Communication Quarterly

Vol. 62, No. 4, SeptemberOctober 2014, pp. 416435

Testing a Model of Communication

Responses to Relationship Infidelity
Dana A. Weiser & Daniel J. Weigel

How partners communicate following a serious relationship transgression helps

determine whether a relationship continues or dissolves. The current study utilized the
exit-voice-loyalty-neglect (EVLN) and investment models to explore how individuals
(n 146) would communicate upon learning of a partners infidelity. Individuals were
more likely to actively respond to infidelity using exit and voice in the EVLN model. As
infidelity increased in seriousness, individuals were also more likely to communicate in a
relationship destructive manner and less likely to respond in a relationship constructive
manner. Commitment, satisfaction, investment size, and relationship length emerged as
consistent predictors of communication responses.

Keywords: Accommodation Responses; Commitment; Communication Strategies;

Infidelity; Relationship Transgressions

On November 27, 2009, golfer Tiger Woods made headlines when his wife Elin
Nordegren discovered his extensive infidelities. Although never confirmed, news
outlets reported that Elin violently confronted Tiger. While such violence should never
be condoned, the incident illuminates one way in which individuals may respond
upon discovering a partners infidelity. Individuals may react in a relationship destruc-
tive manner, such as Elin, or in a way which promotes relationship continuation
following discovery of an infidelity. Feldman and Cauffman (1999) found that
approximately 60% of dating relationships ended after an infidelity was discovered.
This means that while a high proportion of individuals end a relationship following
a partners infidelity, there are a number of individuals who remain with their partner.

Dana A. Weiser (Ph.D., University of Nevada, Reno, 2012) is in the Human Development & Family Studies
Department at Texas Tech University. Daniel J. Weigel (Ph.D., University of Nevada, Reno, 2002) is in the Human
Development & Family Studies=Cooperative Extension at the University of Nevada, Reno. Correspondence: Dana
A. Weiser, Human Development & Family Studies, Texas Tech University, Mailstop 41230 Lubbock, TX 79409;
E-mail: dana.weiser@ttu.edu

ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online # 2014 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2014.922482
 Communication Quarterly 417

The factors underlying this decision process are unclear. Metts and Cupach (2007)
argued that how individuals communicate upon discovering a transgression helps
determine whether the relationship continues following the episode, with more
positive communication strategies associated with relationship continuance.
Given Metts and Cupachs (2007) argument, greater insight is needed to better
understand how individuals communicate following the discovery of an infidelity
and the factors which influence individuals willingness to act in either a relationship
constructive or a relationship destructive manner. The purpose of the current study is
to explore how individuals, specifically the injured party, believe they would respond
to a partners infidelity and whether infidelity seriousness, relationship commitment,
relationship investment, and sex relate to these responses. These variables were
selected because both situational and personal characteristics may influence com-
munication following a transgression (Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983).
The study uses the exit-voice-loyalty-neglect (EVLN) and investment models to
understand how individuals communicate upon learning of a partners infidelity.

Understanding Infidelity
Infidelity may be defined as any involvement that violates the commitment norms or
rules of an exclusive romantic relationship (Hall & Fincham, 2006a). Many research-
ers distinguish between different types of infidelity (Blow & Hartnett, 2005). Indivi-
duals may engage in emotional infidelity (deep feelings for and a bond with an
extradyadic partner) or sexual infidelity (physical involvement with an extradyadic
partner). Additionally, individuals can engage in a combined-type infidelity, which
is characterized by both an emotional and physical involvement with an extradyadic
partner. Individuals may consider spending time with another individual, flirting,
kissing, sexual intercourse, and other sexually intimate activities as forms of infidelity
(Roscoe, Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988). The main defining element of infidelity is
whether a partner has broken a contract of exclusivity in the relationship, rather than
one specific event or feeling. This vague definition has made it difficult for research-
ers to evaluate previous work as well as conduct research (Blow & Hartnett, 2005;
Hackathorn, Mattingly, Clark, & Mattingly, 2011). In the present investigation, we
primarily focused on how participants communicated following physical (e.g.,
kissing) and sexual infidelity because most previous research has focused on these
forms of infidelities (e.g., Whisman & Snyder, 2007; Wiederman & Hurd, 1999)
and these are the types of infidelity most often reported by participants (Feldman
& Cauffman, 1999). However, flirting was also considered in order to assess how
individuals might communicate following a less serious, ambiguous transgression.
Infidelity, particularly sexual infidelity, is typically considered the prototypical
relationship transgression. It is a flagrant violation of most individuals relationship
expectations (Afifi, Falato, & Weiner, 2001; Tafoya & Sptizberg, 2007) and often leads
to relationship dissolution and conflict (Amato & Previti, 2003; Hall & Fincham,
2006b). Infidelity has many other potentially harmful outcomes for individuals
418 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
whose partners cheat, including extremely negative emotions, decreased personal
well-being, and lowered self-esteem levels (Allen et al., 2005; Buunk, 1995). Despite
these consequences, approximately 75% of male and 68% of female college students
reported engaging in at least one form of infidelity (Wiederman & Hurd, 1999), with
49% of men and 31% of women having ever engaged in a sexual infidelity. In con-
trast, previous research indicates that approximately 2040% of married men and
2025% of married women reported engaging in extramarital sexual infidelity during
their lifetimes (Whisman & Snyder, 2007). These figures indicate that a number of
individuals will experience an infidelity during their lifetimes, and as such, it is
important to understand how individuals may communicate, repair, or terminate
a romantic relationship following an infidelity.

