social sciences

A new form of cheating: Online Infidelity

Before the existence of a new virtual world online, people had to look around in the ‘wild’ if they desired to be unfaithful. However, the internet has definitely created easier access to many different services. In many parts of the world, it is possible to order a variety of foods online, which will ultimately be delivered to our doorsteps. But Maslow’s Pyramid contains more needs and wants that we feel we require. Other needs can also be requested or bought online, affection, attention, or sex. One could argue that this also opens the doors to cheating, due to the availability.

Why do people use the internet to cheat?
Researchers have looked at online infidelity by examining it using the ACE model. ACE being anonymity, convenience, and escape. People can remain anonymous while using chat rooms or apps to look for potential affairs. It has become quite convenient to look for cheating partners. Right now, websites exist specifically for the purpose to find an illicit relationship. And last, several studies have found that people engaging in such activities experience their ‘escape‘ as some kind of “high”.1
Another important aspect of anonymity is that people can make themselves more desirable. Online users can spend more time thinking about their responses and how they want to represent themselves. And in terms of rationalizing ‘cheating behavior’, users often feel as if they are not actually cheating when talking to others online, even if when the conversation contains sexual undertones. Many people seem to draw the line at physical contact, only 17% regarded their behavior in chat rooms as infidelity.2

Who is cheating online?
Cheating can be defined in different terms: emotional vs. sexual cheating. In one study, sexual infidelity online as ‘hot chatting’ and cybersex. Emotional infidelity online as having formed a deep bond or fallen in love with someone else on the internet. Males were more likely than females to engage in sexual infidelity online. This was also found to be true for people who score high on extraversion. Those who score high on narcissism are more likely to be involved in emotional infidelity online.3

Cheating using social media?
Social media has made it easier to connect with others. Although sites exist specifically designed for the purpose of having affairs, social media seems to ‘fulfill’ this motivation as well. It seems that impulsivity predicts attempting to engage in cheating through social media.4
A study looked at Facebook use and jealousy among young adults. The researchers found that males experienced more jealousy when their romantic partner used the winking emoticon. Females were more jealous when their partners didn’t use any emoticons.5
60% of people have witnessed a relationship break-up caused by emotional infidelity on Facebook.6
Moreover, Facebook is used to look for romantic connections by people both single and in relationships.7

A new problem?
It seems as if we have established clear rules on what constitutes as cheating outside of the internet. But engaging in certain behaviors online tend to still fall in a gray area. As was pointed out by one of the participants in one of the cited studies: “there is nothing physical going on, so I’m not cheating on my spouse”. However, partners do get jealous when their significant other undertakes in romantic behaviors online.
Therefore it is only a matter of time before people establish clearer boundaries what entails as cheating in an online setting. It should also be noted that the internet doesn’t just cause relationship problems, it can also be a place for relationship formation.
1. Kimberly, S. Y., O’Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (2000). Cybersex and infidelity online: Implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7(10), 59-74.
2. Mileham, B. L. A. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: An ethnographic exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 11-31.
3. Browne, A. (2015). Online Infidelity; Gender, narcissism and extraversion as predictors of behaviour and jealousy responses.
4. Adams, A. N. (2017). Social Networking Sites and Online Infidelity (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
5. Hudson, M. B., Nicolas, S. C., Howser, M. E., Lipsett, K. E., Robinson, I. W., Pope, L. J., … & Friedman, D. R. (2015). Examining how gender and emoticons influence Facebook jealousy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(2), 87-92.
6. Nelson, O., & Salawu, A. (2017). Can my Wife be Virtual-Adulterous? An Experiential Study on Facebook, Emotional Infidelity and Self-Disclosure. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 18(2), 166.
7. Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ current Facebook friends; beware the ones they add!. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483-488.

social sciences

What are you like? What does your personality predict?

Psychology has created many personality tests that help predict and understand people’s behavior. However one of the most used tests seems to be the Big Five test. This test changed a lot in it’s beginning phases, at the end of the nineteenth century. But now the test includes 5 different traits, which is often abbreviated to OCEAN.

