The Moderating Role of Gender Between Relationship Closeness and Online Emotional Cheating among Young Adults
Dianne G. Flores1,2*, Amabelle Ruth D. Carvajal1, Camila Marie G. Mondejar1, Louise Anne V. Pagkaliwangan1, Grashann Faith E. Songcuya1,
Daniel Joshua P. Maiquez1
1Dianne G. Flores, Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines
2 Dianne G. Flores, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Manila, Philippines
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Received: 15 April 2023 | Accepted: 10 June 2023 | Published: 30 June 2023
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajress.2023.5.2.18
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Due to technological advancements, people now communicate easier. However, online communication also permits engagement with illegitimate partners and has the potential to harm relationships. Relationship closeness, on the other hand, has been anticipated as one of the crucial aspects of a romantic relationship. The Gender Schema theory posits that people assimilate constructs into gender categories which makes them behave in a “gender- appropriate” manner. With that, the study aimed to determine whether gender moderates the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating. Using the non- probability purposive sampling method, a total of 107 young adult participants from Metro Manila, consisting of 47 males and 60 females who are in long-term heterosexual relationship were obtained through online and face-to-face recruitment. The instruments used were Internet Infidelity Scale (IIS-44) and Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS). The results of the study indicated that there is no significant relationship between relationship closeness and emotional cheating (r = - 0.043, p > 0.05), and no significant relationship was found between gender and online emotional cheating (r = - 0.028, p > 0.05). Further, gender was identified as a non-moderator and has no significant effect on the association between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating (p > 0.05). The data provide new insights and falsify the commonly existing knowledge that relationship closeness is a significant factor in romantic relationships in committing online emotional cheating and that there were differences between men and women in terms of perceiving emotional cheating. Integrating these findings could serve as an expansion of knowledge and contribute to the collective effort of providing explanations in the significant complex changes and development in human behavior.
Keywords: Gender, Relationship closeness, Online emotional cheating
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Over the past years, infidelity has been reported to be the most commonly presented concern among couples in a romantic relationship. A type of infidelity that deviates from the traditional sexual and emotional infidelity is online cheating which can be defined as “a form of emotional infidelity that is facilitated by the Internet” (Abassi & Alghamdi, 2017). While the Internet provides a means to communicate and socialize with one’s peers or loved ones, it however increases the opportunities for partners who are in a committed relationship to commit
extradyadic activities (Hackathorn & Ashdown, 2020). One factor that may affect online emotional cheating is relationship closeness, Dibble et al. (2011) defined relationship closeness as the “extent in which people establish and acknowledge a mutual dependence between two people, particularly their affective, cognitive, and behavioral dependence”. Such intimate closeness between two individuals in a relationship can also be indicative of the existence of interdependence between the two parties.
For instance, Erik Erikson’s theory of Psychosocial Development, specifically the sixth stage, Intimacy vs Isolation, could be used to explain how young adults strive to fulfill their developmental needs. In support of the significance of this theory, Feist (2018) elaborated that
“a stable ego” is a requirement for the formation of intimacy in young adults. Therefore, the infatuation that young adults would commonly feel cannot be considered as “true intimacy”.
When young adults struggle with their identity, they either seek connections through fruitless sexual relationships, or completely avoid intimacy (Erikson, 1968). Also, because young adulthood is a period of exploration and experimentation, it is possible that young adults tend to change their relationships consistently as they are still figuring out who they are (Arnett, 2015; Erikson, 1968, as cited by Norona et al., 2018; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2014). The early studies of Connolly & McIsaac (2009) first found that young people's reasons for leaving romantic relationships were connected to their needs for interdependence and independence and as a way to further their research, Norona et al. (2018) then looked into whether this approach can partly explain the physical and/or emotional cheating experiences between young adults. Correspondingly, various researches (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017; Norona et al., 2018) have also supported the concept that the desire to attain interdependence is connected to young adults' motivating factors in engaging in infidelity behaviors. For example, it was discovered that young adults have the tendency to leave a relationship or commit infidelity behaviors such as emotional cheating for the reason that their significant partner was not able to satisfy and meet their interdependence needs, specifically affiliation and intimacy (Norona et al., 2018).