Accommodation Responses
Communication plays a vital role in the maintenance and repair of romantic
relationships, particularly following serious relationship transgressions
(Emmers-Sommer, 2003). Researchers have proposed a number of categories to
describe how individuals communicate following relationship transgressions, but
few approaches have generated a genuine typology of responses (Emmers-Sommer,
2003). Metts (1994) distinguished between short- and long-term communication
strategies for managing conflict; short-term strategies include apologies, justifica-
tions, and denials whereas long-term strategies include metatalks about the relation-
ship, avoidance, and relational work. Dindia and Baxter (1987) generated 11
categories to describe how couples may repair and maintain their relationships,
including metacommunication, avoidance of metacommunication, seeking outside
help, and changing the external environment.
To better understand how individuals communicate following relationship
distress, Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) argued that researchers must explore the full
range of possible reactions to dissatisfaction (p. 275) and utilize an empirically
grounded typology of responses. Rusbult and colleagues thus developed the EVLN
model to systematically explore the ways in which individuals may react to relation-
ship conflict (Rusbult, Morrow, & Johnson, 1987; Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983;
Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). Although the term accommodation refers to
an individuals willingness to inhibit destructive responses and engage in constructive
communication (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991), the four com-
munication responses comprising the EVLN model are often referred to as accom-
modation responses (e.g., Overall & Sibley, 2010). The model identifies four types
of accommodation responsesexit, voice, loyalty, and neglectwhich vary along
active vs. passive and relationship constructive vs. relationship destructive dimen-
sions (Rusbult et al., 1987). Active responses entail the individual actually doing
something about the relationship (e.g., confronting or talking to a partner) whereas
passive responses represent the opposite (e.g., ignoring a partners actions).
Exit is characterized as an active, relationship-destructive response and may include
ending or thinking about ending a relationship, threatening to end a relationship,
 Communication Quarterly 419

yelling, or physically harming a partner. Voice is considered an active,

relationship-constructive response to transgression and includes discussing problems,
trying to change ones own or the partners behavior, seeking help from others, and
suggesting resolutions for the conflict. Past research has demonstrated that direct, con-
structive communication is the most effective strategy for repairing and maintaining a
relationship following a transgression (Emmers-Sommer, 2003). Loyalty is characterized
as a passive, relationship-constructive response and includes waiting and hoping that
the relationship will improve, supporting the partner despite the transgression, and
praying for improvement. Neglect is classified as a passive, relationship-destructive
response and entails ignoring or withdrawing from the partner, spending less time
together, refusing to discuss problems, and complaining about and criticizing the partner.
The four accommodation response categories provide an excellent way of examin-
ing various communication responses to infidelity in the current research. By utiliz-
ing such a typology, rather than focusing on singular responses, researchers are better
able to assess how individuals respond following serious transgressions (Rusbult,
1987). Additionally, such a typology recognizes the diverse ways that individuals
may communicate after a relationship transgression. Furthermore, the use of the
EVLN model provides a more parsimonious technique for exploring a range of com-
munication responses as exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect may be considered superor-
dinate categories of the strategies proposed by other researchers. Thus, the utilization
of the EVLN model allows for an overall examination of the many ways in which
individuals may communicate in response to a partners infidelity.
Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow (1986) found that perceptions of problem severity
were positively related to use of the active communication responses, exit and voice,
when coping with relationship conflict. As infidelity is typically considered a serious
relationship problem, it is likely that individuals will be more disposed to using active
communication responses. Indeed, Roscoe et al. (1988) found that 44.3% of college
students indicated they would terminate their relationship upon discovering an infi-
delity (including flirting, sexual intercourse, dating=spending time with another per-
son), while an additional 16.3% of participants indicated they would at least consider
ending the relationship. Furthermore, 38.2% of participants reported they would
confront their partner to understand why the infidelity occurred, and 27.2% of part-
icipants said they would discuss the problem. These results suggest that individuals
are more willing to use exit and voice responses when confronted with an infidelity.
As any form of infidelity may be considered disruptive to the relationship, individuals
likely will want to directly address such an issue in their relationship, regardless of
whether they desire to continue or terminate the relationship. Specifically, without
active and direct communication following an infidelity, it would be far more diffi-
cult for individuals to repair their relationship. Conversely, if individuals desire to
end a relationship following infidelity, this event would be most facilitated by active
communication. Therefore, it is predicted in the present study that:

H1: Individuals will report greater willingness to use active responses, exit and voice,
than passive responses, loyalty and neglect.
420 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
However, not all types of infidelity may be considered equally serious and
individuals likely respond differently to various types of infidelity. The severity of
a relationship transgression influences how individuals communicate and whether
individuals continue their relationship following a transgression (Hoyt, Fincham,
McCullough, Maio, & Davila, 2005; Metts, 1994; Metts & Cupach, 2007). Individuals
are more likely to forgive partners transgressions when they perceive the misbehavior
as less negative (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010). The previously discussed work by
Roscoe et al. (1988) unfortunately did not investigate which strategies are most often
associated with different forms of infidelity, a relationship of interest in the current
study. Individuals may be more likely to respond in a relationship-constructive
manner following less serious infidelities, such as flirtation, and less likely to respond
in a relationship-constructive manner following a very serious infidelity, such as a
prolonged sexual affair. Individuals may choose either a passive or active communi-
cation strategy following a minor infidelity; however, we expect that individuals will
communicate in a manner that would permit relationship continuation. Less serious
infidelities would likely be perceived as less damaging to the relationship and
individuals would be motivated to maintain the relationship. It is hypothesized that:

H2: Individuals will be less likely to use relationship-constructive responses (voice and
loyalty) following more serious types of infidelity and be more likely to use
relationship-destructive responses (exit and neglect).

