Love thy neighbour: Personality traits, relationship quality, and attraction to others as predictors of infidelity among young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infidelity is defined as the violation of a couple's assumed or stated agreement concerning emotional and/or sexual exclusivity. The current study examined the utility of personality traits (i.e., the Big Five and SIS/SES - an individual's sexual response to sexual desires, arousal, and behaviours are based on the balance between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition; Bancroft & Janssen, 2000) relative to relationship quality and attraction to others in predicting reports of infidelity among a sample of young adults (ages 18–26 years). A total of 131 men and 164 women from the US who reported being in a romantic relationship were recruited using MTurk®, an online crowdsourcing survey tool. Participants completed a series of measures assessing demographics, relationship quality and investment, sexual experience, sexual attitudes, attraction to others, and personality traits, including the Big Five and SIS/SES. A notable minority (16.6%) of participants reported at least one occasion of past infidelity during their current romantic relationship (yes/no reports); however, reports of infidelity increased significantly when individuals reported actual sexual, romantic, and online infidelity activities (78.6%). Personality traits within the Big Five and SIS/SES models were not significant predictors of infidelity. With each occurrence of emotional attraction to a person other than their current partner, the odds of reporting infidelity increased by 51.6%. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for counselling and education regarding infidelity, as well as continued research on risk factors for infidelity among young adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".