In furtherance of hypothesizing a direct relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating, the researchers hypothesized that there is significant relationship between gender and online emotional cheating. Guided by Gender Schema theory, Bem (1981) asserted that gender is the byproduct of the cultural norms that an individual has been exposed to. Thus, once individuals perceive that people are defined as male or female, they will generate and organize their patterns of thought, or schema, enabling them to understand both their environment, and themselves (Bem, 1981, as cited in Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). Additionally, Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory, and the numerous concepts proposed by Evolutionary Psychology all point to the idea that humans’ motivations on engaging in infidelity are all influenced by their gender (Darwin, 1871, as cited by Padian & Horner, 2014). Established literature and studies (Buss, 2018; Padian & Horner, 2014) have confirmed that men are primarily motivated by biological reproduction and increasing the possibilities of their longevity through their offspring which causes them to be more engaged in physical- or sex- related infidelity behavior. Females on the other hand, tend to seek partners that can provide their needs (e.g. emotional, physical and survival) and are therefore more susceptible to engage in emotional infidelity once these needs are not met (Tagler & Jeffers, 2013).
Lastly, it was even found that a person’s gender also acts as a significant influence on how they perceive infidelity itself. Men, despite being more prone to engage in physical infidelity, find it more appalling and unacceptable, because of the possibility that they may need to live with a child that is not of their own (Buss, 2018; Kato, 2021). Females, on the contrary, find emotional infidelity worse than its physical counterpart, because it increases the possibility that
their male partner would leave them for another female that can provide their emotional needs better (Buss, 2018; Kato, 2021). With these theories, it can be rightfully argued that both males and females possess distinct characteristics with regards to how they engage in infidelity, as well as in how they perceive infidelity. Hence, the present study aims to determine the role of gender as a moderator between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating.
2. Method
Research Design
This study is a quantitative research approach, particularly a predictive correlational study with moderation analysis in examining the participants’ perception of online emotional cheating and relationship closeness and to what extent their gender affects their perception.
Participants
A non-random purposive sample of 107 young adults from Metro Manila was selected to participate in the study. The participants included 47 males and 60 females, with ages ranging from 20 to 23 years old and currently in a serious heterosexual relationship for at least a year.
Research Instruments
Personal Data Sheet records participants’ personal and romantic relationship information relevant to the study. Personal information gathered includes age, gender, and residence.
Romantic relationship information asked includes current relationship status, type of romantic relationship they are currently in, and the length of their relationship in years.
Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale measures the participants’ relationship closeness with their romantic partners, determining the particular aspects of relationship closeness that are essential to interdependence. The high-reliability index of URCS was determined by Dibble et al. (2011) obtaining test-retest correlations ranging from α = .92 to α = .99, consistent with r-spearman = .698, p < .001 of Vilar et al. (2017).
Internet Infidelity Scale measures the participants’ perception of online emotional cheating, determining what forms of online-related emotional cheating acts are deemed the most severe by the participants. The internal consistency of the IIS-44 obtained a Cronbach's α of 0.92, and the correlation between all of its factors was reported to be strongly significant (Nooripour et al., 2017).
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics of the gathered data were initially accomplished, identifying the mean and standard deviation of the data set. Correlation analysis was then performed to test the relationship between study variables, Pearson's r for the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating, and point-biserial correlation for the relationship between gender and online emotional cheating. PROCESS macro by Andrew F. Hayes was lastly utilized to investigate whether gender moderates the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating. IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics version 26.0 was used to accurately perform all the aforementioned statistical analyses.
3. Results
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Gender Relationship closeness Online emotional cheating n
M SD M SD
Male 70.06 9.26 141.02 68.05 47
Female 68.38 12.12 143.90 65.76 60
Table 1 presented the descriptive statistics for relationship closeness and online emotional cheating based on the participants’ demographic profile—gender. It shows that male participants have a high quality of close relationship with their partners (M = 70.06, SD = 9.26) and high perceptions of online infidelity behaviors (M = 141.02, SD = 68.05). It also shows that female participants have a high quality of close relationship with their partners (M = 68.38, SD = 12.12) and high perceptions of online infidelity behaviors (M = 143.90, SD = 65.76).
These findings suggest that participants, both male and female, have high levels of relationship closeness with their romantic partners and are less likely to commit online emotional cheating as they have high levels of awareness of behaviors that exhibit online emotional infidelity.
Table 2: Correlation Matrix for Study Variables
Variables Online emotional cheating
r p n
Relationship closeness - 0.043 0.663 107
Gender - 0.028 0.778 107
p < 0.05
Table 2 presented the correlation between the study variables. It shows that there was no significant relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating (r = - 0.043, p > 0.05). This implies that individuals, regardless of their levels of relationship closeness with their romantic partners, are susceptible to online emotional cheating. It also shows that there was no significant relationship between gender and online emotional cheating (r = - 0.028, p > 0.05). This suggests that individuals, regardless of their gender, are prone to commit online emotional cheating.