Gender
Infidelity researchers often postulate gender differences in responses to infidelity,
although such relationships are not always found. Evolutionary psychologists in
particular have argued that males and females will react differently to various types
of infidelity (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett, 2002). Specifically, 60% of men and
17% of women indicated they would be more upset about a sexual infidelity whereas
83% of women and 40% of men indicated they would be more upset about an
emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). In contrast, other
researchers have found few gender differences and argue that men and women
respond quite similarly to emotional and sexual infidelity, and that many of the
gender differences found by researchers are due to methodological effects rather than
actual gender differences (DeSteno, Bartlett, Brayerman, & Salovey, 2002).
Rusbult (1987) proposed that gender may relate to individuals willingness to use
the accommodation responses, although there is contrasting evidence for this
relationship. Christensen and colleagues have found that women tend to take a
demanding role (articulating frustrations, eliciting change) during relationship con-
flict whereas men tend to take a withdrawing role (retreating from a conflict, reacting
passively; Christensen, Eldridge, Catta-Preta, Lim, & Santagata, 2006; Christensen &
Heavey, 1990). Feldman and Cauffman (1999) found males and females reacted
similarly to episodes of sexual infidelity, although men were more likely to withdraw,
sulk, and be violent. Rusbult et al. (1991) found women were more likely to
 Communication Quarterly 421

communicate in a relationship-constructive manner during conflict whereas men

showed a tendency towards destructive responses. Conversely, other research by
Rusbult and colleagues (Rubsult, Zembrodt, & Iwaniszek, 1986; Rusbult, 1987) found
no consistent gender differences among accommodation responses. Although pre-
vious work suggests that men would have a greater tendency towards neglect, overall
it is unclear which, if any, gender differences may emerge for the use of exit, voice,
and loyalty, therefore the first research question is posed:

RQ1: Do males and females differ in their use of communication responses?

The Investment Model, Relationship Length, and Infidelity

Beyond, the nature of the infidelity, it is important to note that infidelity occurs in
the context of a romantic relationship, and specific features of the relationship also
influence whether individuals continue their relationship following a transgression
(Hoyt et al., 2005; Metts & Cupach, 2007). One theory that has been used to study
communication responses to relationship transgressions and conflict is the invest-
ment model (Guerrero & Bachman, 2008; Rusbult et al., 1991). The investment
model conceptualizes relationship commitment as including four components: satis-
faction level, quality of alternatives, investment size, and commitment level (Rusbult,
Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Satisfaction is conceptualized as an individuals perception
that their relationship is rewarding. Investment size is defined as the resources an
individual has put into a relationship and the possible costs of losing the relationship.
Quality of alternatives refers to an individuals perception of whether there are other
desirable relationship partners and options to leaving the relationship. Satisfaction,
investment size, and quality of alternatives are then thought to influence an
additional construct, commitment level. In this model, commitment is conceptua-
lized as a psychological construct which includes an individuals intention to remain
in and attachment to a particular relationship, along with an individuals long-term
orientation toward maintaining the relationship. In other words, individuals who are
more highly committed to a relationship are satisfied with the relationship, see few
appealing alternatives, and are heavily invested in the relationship. Furthermore,
commitment is then directly related to a variety of relationship outcome variables,
including relationship persistence.
Numerous researchers have found that commitment positively predicts propensity
to forgive a relationship partner (Finkel, Rusbut, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002), posi-
tive communication strategies (Guerrero & Bachman, 2008, 2010; Roloff, Soule, &
Carey, 2001), and relationship continuation following infidelity (Drigotas & Rusbult,
1992). Individuals who are more committed to their relationships are more likely to
engage in relationship-constructive responses, voice and loyalty, and less likely to uti-
lize relationship-destructive response, exit and neglect, compared to individuals who
are less committed (Menzies-Toman & Lydon, 2005; Rusbult et al., 1991). Research-
ers have also found that the bases of commitment (e.g., satisfaction, investment size,
and quality of alternatives) significantly predict responses to relationship conflict
422 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
(Dillow, Dunleavy, & Weber, 2009; Guerrero & Bachman, 2008; Rusbult et al., 1991).
Overall, researchers have also found that satisfaction and investment size are nega-
tively associated with exit and neglect and positively associated with voice and loyalty
(Rusbult, 1987). Additionally, quality of alternatives is typically positively associated
with exit and negatively associated with voice, loyalty, and neglect (Rusbult, Johnson,
& Morrow, 1986), although the relationships between alternatives and voice and
neglect are not always consistent. Hence, the bases of commitment, and commitment
itself, may play a role in predicting communication following an infidelity.
It is also likely that relationship length would predict individuals use of communi-
cation responses. Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins, & Christensen (2007) found that
relationship length was related to how partners communicated during relationship
conflict. Relationship length may be considered a separate construct from the bases
of commitment, and commitment itself, because it represents the history of a
relationship whereas commitment represents the intention to remain in a relation-
ship. Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow (1986) found that individuals in longer relation-
ships are more likely to use the passive responses, loyalty and neglect, rather than the
active responses, exit and voice, when coping with relationship dissatisfaction. This
line of research leads to the second question:

RQ2: Which relationship variables (i.e., commitment, satisfaction, attractiveness of

alternatives, investments, and relationship length) best predict communication
responses for each infidelity scenario?

Method
Pilot Study
Previous research has found individuals are able to accurately imagine infidelity
scenarios and respond similarly to individuals who have experienced actual infideli-
ties (Allen & Baucom, 2006). Allen and Baucom compared the infidelity beliefs of
individuals (e.g., reasons for infidelity) who had experienced actual infidelities and
those who responded to a hypothetical infidelity, and found consistency between
groups. McLaren, Solomon, and Priem (2011) also noted that the use of scenarios
has some advantages over using retrospective accounts of hurtful events, as parti-
cipants may provide biased information about how they responded to events due
to memory distortion or interactions which occurred after the hurtful event.
McLaren et al. also emphasized that the use of scenarios better allows researchers
to compare the responses of participants since they are all responding to the same
hypothetical events.
A pilot study was conducted to ascertain whether the scenarios developed by the
researchers for the main study were considered infidelities and how serious each infi-
delity scenario was perceived. All scenarios consist of a partner confessing some type
of an infidelity, as this is how most individuals learn of an infidelity (Feldman &
Cauffman, 1999). Scenarios varied by degree of seriousness and included a flirting
 Communication Quarterly 423

