Internet Infidelity 10 Years On

Inclusion Criteria

The following list of search terms was used to identify peer-reviewed publications that have been published in this area from 2006 to July 2015: Internet infidelity, cybersex, Internet sex, cyber infidelity, online infidelity, extramarital, betrayal, online attraction, Internet affairs, technology and relationships, and Internet and relationships. These key words were thought to encompass the spectrum of publications concerning infidelity that occurs or is initiated through online contact. To include literature in different disciplines, not only the database Psychinfo (American Psychological Association database) was employed but also Sociofile/Sociological Abstracts (database for sociology and related disciplines) and educational research database. A systematic search of the literature was conducted whereby the search terms were methodically applied in each database. Using the same inclusion criteria as Hertlein and Piercy (2006), publications were included in the review if they contained content related to one or more of the following:

Definitions and perceptions of Internet infidelity,

Definitions and Perceptions of Internet Infidelity

Hertlein and Piercy focused in their 2006 literature review on how practitioners defined Internet infidelity and concluded that there was a lack of definitional agreement in the field, with research indicating “that definitions of Internet infidelity vary from person to person” (p. 367). The authors did however identify a level of secrecy combined with sexual excitement as a consistent factor in many definitions.

In the research conducted since 2006, most studies have continued to utilize hypothetical infidelity scenarios or preset lists of behaviors rather than allowing respondents to define for themselves what constitutes Internet infidelity (e.g., Hackathorn, 2009; Henline et al., 2007; Witty & Quigly, 2008). In responding to a hypothetical question (What online behaviors would you consider to be ‘unfaithful’ … ), student participants in Henlein et al.’s (2007) study classified a broad range of activities—from cybersex and sexual chat to emotional involvement online, flirting, chatting with random people, lying to the online contact, and activities which interfered with real-life relationships. Shaugnessy, Byers, and Thornton (2011) asked university students for written definitions of cybersex and found that while it was consistently defined as an interactive activity, there was considerable individual variability in how the term was defined. Using case vignettes with common Internet infidelity situations, Hertlein and Piercy (2008) conducted an Internet survey, combined with follow-up phone interviews, which asked 508 practicing marriage and family therapists in the United States about their ideas about definition, assessment, and treatment of Internet infidelity. The study revealed significant differences in the way practitioners defined and conceptualized Internet infidelity, dependent on client gender, therapist’s age and gender, and religion and personal experiences with infidelity.

The new research since 2006 suggests that setting up a consistent operational definition for Internet infidelity remains a challenge for both researchers and practitioners in this area—just as problematic as establishing a definition for conventional infidelity (Moller & Vossler, 2014). The research further indicates that many individuals in a couple relationship have the same problem. While assuming that the partner shares his or her beliefs (Helsper & Whitty, 2010), they often differ in what they consider as cheating and struggle to draw a clear line between appropriate and inappropriate activities online (Whitty & Quigley, 2008; Wilson, Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, & Bequette, 2011). Research in the last decade thus confirms the conclusion of Hertlein and Piercy’s (2006) paper—that there is not one agreed definition of Internet infidelity.

One reason for the messiness of definitions and conceptualizations of Internet infidelity might be the fact that this is still a relatively new phenomenon—“rules” and ways to understand and judge online behavior have not been established yet (Cravens & Whiting, 2014; Whitty & Quigley, 2008). However, and just as with conventional off-line infidelity (Moller & Vossler, 2014), it seems any attempt to categorize online activities as infidelity (e.g., on the basis of secrecy or betrayal) will inevitably include a relativist “eye-of-the-beholder” element, allowing multiple, sometimes conflicting views on one and the same behavior dependent on the person judging. The views can vary from seeing Internet contacts (of sexual or emotional nature) as innocuous (and not betrayal) or as a “weaker” form of infidelity (which is “only” virtual) to conceptualizing any sexual and/or emotional contact online as infidelity (especially when hidden and protected with lies; Mileham, 2007).

