By Natasha Behnam | Endeavour Psychology Group
After an affair, people often search for an explanation. What was missing? Why was secrecy easier than honesty? How could someone act against the commitments they had made? One study cannot answer all of those questions. My dissertation explored a narrower one: how is infidelity related to a person’s sense of self and their way of responding to relationship stress?
That question matters because an explanation can help identify what needs to change. It should also preserve responsibility: the person who violates a relationship agreement remains responsible for that choice.
What my research examined
In 2015, I studied differentiation of self and infidelity in 142 adults who were currently in committed relationships. The sample included 57 Iranian-American participants and 85 participants identified in the study as Caucasian. Participants completed anonymous online questionnaires about differentiation and involvement outside their relationships.
Differentiation concerns the ability to maintain your own values and sense of self while staying connected to others. The measure used in this study examined several dimensions, including a solid sense of self, self-soothing, and reactivity through arguing.
Across both groups, participants reporting combined emotional and physical infidelity had lower solid-self scores and higher arguing-reactivity scores than those who did not report that form of infidelity. These are associations within this sample. They do not show that arguing causes infidelity, that a less secure sense of self inevitably leads to betrayal, or that someone who experiences these difficulties will cheat.
The difference between feeling something and acting on it
One question raised by these findings is how people hold on to their commitments when they feel distressed, criticized, or disconnected. In the discussion of my dissertation, I explored the possibility that involvement with another person can sometimes function as a way to reduce tension or seek validation while an existing conflict remains unresolved.
That is a theoretical interpretation, rather than a mechanism the study directly tested. The survey did not follow people over time to establish what came first, and it did not establish why any particular participant became involved outside their relationship.
As an illustrative example, imagine someone who feels rejected after an argument and turns toward a secret exchange that makes them feel wanted. The attention may offer immediate relief. The original disagreement still needs to be addressed, and the secrecy introduces another problem. Understanding the appeal of that relief does not make the deception acceptable.
A solid sense of self includes accountability
The idea of a solid self invites a difficult question: “Can I act according to my values when doing so costs me comfort, approval, or immediate reassurance?” It also leaves room for honest decisions about a relationship, including acknowledging dissatisfaction or choosing to leave.
For someone who has broken an agreement, useful questions for reflection might include: What did I tell myself that made this choice acceptable? Which conversations did I avoid? Where did my behavior depart from the commitments I claimed to hold? These questions concern the person’s choices. They do not require a betrayed partner to take responsibility for preventing the affair.
What culture can and cannot explain
The study also considered cultural differences. Family expectations, privacy, and beliefs about relationships can provide important context for understanding someone’s experience. However, a small, nonrandom sample cannot establish what an entire community believes or how its members behave.
The groups in my study differed in characteristics such as age and relationship duration, and individual acculturation was not measured. Those limitations matter when interpreting any comparison. Cultural background can guide thoughtful questions about a person’s experience; it cannot supply their answers for them.
What this means after betrayal
For the person who was betrayed, this research offers no reason to conclude that being more patient, less emotional, or more accommodating would have prevented another person’s choice. Your response to a betrayal is also not what this study measured.
For the person who was unfaithful, an explanation is a starting point for accountability. An important question is what they will do differently when discomfort returns. Can they speak honestly, acknowledge their choices without shifting blame, and respect their partner’s right to decide what happens next?
My study does not provide a formula for predicting an affair or deciding whether a relationship should continue. It does point toward a meaningful area of reflection: how we manage distress, maintain our values, and take responsibility for our actions within relationships that matter to us.
About the research
This article draws on a 2015 doctoral dissertation manuscript. The study was cross-sectional and based on self-report from a nonrandom sample. It identifies associations, not cause and effect. The examples and reflective questions above are interpretations for readers, rather than interventions tested by the study.
References
Behnam, N. (2015). The relationship between differentiation and infidelity among Iranian-Americans [Doctoral dissertation manuscript, Alliant International University].