scenario (Scenario 1), a kissing scenario (Scenario 2), a one-night stand scenario
(Scenario 3), and an affair scenario (Scenario 4). The text of the scenarios is available
from the authors on request. In all scenarios, it is stated that the other individual is
unknown to the participant and the relationship partner expresses regret and
professes that such behavior will never occur again. The only difference between
scenarios is the type of behavior to which the partner confesses.
A total of 25 undergraduate students (5 males, 20 females; M age 22.8)
responded yes or no to whether they considered each scenario to be cheating and
how serious they considered their partners infidelity in each scenario using a 9-point
scale (1 not at all serious; 9 extremely serious). Participants also indicated how
realistic they found each infidelity scenario using a 9-point scale (1 not at all
realistic; 9 extremely realistic). In the flirting scenario, 7 individuals indicated they
believed such behavior was cheating whereas 24 individuals believed kissing another
individual was cheating. All participants believed the one-night stand and affair
qualified as cheating behavior. As expected, participants reported the scenarios as
escalating in seriousness with flirting being considered the least serious infidelity
(M 4.60, SD 2.06), kissing (M 7.48, SD 1.26), one-night stand (M 8.96,
SD .20), and a prolonged affair being considered the most serious (M 9.00,
SD 0.0). A repeated measures ANOVA indicated that seriousness ratings signifi-
cantly differed among scenarios (F[3, 72] 88.77, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons
with a Bonferroni correction revealed that all seriousness ratings significantly differed
between scenarios (p < 0.001), with the exception of seriousness scores for the
one-night stand and affair scenarios. Participants overall viewed these sexual infide-
lities as quite serious, although participants unanimously rated the affair scenario as
extremely serious (a rating of 9 on the scale). Participants considered all scenarios at
least moderately realistic, as mean realism scores ranged from 5.48 to 6.36. Thus, all
participants seemed to believe that the presented scenarios were plausible although
they did not find the scenarios extremely realistic. Furthermore, a repeated measure
ANOVA revealed no significant differences for realism scores across scenarios.

Main Study
Participants and procedure. A total of 146 participants (45 males, 101 females, M
age 21.9 years) were recruited from the subject pool at a midsize western university
in the United States. Participants completed an online survey that included the
Investment Model Scale, infidelity scenarios, the Accommodation Scale, questions
about their romantic relationship, and demographics. Most participants were Cauca-
sian (67.81%), and all were currently involved in a romantic relationship, with an
average relationship length of 33.13 months (221 individuals took part in the study,
but individuals not currently involved in a romantic relationship were excluded from
all analyses). A total of 84 individuals (57.5%) indicated they had previously been
cheated on in a relationship whereas 50 participants (34.2%) indicated they had
previously cheated.
424 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
Materials. Participants first completed the Investment Model Scale (IMS; Rusbult
et al., 1998), a 22-item measure consisting of four subscales assessing commitment to
and satisfaction with ones current romantic relationship, quality of perceived alter-
natives, and relationship investment size. Respondents indicated degree of agreement
with items using a nine-point scale (0 dont agree at all; 8 agree completely).
Cronbachs alphas were 0.94 for commitment, 0.92 for satisfaction, 0.81 for invest-
ment, and 0.81 for quality of alternatives.
Participants were then presented with the four scenarios developed by the
researchers (scenarios of flirting, kissing, a one-night stand, and an affair) and were
instructed to imagine themselves and their partner in each scenario. Following each
scenario participants completed the accommodation measure to assess communi-
cation responses (adapted from Rusbult et al., 1982), an eight-item measure assessing
participants perceptions of how they would communicate following a partners
relationship transgression, using a 7-point scale (1 not at all; 7 definitely). The
content of the statements were essentially unaltered from the original measure; only
grammar was changed and participants were prompted to respond about their cur-
rent partner rather than a fictitious partner provided by the researcher. Two state-
ments were presented each for exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Sample statements
included I would be motivated to end my current relationship (exit), I would
try to discuss the problems with my partner (voice), I wouldnt plan to do any-
thing but expect that things will improve (loyalty), and I wouldnt plan to do any-
thing, and expect that things will become worse (neglect). The two items were then
averaged to create a score for each accommodation category. Participants completed
the scale after each infidelity scenario and independent scores were calculated for
each category following every scenario. Participants provided information about each
accommodation response because the categories may be considered overlapping,
rather than orthogonal (Rusbult, 1987). Finally, participants reported their age,
gender, ethnicity, relationship status and length, and infidelity history.

Results
General use of the communication responses for each scenario was initially exam-
ined, first for the whole sample and then by sex (see Table 1 for means and standard
deviations). Each response type was also summed across scenarios to create overall
exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect scores. To test Hypothesis 1, that individuals will
be more likely to use active accommodation responses across all infidelity scenarios,
paired-samples t-tests were conducted on the summed exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect
scores. No significant differences were found between the use of exit and voice
(t[145] 1.44, p 0.151, 19.65 vs. 18.52) and loyalty and neglect (t[145]
0.47,
p 0.635, 8.85 vs. 9.05). However, exit was found to be used significantly more than
loyalty (t[145] 17.48, p < 0.001, 19.65 vs. 8.85) and neglect (t[145] 18.05,
p < 0.001, 19.65 vs. 9.05). Voice was also more likely to be used than loyalty
(t[145] 16.11, p < 0.001, 18.52 vs. 8.85) and neglect (t[145] 12.70, p < 0.001,
 Communication Quarterly 425

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Accommodation Responses

All Males Females

M SD M SD M SD

Exit 19.65 5.21 19.84 5.20 19.57 5.23

Flirting 2.64 1.69 2.91 1.66 2.52 1.70
Kissing 4.62 2.08 4.63 2.02 4.61 2.12
One-Night Stand 6.01 1.66 5.92 1.79 6.06 1.61
Affair 6.38 1.39 6.38 1.49 6.38 1.35
Voice 18.52 6.49 17.52 6.20 18.96 6.59
Flirting 6.05 1.23 5.77 1.33 6.18 1.16
Kissing 5.44 1.85 5.30 1.82 5.51 1.88
One-Night Stand 3.97 2.45 3.74 2.32 4.07 2.51
Affair 3.05 2.51 2.71 2.46 3.20 2.53
Loyalty 8.85 3.58 9.18 3.37 8.69 3.67
Flirting 3.60 1.57 3.67 1.23 3.57 1.71
Kissing 2.43 1.48 2.52 1.31 2.39 1.55
One-Night Stand 1.48 0.90 1.47 0.92 1.49 .90
Affair 1.33 0.89 1.52 1.24 1.25 .67
Neglect 9.05 5.08 10.64 5.59 8.35 4.70
Flirting 2.18 1.29 2.70 1.49 1.95 1.12
Kissing 2.27 1.52 2.72 1.73 2.08 1.38
One-Night Stand 2.33 1.79 2.61 1.81 2.21 1.77
Affair 2.26 1.89 2.61 2.06 2.11 1.80

Note: N 146.