In the absence of a widely agreed objective definition, researchers have focused their efforts on the specific characteristics differentiating Internet infidelity from similar experiences off-line. For example, in her theoretical paper, Gerson (2011) identified four properties of “cyberspace betrayal” deemed to be specific for this form of infidelity, including (1) the suddenness of exposure (discovery of hidden activities is often abrupt and traumatizing for partners), (2) specific privacy issues as Internet infidelity typically happens in the space of cohabitation, (3) the permanence of infidelity record online (which can make it more difficult to move on and rebuild trust between partners), and (4) the addictive quality of the Internet (easy accessibility and excitement, anonymity). However, not all of these characteristics seem to be specific for Internet infidelity only (e.g., suddenness of exposure might be common off-line too), and there is no research evidence yet that partners are particularly distressed by the specific privacy issues around Internet infidelity or the permanency of the infidelity record. Moreover, the notion of addictive quality as identifying factor is notable since the ambiguity in the literature between the concepts of Internet infidelity, Internet addiction, and sex addiction has been critically discussed by Jones and Hertlein (2012). These authors see the main difference between Internet infidelity and Internet or sex addiction in the fact that Internet infidelity is primarily a relational activity (with an identifiable third person) kept secret from the primary partner and that there are usually no withdrawal symptoms attached to it.

In addition to seeking to identify defining characteristics for Internet versus non-Internet infidelity, researchers have investigated the way problematic Internet activities are perceived and defined by different groups (e.g., engaged and recipient partners, women vs. men). For example, the perceptions and experiences of chat room users, who engage in secret cybersex and the exchange of sexual and/or emotional content with strangers, have been investigated with an ethnographic, qualitative interview study (Mileham, 2007). The majority of users did not see their online activities as infidelity, and instead rationalized their chat room behaviors, for example, by stating that their behavior did not constitute infidelity because there was no physical contact. Mileham (2007) concluded that the experience of a disembodied self in cyberspace gives chat room users a “license to engage in Internet infidelity without perceiving it as such” (p. 20). For her study participants, Internet infidelity seemed to offer participants a safe way to live a form of “electronic polygamy” while maintaining their monogamous primary relationships and not feeling they were betraying anyone (“It’s not cheating … it is all in your head”; Gerson, 2011; Mileham, 2007). This is contrasted by research findings on the experience of the receiving partner (discussed further below), suggesting that they do define this type of Internet behavior as infidelity and that they do feel betrayed by it: “the experience of being deceived online is as devastating as traditional infidelity” (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001, p. 105; see also Whitty, 2003).

Finally, some recent research has revealed gender differences in the way that Internet infidelity is perceived. Both Hackathorn (2009) and Muscanell, Guadagno, Rice, and Murphy (2013) found that compared to their male colleagues, female participants (college students) were more likely to characterize certain online behaviors as infidelity, rate these behaviors as more destructive for relationships, and report higher levels of expected distress in response to the activities. In line with the long line of research that examines gender differences in infidelity behaviors and reactions from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that men are more perturbed by sexual infidelity and women by emotional infidelity (Buss, 2008; Groothof, Dijkstra, & Barelds, 2009), these findings suggest that women are more likely to identify Internet flirting and relationships as acts of (emotional) infidelity. Similarly, an online survey of married couples in the United Kingdom (Helsper & Whitty, 2010) found that females are more likely to identify both their own and their partners’ online behaviors as infidelity (similar results were found by Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011). Helsper and Whitty’s (2010) female participants were also more on guard for online infidelity, being more likely to monitor their partner’s online activities.

In summary, research since 2006 has not led to any more clarity about a widely accepted objective definition of Internet infidelity, instead underlining that definitions will depend on the subjective stance of the definer such as their gender, experience with infidelity (e.g., as “engaged” or “recipient” partner), age, and personal and moral values. New publications have started to focus on the differences between Internet versus non-Internet infidelity and the perceptions of different groups impacted by problematic online behavior.