Table 3: Moderation Analysis Result
Variables B SE 95% CI p
LL UL
Direct effects
Relationship closeness (X) 0.2407 1.9951 - 3.7162 4.1976 0.9042
Gender (M) - 2.2245 10.3444 - 22.7402 18.2912 0.8302
Intercept (X × M) - 0.4037 1.5026 - 3.3837 2.5764 0.7887
Conditional effects
Female - 0.1629 0.7578 - 1.6658 1.3399 0.8302
Male - 0.5666 1.2975 - 3.1399 2.0068 0.6633
p < 0.05
Table 3 presented the moderation analysis result, with relationship closeness as the predictor, online emotional cheating as the outcome, and gender as a moderator. It shows that there was no significant direct effect between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating (B = 0.2407, SE = 1.9951, 95% CI (- 3.7162, 4.1976), p > 0.05), as well as between gender and online emotional cheating (B = - 2.2245, SE = 10.3444, 95% CI (- 22.7402, 18.2912), p >
0.05). It also shows that the interaction effect between relationship closeness and gender on online emotional cheating has no significance (B = - 0.4037, SE = 1.5026, 95% CI (- 3.3837, 2.5764), p > 0.05). Lastly, it shows that the conditional effect of relationship closeness on online emotional cheating has no significance for both genders—female (B = - 0.1629, SE =
0.7578, 95% CI (-1.6658, 1.3399), p > 0.05) and male (B = - 0.5666, SE = 1.2975, 95% CI (- 3.1399, 2.0068), p > 0.05). Therefore, gender has no significant effect on the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating (all p > 0.05). These findings imply that the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating does not vary among the different identified genders.
4. Discussion
While previous studies and literature on the dynamics of relationships suggests that online emotional cheating might be sensitive to the differences of an individual’s relationship closeness level to their romantic partner (Maxwell, 1985, as cited by Dibble et al., 2011;
Norona et al., 2018), we tried to extend the study of Norona (2018) by examining the role of gender as a possible moderator on these connections. Guided from the notion that the existence of a stronger relationship closeness between two individuals in a relationship would imply that the individuals in the relationship would be less prone to engaging in online emotional cheating (Norona et al., 2018), it was revealed that relationship closeness was not significantly related to online emotional cheating. A possible explanation for this lack of consensus is that relationship closeness may not be the only factor that influences online emotional cheating among young adults. This means that the level of relationship closeness between partners may not have much bearing on the decision to seek out emotional connections with others online.
As such, internet opportunity can be a critical factor in considering online emotional cheating because it provides individuals a greater chance to connect with others despite the couple’s level of relationship closeness. s Since various platforms are allowed by the internet to link with people that have common interest and principles, such shared interest can serve as the basis for an emotional connection, even if the individuals have never met in person, thus, possibly increasing the opportunity for emotional connections outside of a primary relationship. Furthermore, because our sample only included young adults who were currently in committed relationships, we lacked information about their relationship histories and the contexts in which they may have possibly engaged in online emotional cheating. This limitation may have contributed to the lack of significant results found between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating. Literature wise, the study of Lammers et al. (2011) provided support for the present findings confirming that psychological closeness is not significantly related to actual infidelity, implying that the geographical or emotional closeness between partners may not be a determining factor in the occurrence of online emotional cheating.
However, it is important to note that relationship closeness and psychological closeness can be distinct constructs, as relationship closeness may encompass the emotional bond between partners while psychological closeness may include various cognitive, emotional, and social factors that influence the perception of closeness or distance in a relationship. Additionally, previous studies (Fricker & Moore, 2005; Mattingly et al., 2010; Porjorat, 2016) collectively see infidelity as a multidimensional and multifaceted construct. Thus, examining infidelity only from the perspective of online emotional cheating may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
Moreover, the current research also pointed out new and unexpected findings that are specific on the gender differences in response to online emotional cheating. For instance, the current findings confirmed that gender does not have a significant effect on online emotional cheating.
Hence, this lack of significant gender differences in online emotional cheating may possibly imply that both genders view infidelity as a violation of boundaries and expectations of a committed relationship which suggests that the concept of infidelity may be more conspicuous than the specific behavior of online emotional cheating. As what earlier evolution studies have
suggested, it was revealed that men are more susceptible when it comes to sexual infidelity due to the implications of evolutionary instincts (Buss, 2018) while women tend to seek for partners that can meet their emotional needs (Tagler & Jeffers, 2013). Such findings were built upon Darwin’s evolutionary theory that heavily highlights the differences between male and female (Darwin, 1871, as cited by Padian & Horner, 2014). Still, despite the established studies concerning gender differences, the present study confirmed that there was no significant relationship between gender and online emotional cheating. Another possible factor for this is that age and maturity could be a more influential determinant of infidelity behavior compared to gender because of the cognitive and emotional development associated with it. This is due to the fact that these factors could completely affect an individual's ability to reason, manage their emotions, and avoid temptation (Zimmer-Gembeck & Ducat, 2010, as cited by Lantagne
& Furman, 2017).