18.52 vs. 9.05). These findings indicate support for Hypothesis 1 as individuals were
more likely to use active communication responses when reacting to a hypothetical
infidelity than the passive communication responses.
Next, a series of mixed-model repeated measures ANOVAs was conducted to test
respondents willingness to engage in relationship promoting or relationship ending
communication responses as the infidelity scenarios increased in seriousness (H2),
and whether males and females differ in their use of the communication responses
(RQ1). Gender was the between-subjects variable and scenario was the within-
subjects variable; Type IV sums of squares were calculated due to the unequal
number of males and females. The ANOVAs were conducted separately for exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect (see Table 2).
Results revealed that scenario had a significant main effect for exit
(F[3,432] 199.30, p < 0.001), voice (F[3,432] 105.15, p < 0.001), and loyalty
(F[3,432] 132.66, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction
were conducted to examine how exit, voice, and loyalty responses significantly dif-
fered across each scenario. Results indicated that for all scenarios, the pairwise
426 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
Table 2 Repeated Measures ANOVAs for Accommodation Responses
by Gender and Scenario
Accommodation Factor F Partial g2

Exit
Gender 0.09 0.00
Scenario 199.30 0.58
Scenario x Gender 0.90 0.01
Voice
Gender 1.54 0.01
Scenario 105.15 0.42
Scenario x Gender 0.21 0.00
Loyalty
Gender 0.56 0.00
Scenario 132.66 0.48
Scenario x Gender 0.45 0.00
Neglect
Gender 6.61 0.04
Scenario 0.13 0.00
Scenario x Gender 0.51 0.00

Note: N 146;  p < 0.05, 

p < 0.001.

comparisons for exit and voice responses significantly differed from one another
(p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Thus, as each scenario increased in seriousness, part-
icipants were significantly more likely to use exit and significantly less likely to use
voice. For loyalty, all pairwise comparisons were significantly different (p < 0.001)
except the comparison between Scenario 3 and Scenario 4. As each scenario increased
in seriousness, participants were less likely to use loyalty except for the seriousness
change in Scenarios 3 and 4. These findings provide overall support for Hypothesis
2, individuals are generally more likely to use exit and less likely to use voice and loy-
alty as scenarios increase in seriousness. However, the use of neglect did not differ as
a function of scenario seriousness.
Gender had a main effect only for neglect responses (F[1,144] 6.61, p 0.011)
with males reporting higher levels of neglect compared to females regardless of
scenario. Additionally, no scenario x gender interactions were significant, indicating
that gender does not moderate the relationship between scenario seriousness and com-
munication responses. These findings indicate that males and females only differ in
their use of neglect and are otherwise similar in their use of communication responses.
Next, a series of multiple regressions were conducted to explore Research Question
2, which asked which relationship variables best predict communication responses.
Relationship length, the bases of commitment (satisfaction, alternatives, and invest-
ments), and commitment level were entered into the regression model (see Table 3
for relationship length and investment model variables means, standard deviations,
 Communication Quarterly 427

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Relationship Length and
Commitment Variables
All Males Females

M SD M SD M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Satisfaction 6.11 1.68 6.11 1.64 6.10 1.71

2. Alternatives 3.72 1.77 4.53 1.61 3.35 1.72
0.26
3. Investments 5.07 1.67 5.14 1.84 5.04 1.60 0.44
0.09
4. Commitment 6.46 1.75 5.81 2.03 6.75 1.53 0.61
0.44 0.54
5. Relationship 33.13 51.15 20.49 21.50 38.82 59.11 0.09
0.17 0.23 0.20
Length

Note: N 146;  p < 0.05, 

p < 0.01.

and correlations). Gender was initially entered into the regression analyses but in no
analyses was gender a significant predictor of accommodation responses; as such, sex
was dropped from the final model. Only significant relationships are reported in
Table 4 (contact the first author for the full regression results).
Exit responses were significantly associated with satisfaction for Scenarios 1 and 2,
and with relationship length for Scenarios 2 and 3. Exit responses were significantly
related to commitment level in Scenario 2 and alternatives in Scenario 4 as well. These
results indicate that exit is positively related to satisfaction in the flirting and kissing

Table 4 Regression of Relationship Length, Dependence Bases, and Commitment Level

on Accommodation Responses
Outcome Predictor B SE b t p sr2 (unique)

Exit Flirting Satisfaction 1.43 .62 .23 2.32 0.022 0.04

Exit Kissing Relationship Length
0.01 0.00
0.18
2.18 0.031 0.03
Satisfaction 1.67 0.75 0.22 2.24 0.027 0.03
Commitment
1.55 0.72
0.24
2.14 0.034 0.03
Exit One-Night Relationship Length
0.01 0.00
0.26
3.04 0.003 0.06
Exit Affair Alternatives 0.15 0.07 0.19 1.99 0.048 0.03
Voice Flirting Commitment 1.21 0.42 0.32 2.86 0.005 0.05
Voice Kissing Commitment 1.55 0.65 0.28 2.39 0.018 0.04
Voice One-Night Relationship Length 0.01 0.00 0.19 2.18 0.031 0.03
Loyalty Flirting Relationship Length
0.01 0.00
0.20
2.32 0.022 0.04
Investments 0.21 0.10 0.22 2.19 0.030 0.03
Loyalty Kissing Investments 0.24 0.09 0.27 2.67 0.009 0.05
Neglect Flirting Alternatives 0.12 0.06 0.17 1.99 0.049 0.02
Commitment
1.83 0.41
0.46
4.12 >0.001 0.11

