self-report data is subject to bias, measuring overt behavior is preferable (Baumeister,Vohs, & Funder, 2007).

Future Directions

Future research should investigate how certain relationship variables, such aslevels of relationship satisfaction, levels of relationship contingent self-esteem,or relationship status (i.e., married) moderate the relationship between self-regulation and likelihood of infidelity. Perhaps those reporting higher levels ofcertain relationship variables, such as relationship satisfaction, are not as affectedby depleted levels of self-regulation. Future research could also examine certainexternal differences between those individuals who engage in infidelity and thosewho do not within this relationship (e.g., previous experience in engaging in infi-delity, perceived consequences of engaging in infidelity). Future researchers couldalso explore strategies to counteract depletions impact on infidelity by investi-gating if the affirming of core values helps people be faithful when temptationsarise, as self-affirmation in prior work offsets the impact of self-control failure(Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009).

In conclusion, infidelity is problematic and a hurtful experience that has detri-mental effects on those involved. Learning about the specific and potential factorsaffecting susceptibility to infidelity may be helpful in our ability to decrease itsoccurrence, and therefore decrease the negative consequences for those individ-uals involved. Consistent with the hypothesis, depleted levels of self-regulationsignificantly increased the likelihood of infidelity using two behavioral measures,namely disclosing a telephone number to the confederate and accepting a coffee


date. Thus, individuals who experienced a situational decrease in self-controlwere unable to control their impulses. These results suggest that after a long, hard,ego-depleting day at the office placing yourself in a situation where infidelity ispossible may not be the best choice.

NOTES

1. The present study was dependent on participants being naive to the cover story. In orderto avoid potential corruption of the participant pool, we collected data on a small number of par-ticipants. Because of the effect size of self-regulation manipulations involving behavioral measures,previous studies collected data on only 10 to 22 participants per condition (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,Muraven, & Tice, 1998).

2. As a manipulation check we assessed the difficulty of the taste-testing activity in the post-experimental questionnaire. Depletion-condition participants found it more difficult to eat the assignedfood of radishes (M = 4.63, SD = 1. 80) than the non-depletion condition assigned to eat cookies(M = 1.08, SD = .28; t(30) = 7.02, p < .01; d = 2.56). The depletion condition also reported it washarder to resist the alternative food of cookies (M = 4.53, SD = 1.81) than the non-depletion conditionreported resisting the radishes (M = 1.46, SD = 1.40; t(30) = 5.15, p < .01; d = 1.88). The taste-testing activity was more effortful for those in the depletion condition than those in the non-depletioncondition.

AUTHOR NOTES

Natalie J. Ciarocco is a Self-Regulation Researcher and Assistant Professorof psychology at Monmouth University. Jessica Echevarria graduated with abachelors degree in psychology from Monmouth University and is currentlycompleting her masters degree in developmental psychology at Teachers College,Columbia University. Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. is an Associate Professor atMonmouth University who conducts research on relationships and the self.

REFERENCES

Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. H. (2001). Understanding infidelity:Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735749.

Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & Christensen, A. (2005). Infidelity in couples seekingmarital therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 470473.

Barta, W., & Kiene, S. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples:The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 2, 339360.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion:Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,12521265.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497529.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives onPsychological Science, 2, 396403.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. (2007). The strength model of self-control.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351355.


Boekhout, B., Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (2000). The loss of loved ones: The impact ofrelationship infidelity. In Loss and trauma: General and close relationship perspectives(pp. 358374). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year ofmarriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193221.

DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy?:Questioning the fitness of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367372.

Gailliot, M., & Baumeister, R. (2007). Self-regulation and sexual restraint: Dispositionallyand temporarily poor self-regulatory abilities contribute to failures at restraining sexualbehavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 173186.

Heatherton, T., & Vohs, K. (1998). Why is it so difficult to inhibit behavior? PsychologicalInquiry, 9, 212216.

Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Somethings missing: Need fulfill-ment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of SocialPsychology, 146, 389403.

Lishner, D. A., Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L., & Zillmer, E. J. (2008). Are sexual and emo-tional infidelity equally upsetting to men and women? Making sense of forced-choiceresponses. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 667675.

Miller, R. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention toalternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758766.

Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, andrelationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149164.

Muraven, M., Collins, R., & Neinhaus, K. (2002). Self-control and alcohol restraint: Aninitial application of the self-control strength model. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,16, 113120.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource:Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,774789.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports onmental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259.

Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K., (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming corevalues counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,770782.

Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. (2003). Intellectual performance andego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 3346.

Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues of infidelity. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 23, 10341045.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 4860.

VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 28, 356373.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R., & Ciarocco, N. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effort-ful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88, 632657.

Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletionapproach. Psychological Science, 11, 249254.

Vohs, K. D., Twenge, J. M., Baumesister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Tice, D. M. (2009).Decision fatigue making multiple personal decisions depletes the selfs resources.Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.


Webster, D., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. (1996). On leaping to conclusions when feelingtired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 32, 181195.

Wegner, D., Schneider, D., Carter, S., & White, T. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thoughtsuppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 513.

Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in anationally representative sample of married individuals. Journal of Family Psychology,21, 320324.

Whisman, M., & Snyder, D. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of Americanwomen: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment.Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 147154.

Zak, A., Coulter, C., Giglio, S., Hall, J., Sanford, S., & Pellowski, N. (2002). Do his friendsand family like me? Predictors of infidelity in intimate relationships. North AmericanJournal of Psychology, 4, 287290.

Received December 11, 2009Accepted November 24, 2010

Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

69807147-Hungry for Love

Documents

Transcript of 69807147-Hungry for Love