Factors Contributing to Internet Infidelity

Under the subheading “Characteristics of Internet infidelity,” Hertlein and Piercy (2006) had summarized the theoretical discussion around factors related to people getting involved in online activities and behaviors that can be classified as Internet infidelity. In specifically referring to the models of Internet-related vulnerabilities that had been developed to conceptualize the seductive character of Internet websites and chat rooms (Cooper, 2000, 2002; Ross & Kauth, 2003; Young, Cooper, Griffin-Shelley, Buchanan, & O’Mara, 2000), they identified a lack of empirical evidence for these models and their explanatory power for the likelihood to engage in Internet infidelity.

Since 2006 further theoretical consideration has been given to extend the existing models that had identified accessibility, affordability, anonymity, and the aspect of approximation (possibilities offered by the Internet to approximate and simulate real-world situations while nonetheless not being “real”) as factors related to Internet-related vulnerabilities. Based on the earlier models and their own review of the literature on aspects contributing toward Internet-related intimacy problems (19 articles published between 2000 and 2009, excluding publications on sex addiction or the formation of a primary relationship online), Hertlein and Stevenson (2010, see also Hertlein & Blumer, 2014) proposed an updated and extended model of Internet-infidelity-related vulnerabilities (seven “As”), including the following three new and additional factors.

Acceptability: Behavior and activities that are perceived as inappropriate in society tend to be more socially acceptable if done online/via the Internet (e.g., accessing sexual topics, viewing Internet pornography; Daneback, Cooper, & Manson, 2005; King, 1999).

Other individual vulnerabilities for Internet affairs discussed in the literature are an inability to take ownership of and responsibility for one’s online behavior (Mileham, 2007) and a tendency to avoid emotional and sexual intimacy in real-world relationships by escaping to the distance, relative anonymity, and control offered by the Internet (Young, 2006). However, despite these theoretical advances, there is still no research focused on providing empirical evidence for the role of these vulnerability factors and models for Internet infidelity.

Finally, some authors have discussed the relevance of factors like an emotional and/or sexual disconnection and dissatisfaction in the primary relationship, in contributing to Internet infidelity (Mileham, 2007; Young, 2006). For instance, Millner (2008) has theorized a climate of relationship difficulties and “emotional sterility” (Armstrong, 2006) in a couple relationship as a situation in which one of the partners can be tempted to seek “intimacy with detachment” by connecting with an Internet partner (Millner, 2008). Two recent online surveys with Twitter (Clayton, 2014) and Facebook users (Clayton, Naguerney, & Smith, 2013) indicate that frequent relationship conflicts caused by the high levels of Facebook or Twitter usage of one partner can be associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical cheating and relationship breakup. However, these relationship factors are not specific to Internet infidelity—they are considered as common contributing factors for off-line infidelity too (Vossler & Moller, 2014)—and hence are not helpful for the discrimination of different forms of infidelity.

In summary, while the new literature since 2006 has furthered the theoretical debate and understanding of factors contributing to Internet infidelity, there is still a lack of research focusing on the empirical validation of the proposed factors and models of internet-related vulnerabilities, which considerably limits their explanatory power.

Impact of Internet Infidelity on Couples and Families

In their literature review 10 years ago, Hertlein and Piercy (2006) rather cautiously concluded that while most partners being sexually active on the Internet would deny a negative impact of these activities on their lives, “there are still cases in which these sexual pursuits can affect families and relationships” (p. 368). The authors saw the need for future research focused more narrowly on the effects of Internet infidelity on couples and families (as opposed to, e.g., compulsive pornography use). Two years later, and based on another review of studies specifically focused on the negative impact of technology on relationships (eight studies), Hertlein and Webster (2008) conclude that it can be considered an established research finding that “online acts of betrayal are perceived as serious as offline acts of betrayal” (p. 458).