Note: N 146;  p < 0.05, 

p < 0.01, 
p < 0.001.
428 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
scenarios and negatively related to relationship length in the kissing and one-night
stand scenarios. Additionally, there is evidence that exit is negatively related to com-
mitment in the kissing scenario and positively related to quality of alternatives in the
affair scenario. In the case of voice, this response was significantly associated with
commitment in Scenarios 1 and 2. Voice was also significantly related to relationship
length in Scenario 3. Thus, in the flirting and kissing scenarios, commitment level was
positively associated with voice whereas in the one-night stand scenario, relationship
length was positively related to willingness to use the voice response.
Loyalty also was significantly associated with relationship length in Scenario 1 and
investment size in Scenarios 1 and 2. Specifically, in the flirting scenario, relationship
length is negatively associated with loyalty whereas in the flirting and kissing scenar-
ios, investment size is positively related to willingness to respond with loyalty. Lastly,
neglect was negatively associated with commitment and positively associated with
quality of alternatives in Scenario 1. Therefore, across scenarios, commitment and
relationship length emerged as the most consistent predictors of communication
responses.

Discussion
The current findings provide insight into how individuals believe they would com-
municate and respond to their partner following discovery of an infidelity. The study
extends research on communication following relationship transgressions and
explores how individuals may communicate specifically upon discovering a partners
infidelity. This vein of research is important because knowledge of how individuals
communicate following an infidelity informs communication and relationship
researchers about why some relationships continue and others end following
extremely serious relationship transgressions, such as an infidelity.
The EVLN model provided a guiding framework to explore the range of ways in
which individuals communicate upon discovering an infidelity. Individuals unlikely
respond in a singular manner to relationship conflict. As such, a goal of the current
study was to understand how individuals use all four accommodation responses
when coping with a partners infidelity and how certain personal and relational fac-
tors may influence these responses. Foremost, support was found for Hypothesis 1,
which proposed that individuals overall would be more willing to use the active
accommodation responses (exit and voice) compared to the passive accommodation
responses (loyalty and neglect). This finding is consistent with previous research
which has found that active communication strategies are more often utilized when
dealing with serious relationship conflict (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986), and
that upon discovering an infidelity, individuals are most to likely terminate a
relationship or discuss the problem with their partner (Roscoe et al., 1988). This find-
ing indicates that when faced with a relationship transgression as serious as infidelity,
individuals are more likely to communicate in an active manner, which may either
lead to relationship continuation or relationship termination.
 Communication Quarterly 429

Support also was found for Hypothesis 2 as individuals willingness to use

relationship promoting communication responses declined as scenarios increased
in seriousness (see Table 2). As infidelity amplified from flirting to kissing to a
one-night stand to a prolonged affair, individuals were increasingly less likely to
use either voice or loyalty, although there was no significant difference between
use of loyalty in the one-night stand and affair scenarios. Additionally, individuals
became increasingly willing to use exit as scenario seriousness increased. There was
no relationship between individuals willingness to use neglect and scenario serious-
ness as individuals consistently reported low use of neglect regardless of scenario
seriousness. Individuals may be unlikely to use neglect because such a response does
not help them cope with the experience of infidelity and heal the relationship nor
does it allow individuals to immediately move on if they prefer to end a relationship.
However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as the pilot study did not
reveal the differences in perceived seriousness expected between the one-night stand
and affair scenarios. Overall, participants view any sexual infidelity as quite serious
and are less willing to use voice and more willing to use exit in the affair
scenario compared to the one-night stand scenario. Further information is still
needed to refine the nuanced relationship between communication strategies and
infidelity type.
The only gender difference that emerged in the current study was that men were
more willing to use neglect compared to women (RQ1). This result is consistent with
previous research which found that men are more likely to withdraw and utilize
neglect during relationship conflict (Christensen et al., 2006; Rusbult, 1987).
Christensen and Heavey (1990) proposed that men are more likely to use a passive
strategy during conflict because they are socialized to be autonomous and less
relationship focused, leaving men less well equipped to deal with relationship conflict
and thus rely on more passive responses compared to women. Otherwise, men and
women responded similarly to all infidelity scenarios and reported comparable levels
of willingness to use exit, voice, and loyalty across the flirting, kissing, one-night
stand, and affair scenarios. These results are consistent with Rusbult, Zembrodt, &
Iwaniszek (1986), who found that sex had no consistent relationship with use of
accommodation responses although men had a greater tendency to use neglect. This
finding is now extended to individuals use of communication responses following
infidelity. These results also support researchers who have found few differences
between how men and women respond to infidelity (DeSteno et al., 2002). Infidelity
researchers who have previously argued for gender differences (e.g., Shackelford et al.,
2002) focused more on emotional responses and perceptions of infidelity rather than
communication patterns, per se. These findings suggest that men and women com-
municate similarly despite previous work which indicates men and women perceive
infidelity differently.
The findings indicate that different components of the investment model and
relationship length predict different types of communication responses across scenar-
ios (RQ2), a result consistent with Guerrero and Bachman (2008). Exit was predicted
by a variety of investment model components but relationship length and satisfaction
430 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
emerged as more consistent predictors. Relationship length was negatively related to
exit in two out of four scenarios (the kissing and one-night stand scenarios), implying
that individuals who have been in relationships longer may have more to lose from
breaking up and thus indicated lower willingness to terminate relationships upon dis-
covering an infidelity. Contrary to expectations, satisfaction was positively related to
exit in the flirting and kissing scenarios rather than negatively related, as found in
previous research (Guerrero & Bachman, 2008). However, this association has not
been previously examined while specifically investigating responses to infidelity.
One reason for this positive association may be that individuals who are highly
satisfied in their relationship may be particularly surprised by a partners infidelity
and feel more violated by the act, and are thus compelled to act in a more extreme
manner by ending the relationship.
Voice was positively associated with commitment in the flirting and kissing
scenarios, and relationship length in the one night stand scenario. It appears that in
the less serious infidelity scenarios, commitment is a better predictor of willingness
to engage in an active, relationship constructive manner whereas relationship length
may be a better predictor in a more serious scenario which includes sexual intercourse.
This may be because individuals in longer relationships have the most to lose when end-
ing a relationship and as such are more motivated to actively discuss the relationship
even following very serious infidelities. In contrast, individuals who foresee a future
with their partner may believe a relationship is still rewarding after a mild infidelity,
but these perceived benefits disappear when confronted with more serious infidelities.
The results also revealed that loyalty was positively associated with investment size
in two out of four scenarios (the flirting and kissing scenarios). These individuals
likely believe they would incur high costs by ending the relationship or confronting
a relationship partner about less serious infidelities and therefore opt to passively
hope for the partner to improve in order to avoid possible losses. Interestingly, in
the flirting scenario relationship length was negatively associated with loyalty.
Perhaps individuals in longer relationships are less willing to act in a passive manner
when confronted with even a minor infidelity because experience has taught them
that passive responses are ineffective when dealing with conflict.
Finally, in the flirting scenario, neglect was positively related to quality of alterna-
tives. This finding suggests that individuals who perceive quality alternatives are more
likely to passively react to a less serious infidelity and wait for the relationship to
self-destruct. This relationship is counter to expectations, as Rusbult, Johnson, &
Morrow (1986) argued that individuals who perceive higher quality alternatives
should be less likely to use passive responses because they should be motivated to
end a relationship or feel able to change their partner. The current finding may indi-
cate that individuals who have high quality of alternatives may not consider it worth
the effort and potential conflict to confront a partner either to end or mend the
relationship after a mild infidelity. Neglect was also significantly related to commit-
ment in the flirting scenario. Hence, in the least serious infidelity scenario, indivi-
duals who are more committed to their relationship are less willing to use neglect
upon discovering an infidelity. It is also notable that this effect was the strongest
 Communication Quarterly 431