As a final point, the present study drew conclusive findings that gender did not display any significant moderating effects on the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating. This means that regardless of gender, individuals in romantic relationships are equally susceptible to engage in online-infidelity behavior. Of note, a possible explanation of this is that individuals, regardless of genders may now have similar motivations, and attitudes towards online emotional cheating. Surprisingly, this notion is corroborated by the research of Weiser et al. (2018) about Tinder and infidelity, which demonstrated that gender did not emerge as a significant predictor of infidelity experiences. Yet, it is important to note that gender is just one aspect of a person's identity, and each couple may have their own unique personality traits, values, and preferences that may influence their likelihood to engage in emotional infidelity rather than focusing on gender alone. While gender is an important factor to consider when examining relationship dynamics and online emotional cheating, the evidence from the present findings does not strongly support the idea that gender significantly moderates the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating.
5. Limitations and Recommendations
While the present study found that gender did not moderate the relationship between relationship closeness and online emotional cheating, an important area for future research is to to consider the unexpected factors such as age, maturity, and Internet addiction, or level of Internet use, as external literature have suggested that these are some significant factors that usually affect a romantic relationship, particularly with regards to online emotional cheating.
Moreover, future studies could perhaps include more variability in specific age group, geographical location, and different types of relationship (e.g., homosexual and non- monogamous) to ensure the greater diversity of the sample and enable a more detailed investigation. Further, the future researchers should also append an exclusion criterion among the participants which may include couples who previously broken-up and reconnected after a distinct amount of time from participating in the study.
References
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017). When flirting turns into infidelity: The Facebook dilemma. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 45(1), 1-14.
Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155-160.
Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of adolescence, 32(5), 1209-1223.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Childhood and society. London: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 565–572.
Feist, J, Feist, G., & Roberts, T. (2018). Theories of Personality (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Fricker, J. & Moore, S. (2005). A Closer Look at the Dimensionality of Infidelity and Its Predictors. Proceedings of the APS Psychology of Relationships Interest Group 5th Annual Conference, 71-75.
Hackathorn, J., & Ashdown, B. K. (2020). The webs we weave: Predicting infidelity motivations and extradyadic relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(2), 170-182.
Kato, T. (2021). Gender differences in response to infidelity types and rival attractiveness.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36(4), 368-384.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological science, 22(9), 1191-1197.
Lantagne, A., & Furman, W. (2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between age and relationship length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738–1749.
Mattingly, B. A., Wilson, K., Clark, E. M., Bequette, A. W., & Weidler, D. J. (2010). Foggy Faithfulness: Relationship Quality, Religiosity, and the Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale in an Adult Sample. Journal of Family Issues, 31(11), 1465–1480.
Maxwell, G. M. (1985). Behaviour of Lovers: Measuring the Closeness of Relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(2), 215–238.
Nooripour, R., Abdi, M. R., Bakhshani, S., Alikhani, M., Hosseinian, S., & Ebrahim, T. P.
(2017). Exploring validity and reliability of internet infidelity questionnaire among internet users in Iran. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction, 6(1).
Norona, J. C. (2018). Breakups and Betrayals in Emerging Adulthood: A Developmental Perspective of Relationship Dissolution and Infidelity.
Norona, J. C., Olmstead, S. B., & Welsh, D. P. (2018). Betrayals in emerging adulthood: A developmental perspective of infidelity. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(1), 84-98.
Padian, K., & Horner, J. R. (2014). Darwin's sexual selection: Understanding his ideas in context. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 13(8), 709-715.
Porjorat, M. (2016). A comparative study of early maladaptive schemas in women with marital infidelity experience and those who didn’t have such an experience. Acta Medica International.
Starr, C. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2016). Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years:
A Review of its Reach and Impact. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 566–578.
Syed, M., & McLean, K. (2017). Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development.
Tagler, M., & Jeffers, H. (2013). Sex differences in attitudes toward partner infidelity.
Evolutionary Psychology, 11(4).
Vilar, R., Araujo, R., Coelho, G., Grangeiro, A., & Gouveia, V. (2017). Psychometric Properties of the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS) for a Brazilian Sample. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20.
Weiser, D. A., Niehuis, S., Flora, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Arias, V. S., & Baird, R. H.
(2018). Swiping right: Sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 29-33.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Arnhold, V., & Connolly, J. (2014). Intercorrelations of intimacy and identity dating goals with relationship behaviors and satisfaction among young heterosexual couples. Social Sciences, 3(1), 44-59.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Ducat, W. (2010). Positive and negative romantic relationship quality: Age, familiarity, attachment and well-being as correlates of couple agreement and projection. Journal of Adolescence, 33(6), 879–890.