Three new studies focusing on the experiences of partners at the receiving end of Internet infidelity have been conducted since the 2006 and 2008 reviews, providing further evidence for the potentially negative, and in some cases traumatic, effect of Internet infidelity on couple and family relationships (Mao & Raguram, 2009). Schneider, Weiss, and Samenow (2012) conducted an online survey of the impact of Internet-based sex on partners of cybersex users (35 respondents). The findings show that these online activities can lead to a loss of trust in the engaged partner and the need to seek professional help to cope with the negative impact. Many of the survey respondents felt betrayed and traumatized both by their partner’s online activities and by the partner’s response once the betrayal was disclosed (e.g., if the partner was deceptive or in denial). Cavaglion and Rashty (2010) employed narrative analysis and an interpretive approach to analyze 1,130 messages from female members of two web-based Italian self-help groups for male cybersex and cyberporn dependents and their female partners. The participants’ narratives showed a major pattern of distress, mainly related to ambivalent emotions and experiences of loss. Finally, Cravens, Leckie, and Whiting (2013) used a grounded theory approach to analyze 90 stories around cheating written by receiving partners and posted on the “FacebookCheating” website. The stories revealed strong emotional reactions to the discovery of inadequate Facebook activities, with common expression of emotional pain and feelings of hurt, loss of trust, shock and anger, and a struggle with the decision to end the relationship or not.

A common methodological issue with all three studies is their focus on the effects of one specific form of Internet infidelity, which means that the findings might not be representative for other types of activities and receiving partners. The number of participants was comparatively small in all three studies, and the samples were highly selective (e.g., participants recruited through specific websites for “victims” of Internet infidelity) which also limits the generalizability of the study findings. There is also often a lack of information about the demographic characteristics of participants (gender, age, etc.) when analyzing material collected from Internet websites.

Other new studies have focused on gender differences in emotional reaction to Internet infidelity. This research strand is informed by evolutionary theory (ancestral men’s challenge of paternal uncertainty vs. women’s challenge of ensuring paternal investment; Buss, 2008) and linked to the above-discussed research on gender differences in how Internet infidelity is perceived. Guadagno and Sagarin (2010) employed an experimental design with undergraduate students to investigate sex differences in jealousy in online and off-line contexts. Based on findings from a questionnaire with items related to potential infidelity scenarios, the authors concluded that gender differences regarding jealousy in response to off-line infidelity (men are more likely to react jealously in the case of sexual infidelity, woman in the case of emotional infidelity) can be generalized to Internet infidelity. This is supported by Groothof, Dijkstra, and Barelds (2009) who found that men’s jealousy seems generally triggered by a partner’s online sexual infidelity, and women’s jealous reaction by a partner’s online emotional infidelity. In a further study by the same author team (Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2013), women showed more jealousy in reaction to hypothetical jealousy-evoking online situations than men (with no difference regarding off-line situations), and homosexual participants (both male and female) reacted with less jealousy than heterosexual participants. However, the ecological validity of studies from this research strand is limited, as they typically use student samples and hypothetical infidelity scenarios that limit the generalizability of the findings.

In summary, the research since 2006 has mainly focused on the negative impact of the Internet on intimate relationships—the possibilities offered online for couples to explore their sexuality together have so far rather been neglected (Grov et al., 2011; Hertlein & Webster, 2008). Broadly however the findings on the impact of Internet infidelity parallel the research on off-line infidelity, both in terms of the potentially very negative or even traumatizing effects once the activities are disclosed and in terms of the gender differences regarding the responses to infidelity.

Treatment of Internet Infidelity

In the light of the presented evidence for the negative impact of Internet infidelity on relationships and families, it might not surprise that the number of cases in therapeutic practice presenting with this issue is increasing (Gonyea, 2004; Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). In their survey of 164 clinical members of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Goldberg, Peterson, Rosen, and Sara (2008) found that cybersex cases had increased in the last 2 years (according to 53% of the respondents) while most practitioners (73%) felt not well prepared to work with these problems by their required college courses. While no more recent survey is available in the literature, it can be assumed that the number of cases has continued to rise in the last years. This section will briefly describe available treatment models and recommendations before summarizing the published research literature on the treatment of Internet infidelity in the last decade.