relationship to emerge for all analyses exploring the investment model and
communication responses. This finding strongly suggests that when confronted with
even a mild infidelity, highly committed individuals are quite averse to doing nothing
and potentially allowing their relationship to deteriorate.
It is also interesting to note that commitment, investment, and relationship length
were most often associated with the positive communication strategies, whereas level
of satisfaction and perceived quality of alternatives were more often related to
destructive responses. Thus, it appears that individuals who are more psychologically
attached to the relationship and have put more resources into the relationship
(including time) are much more likely to communicate in a way which enhances
the likelihood that a relationship would continue even after an extremely serious
transgression, such as infidelity. In contrast, relationship satisfaction and perceptions
of alternatives weigh more heavily on individuals propensity to negatively communi-
cate. Both push forces (commitment, relationship length, and investment) and pull
forces (loss of previously high satisfaction, appealing alternatives) influence the
likelihood individuals will breakup after an infidelity (Buunk, 1987). It appears that
individuals who feel they would lose such rewards are more likely to communicate
positively whereas individuals who feel they would benefit from relationship
termination are more likely to communicate in a negative manner.
The investment model also appeared to best predict communication responses fol-
lowing the less serious infidelities, flirting and kissing. In fact, only one significant
relationship emerged in the affair scenario (quality of alternatives was positively asso-
ciated with exit). These findings indicate that much research is still warranted to
understand how individuals communicate following the discovery of infidelity, parti-
cularly serious infidelities which entail sexual activity. With one exception (commit-
ment being negatively related to use of neglect in the flirting scenario), the observed
effect sizes were somewhat low indicating that other variables may better explain
communication strategies. Further research should perhaps explore more individual
factors (e.g., personality traits, communication competence, communication anxiety)
to gain insight into why some individuals may be more or less likely to use exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect following a partners infidelity.

Limitations and Conclusion

A limitation of the current study, as well as the pilot study, is the reliance on a con-
venience sample composed of mostly Caucasian, female undergraduate students in
dating relationships. The generalizability of these results is limited as individuals of
various ethnicities, ages, and relationship statuses may react differently to infidelity.
Moreover, the hypotheses which guided the current project were formulated from
previous research done on college students in dating relationships. As married indi-
viduals are generally more invested in and committed to their relationships, it is likely
that married persons may use more active, constructive responses following infidelity
behaviors as they have more to lose if their relationship were to end. However, it is
432 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
also possible that married individuals may view infidelity as a larger violation and
therefore may be more desirous of relationship termination. Future research must
utilize a diverse, community sample from a variety of backgrounds and relationship
statuses. These studies would provide valuable insight into how personal character-
istics and relationship type relate to how individuals respond following discovery
of an infidelity. It is also important to recognize that the majority of participants
in the current study, as well as the pilot study, were female. This is certainly a limi-
tation as the predominantly female sample may have resulted in findings that would
differ if men were better represented. The current results suggest that men are more
willing to engage in neglect, and as such, our findings may overestimate how willing
individuals are to use exit, voice, and loyalty. Further research is needed to clarify
these communication patterns for both males and females.
Moreover, longitudinal research must be undertaken to discover how these
individuals discover and respond to real infidelities and the long-term effects of
the communication responses. Another limitation of the main study is that no
manipulation check was utilized in the main study. Although the pilot study pro-
vided some evidence that infidelity scenarios were somewhat realistic and that scenar-
ios were of increasing seriousness, it is unclear whether participants in the main study
evaluated the seriousness and realism of the scenarios in the same manner as the pilot
study participants. Additionally, all scenarios were presented in the same order for
both the pilot and main studies, so there may be some concern of an ordering effect.
It is possible that participants may have been primed in some manner to expect sub-
sequent scenarios to be more serious and adapt their responses accordingly (i.e., be
most willing to end a relationship for the most serious scenario).
Despite these limitations, the current study illuminates how individuals may com-
municate upon discovering a partners infidelity. First, results indicated individuals
are highly likely to communicate in an active manner with their relationship partner.
Second, individuals are much more willing to terminate a relationship after more ser-
ious infidelities. Third, specific characteristics of the romantic relationship, parti-
cularly relationship length and commitment, significantly predicted certain
accommodation responses. Finally, men and women react similarly upon discovering
an infidelity, with the one exception being that men are slightly more likely to com-
municate in a passive, relationship-destructive manner.
The current study provides valuable insight into how individuals communicate
and respond following an infidelity. It is interesting that many persons continue to
engage in cheating behaviors despite the well-publicized damage infidelities have
on romantic relationships. Unfortunately, the communication processes and
relationship outcomes following the discovery of an infidelity are not clear to
researchers. A better understanding of these immediate responses provides research-
ers with information about why some relationships continue, and others end, follow-
ing an infidelity. Additional research is warranted to further develop an
understanding of communication responses following infidelity so that this
information may be applied to help individuals ultimately cope and effectively
communicate after an infidelity.
 Communication Quarterly 433