OCEAN stands for the following traits: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A Big Five test includes scales measuring these five constructs. The beauty of this test is that these traits have been proven to be quite stable over a (person’s) lifetime. And these constructs have been used to measure links with other behaviors or personality traits. For instance, these have been linked to political preference, work performance, health behaviors, and even your social media behavior. (Link below to take the test!)

Big Five traits
As mentioned earlier, the test measures five different traits. The first trait, openness, is about one’s openness to new experiences. If you score high on this trait, you could be considered curious, and interested in arts or music, and you have an active imagination.
Second, there is conscientiousness, this has to do with being organized. This means you’re reliable in your work, and you do things efficiently.
Then there is extraversion, probably one of the most known traits of the Big Five. People who score high on this trait are sociable, outgoing, and not likely to be reversed or timid.
The fourth trait is agreeableness, this is your tendency to agree with others and to cooperate. If you score low on this, you are more likely to blame others, start fights, and be rude.
Lastly, there is neuroticism, people who score high on this are more likely to be emotionally unstable, worry a lot, and get nervous.

Job performance
As mentioned earlier, these traits are linked to behaviors in certain settings. In a job-related setting, in which one has to be social, you could imagine that extraversion would be beneficial for performance. This turned out to be the case according to research done by Barrick and Mount (1991), They also found that conscientiousness was beneficial for most types of jobs.

Political preferences
And in terms of political preferences, center-right voters score a bit higher on conscientiousness, whereas center-left voters scored higher on agreeableness and openness (Capara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999).
Openness to experience is negatively related to conservatism, this means that those who tend to score low on this trait are more likely to hold conservative views. Extraversion is linked to political participation, that is carried out through group settings, which intuitively makes sense since you will be spending time with others. Furthermore, extroverts are also more likely to engage in political discussions, however, interestingly enough do not necessarily possess more political knowledge. Those who score high on openness to experience do seem to have more of this knowledge. And lastly, highly agreeable individuals tend to avoid political discussions (Mondak & Halperin, 2008), and one could speculate that they would do so to avoid situations in which they might have to disagree, this might create an uncomfortable situation.

Health behaviors 
Conscientiousness is linked to behaviors that promote health, agreeableness is linked to behaviors that include less substance use. While both behaviors predict less risk-taking in traffic situations. The same researchers that found these links argue that knowledge of such associations can improve programs aimed to increase/promote help. For instance, they propose that those scoring low on conscientiousness might benefit more from programs that involve peers (Booth-Kewely & Vickers, 1994).

Social media behaviors
Those scoring high on openness to might be more likely to share and post intellectual information (Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015). People who use Facebook for socializing score higher on neuroticism, whereas people who use Twitter for the same purpose score higher on openness. Individuals high in neuroticism and extraversion preferred Facebook over Twitter (Hughes, Rowe, Batey,  & Lee, 2012). The amount of Facebook friends has also been studied, neuroticism is negatively linked to this amount. This means that those high in neuroticism have fewer friends. And extraversion is positively linked, thus scoring higher on this trait means having more Facebook friends. Neurotics also engage in ‘liking’ others’ posts more and are part of more Facebook groups. The authors argue that these individuals tend to experience more negative emotions and therefore are more likely to take part in behaviors that might prompt support (Bachrach et al, 2012).

Take the Big Five test!

Inventory used to describe traits, very interesting read!

Bachrach, Y., Kosinski, M., Graepel, T., Kohli, P., & Stillwell, D. (2012). Personality and patterns of Facebook usage. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 24-32). ACM.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Booth‐Kewley, S., & Vickers, R. R. (1994). Associations between major domains of personality and health behavior. Journal of personality, 62(3), 281-298.
Capara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Personality profiles and political parties. Political psychology, 20(1), 175-197.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561-569.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35-40.
Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(02), 335-362.