The published treatment frameworks for Internet infidelity (e.g., Jones & Tuttle, 2012; Shaw, 1997; Young, 2006) generally blend traditional approaches and methods from couple therapy with more specific elements to address the effects of Internet infidelity on the relationship. In working with Internet infidelity, practitioners in the field have been reported to generally employ approaches like emotionally focused therapies, transgenerational theories, and solution-focused concepts (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008). Hertlein (2011) suggests that in order to reduce vulnerabilities for Internet infidelity, therapists should not only focus on Internet-related activities by using environmental strategies (e.g., setting rules for computer use at home or proposing to move the computer to another room) but pay attention to underlying intrapsychic factors as well as the primary couple’s relationship. Young (2006) highlights the importance of not reinforcing rationalizations of the partner engaged in Internet activities (e.g., online exchanges are “not real” and therefore “not cheating”) but helping them to see the effects of their actions and take responsibility for them.

Reviewing the literature on treatment frameworks, Hertlein and Piercy (2006) identified a lack of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these treatment approaches, as “the validation of these frameworks is reflected in the case examples following the framework’s description rather than through process or outcome research” (p. 370). Simultaneously, Hertlein and Weeks (2007) had pointed to the need to investigate the specific properties of Internet infidelity, compared to off-line infidelity, so that treatment models can specifically address these characteristics.

While there has been some progress in identifying and conceptualizing specific characteristics of and vulnerabilities for Internet infidelity (as discussed earlier), there is still a lack of systematic evaluation of Internet infidelity treatment programs. The little published research focused on the treatment of Internet infidelity is mainly concerned with U.S. therapists’ perceptions and experiences of their work with this problem. For example, using a qualitative study design with in-depth interviews with 15 therapists, Hertlein and Piercy (2012) were able to identify several treatment steps, ranging from developing physical and psychological relationship boundaries (e.g., presence of partner while using computer, reviewing couple definitions of infidelity) and raising awareness of Internet infidelity vulnerabilities to engaging in helping the couple work toward forgiveness. As with other forms of infidelity (Vossler & Moller, 2014), practitioners seem to conceptualize “Internet infidelity as a symptom of a larger problem in the primary couple’s relationship” (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008, p. 492). Similar to the definition and assessment of Internet infidelity (as discussed earlier), Hertlein and Piercy (2008) found indicators in their practitioner survey for the impact of therapist factors (age, gender, religious orientation, and personal experience with Internet infidelity) on the way clients are treated. These factors, if not reflected on, can lead to personal biases, like the common misattribution of viewing “someone who has a relationship with someone online as being addicted to either sex/porn or the Internet” (Hertlein, 2011, p. 169). Hertlein (2011) therefore argues for a need for therapists to attend to “Self-of Therapist” issues, such as unrecognized ideas about sexuality and personal opinions about pornography (Jones & Tuttle, 2012), and how these factors influence case conceptualizations and treatment.

In summary, while the body of research knowledge on how practitioners experience and conceptualize their therapeutic work with Internet infidelity has grown, there is still no empirical evidence for the effectiveness of treatment models, let alone commonly agreed and empirically validated treatment approaches for Internet infidelity. Therapists’ treatment approach—as their perception of problematic online behavior—seems to be influenced by their own preferences as well as personal values and biases (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008).

Discussion and Implications

Although more research and theoretical papers have been published in the field of Internet infidelity in the last decade, there are still many unresolved issues and gaps in the growing body of knowledge. Only a few new studies have investigated the actual behavior and its impact (e.g., Mileham, 2007; Schneider et al., 2012). Most research is still focused on attitudes toward and perceptions of Internet infidelity, typically using student samples as participants asking them who to rate hypothetical infidelity scenarios, although there have been a few studies on practitioners’ perceptions and experiences of Internet infidelity treatment (e.g., Goldberg, Peterson, Rosen, & Sara, 2008; Hertlein & Piercy, 2008). While some progress has been made in the theoretical debate about factors contributing to Internet infidelity, the proposed models of internet-related vulnerabilities have not been empirically tested yet. New studies have instead predominantly focused on the negative impact of the Internet on intimate relationships, showing similar impact pattern and gender effects as for off-line infidelity. The effectiveness of treatment models for Internet infidelity is another neglected research area. In addition, almost all the research on Internet infidelity published since 2006 has been conducted in a U.S. context.