References
Afifi, W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational
transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291308. doi:10.1177=026 5407510373258
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005).
Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramari-
tal involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 12, 101130. doi:10.1093=clipsy.bpi014
Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2006). Dating, marital, and hypothetical extradyadic involvements:
How do they compare? The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 307317. doi:10.1080=
00224490609552330
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). Peoples reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life
course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602626. doi:10.1177=0192513X
03254507
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 183216. doi:10.1111=j.1752-0606.2005.tb01555.x
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251255. doi:10.1111=
j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
Buunk, B. P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency, and extradyadic sexual experience as related to
jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 147153. doi:10.1177=
0265407595121011
Buunk, B. P. (1987). Conditions that promote breakups as a consequence of extradyadic involve-
ments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 271284. doi:10.1521=jscp.1987.5.3.271
Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A. B., Lim, V. R., & Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-cultural
consistency of the demand=withdraw interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 68, 10291044. doi:10.1111=j.1741-3737.2006.00311.x
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand=withdraw
pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 7381.
doi:10.1037=0022-3514.59.1.73
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 11031116. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.83.5.1103
Dillow, M. R., Dunleavy, K. N., & Weber, K. D. (2009). The impact of relational characteristics and
reasons for topic avoidance on relational closeness. Communication Quarterly, 57, 205223.
doi:10.1080=01463370902889190
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143158. doi:10.1177=0265407587042003
Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of
breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 6287. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.
62.1.62
Eldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demand-withdraw
communication in severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed couples:
Rigidity and polarity during relationship and personal problem discussions. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 218226. doi:10.1037=0893-3200.21.2.218
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2003). When partners falter: Repair after a transgression. In D. J. Canary
& M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication (pp. 185205).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Sexual betrayal among late adolescents: Perspectives of the
perpetrator and the aggrieved. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 235258. doi:10.1023=
A:1021605532205
434 D. A. Weiser & D. J. Weigel
Finkel, E. J., Rusbut, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close
relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 956974. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.82.6.956
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2010). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating rela-
tionships: An expectancy-investment explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 27, 801823. doi:10.1177=0265407510373258
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2008). Communication following relational transgressions in
dating relationships: An investment-model explanation. Southern Communication Journal,
73, 423. doi:10.1080=10417940701815592
Hackathorn, J., Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., & Mattingly, M. J. B. (2011). Practicing what you
preach: Infidelity attitudes as a predictor of fidelity. Current Psychology, 30, 299311.
doi:10.1007=s12144-011-9119-9
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006a). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of dating infi-
delity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 143159. doi:10.1177=0146167208327189
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006b). Relationship dissolution following infidelity. In M. A. Fine &
J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 153168).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hoyt, W. T., Fincham, F. D., McCullough, M. E., Maio, G., & Davila, J. (2005). Responses to inter-
personal transgressions in families: Forgiveness, forgivability, and relationship-specific effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 375394. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.89.3.375
McLaren, R. M., Solomon, D. H., & Priem, J. S. (2011). Explaining variation in contemporaneous
responses to hurt in premarital relationships: A relationship turbulence model perspective.
Communication Research, 38, 543564. doi:10.1177=0093650210377896
Menzies-Toman, D. A., & Lydon, J. E. (2005). Commitment-motivated benign appraisals of partner
transgressions: Do they facilitate accommodation? Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 22, 111128. doi:10.1177=0265407505049324
Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side
of interpersonal communication (pp. 217239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger, and some-
times forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal
communication (2nd ed., pp. 243274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Convergent and discriminate validity of the Accommodation
Scale: Evidence from three diary studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 299304.
doi:10.1016=j.paid.2009.10.020
Roloff, M. E., Soule, K. P., & Carey, C. M. (2001). Reasons for remaining in a relationship and
responses to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 362
385. doi:10.1177=0265407501183004
Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons, and
consequences. Adolescence, 23, 3543.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-
neglect model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development,
dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Determinants and consequences of exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements.
Human Relations, 39, 4563. doi:10.1177=001872678603900103
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships, 5, 357391. doi:d10.1111=j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Rusbult, C. E., Morrow, G. D., & Johnson, D. J. (1987). Self-esteem and problem-solving behaviour
in close relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 293303. doi:10.1111=
j.2044-8309.1987.tb00792.x
 Communication Quarterly 435

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation
processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 5378. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.60.1.53
Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A
multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 274293.
doi:10.1016=0022-1031(83)90042-2
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to
dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
12301242. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.43.6.1230
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Iwaniszek, J. (1986). The impact of gender and sex-role
orientation on responses to dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 15, 120. doi:10.1007=BF00287528
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in
responses to a partners infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 299307. doi:10.1080=
02699930143000202
Tafoya, M. A., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2007). The dark side of infidelity: Its nature, prevalence, and
communicative functions. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of inter-
personal communication (2nd ed., pp. 201242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women:
Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of methods of assessments. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 147154. doi:10.1037=0893-3200.21.2.147
Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 16, 265274. doi:10.1177=0265407599162008
Copyright of Communication Quarterly is the property of Eastern Communication
Association 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.