It is hard to imagine romantic and committed relationships devoid of transgressions of some kind. Despite the best intentions not to cause any harm or disappointment to one's partner, breaking rules and promises are largely inevitable in long-term relationships. Some transgressions are trivial, like arriving late to an appointment or forgetting to buy an item on a shopping list. They may cause annoyance in the partner, but are usually easily forgiven (Friesen, Fletcher, & Overall, Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005) — and maybe even forgotten. Other transgressions are more severe and may have a strong negative effect on the relationship. Grave betrayals of trust, such as cheating on a partner or lying about financial issues can be much more difficult to forgive (Bendixen, Kennair, & Grøntvedt, Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Grøntvedt2018; Sheldon, Gilchrist-Petty, & Lessley, Reference Sheldon, Gilchrist-Petty and Lessley2014). Any form of infidelity from either party may potentially instigate a breakup. When couples retrospectively report on reasons for breaking up, infidelity is the most common (Amato & Previti, Reference Amato and Previti2003). This finding is not restricted to Western cultures, as across 160 cultures, a spouse's infidelity was the most frequently cited cause of breakup (Betzig, Reference Betzig1989). It is important to note that infidelity does not always lead to dissolution of couples; some are able to forgive the transgression and continue the relationship (Abrahamson, Hussain, Khan, & Schofield, Reference Abrahamson, Hussain, Khan and Schofield2012). As such, we need a better understanding the psychology of forgiveness following severe transgressions, and few studies have investigated forgiveness of severe transgressions in couples. In the current study we therefore address the novel issue of how couples respond to infidelity vignettes (or scenarios) and what aspects of the relationship influence probability of forgiveness or breakup following emotional and sexual infidelity.

There are individual differences in how people respond to infidelity. The scorned party may selectively choose information about the infidelity that is either threatening or conciliatory to the relationship (Shrout & Weigel, Reference Shrout and Weigel2019). In turn, such information can affect how they perceive key elements of the transgression, such as the relative role of internal and external causes, and to what extent the transgressor should be held responsible and blamed for what has happened. These processes have been termed ‘causal attributions’ (Hewstone, Reference Hewstone1989). Similarly, relationship satisfaction can affect the attributional process (Fincham, Reference Fincham2000; Fincham & Bradbury, Reference Fincham and Bradbury1987). For example, less satisfied individuals may selectively choose information that is more threatening to the relationship and form more nonbenign attributions that increase the likelihood of relationship dissolution following a partner's infidelity.

As dissolution is not always the outcome following infidelity, the scorned party may try to continue the relationship by forgiving the transgression. Forgiveness has been conceptualised as a transformation from avoidance and revenge motives toward relationship enhancing motives (McCullough et al., Reference McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown and Hight1998; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, Reference McCullough, Worthington and Rachal1997) and distinctions between the internal, intrapsychic dimension and the external, interpersonal dimension of forgiveness are often made (Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, Reference Baumeister, Exline, Sommer and Worthington1998). Further, forgiveness is contingent on attribution (Weiner, Reference Weiner1995), and studies indicate that judgment of responsibility and/or blameworthiness, and perceived intentions, seems to influence one's willingness to forgive (McCullough et al., Reference McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown and Hight1998). For low-level relational transgressions, such as sharing a secret entrusted by romantic partner, Boon and Sulsky (Reference Boon and Sulsky1997) found a moderate negative correlation between blame and forgiveness. They suggest that blaming the transgressor predicts less willingness to forgive. However, investigations of forgiveness and blame related to severe transgressions, such as infidelity, remain scarce.

Relationships are less likely to dissolve if transgressions are forgiven (Hall & Fincham, Reference Hall and Fincham2006). Further, Hall and Fincham (Reference Hall and Fincham2006) reported that level of internal forgiveness fully accounted for the association between blaming partner and relationship dissolution. The mediating effect of forgiveness on relationship dissolution is also supported in a recent study on the effect of partner blame and forgiveness after either (1) hypothetical sexual infidelity (a vignette describing a scenario), or after (2) actual infidelity (emotional, sexual, or both; Shrout & Weigel, Reference Shrout and Weigel2019). In line with findings from Hall and Fincham (Reference Hall and Fincham2006), the individuals who made more internal attributions (blaming the transgressor) also reported less forgiveness and more certainty in ending the relationship following the hypothetical sexual infidelity scenario. In actual infidelity cases, participants reported on actual breakup (no/yes) with transgressor. As in the hypothetical scenarios study, a higher proportion of participants who blamed their partner more and who were less forgiving had decided to leave the relationship following the experienced infidelity (but the effect of blame on breakup was accounted for by forgiveness). Despite being hypothetical, the infidelity scenario in Shrout and Weigel (Reference Shrout and Weigel2019) was rated as realistic, and the participants rated the likelihood of breakup following the hypothetical scenario as high. These findings further suggest that the mechanisms that come into play are very similar for hypothetical and actual infidelity.

Shrout and Weigel (Reference Shrout and Weigel2019) did not perform analyses of couples, but only on individuals. As such, the way these processes work for each partner in a committed relationship remains unexamined. In addition, the hypothetical scenario describing infidelity focused solely on sexual infidelity, and the process for emotional infidelity was not investigated. Another study, Friesen et al. (Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005), did investigate 39 heterosexual couples reporting on past transgressions that were identified by both partners. Similar to prior studies (e.g., Fincham, Reference Fincham2000; McCullough, Reference McCullough2000), they found that each party's subjective rating of their current relationship quality was independent of blame, and strongly and positively associated with both internal and expressed forgiveness. The positive association between forgiveness and relationship satisfaction has been found in several other studies as well (for a review, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, Reference Fehr, Gelfand and Nag2010). Further, the more severe the transgression, the less forgiveness and more blame were expressed by each partner (Friesen et al., Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005). The above associations were similar for men and women. However, Friesen et al. (Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005) did not report explicitly on infidelity, as they included past transgressions of any kind recognised by both parties in ongoing relationships. Compared to other forms of transgressions, infidelity is more severe, less likely to be forgiven, and hence potentially more likely to result in breakup. Combining severe transgressions as in Shrout and Weigel (Reference Shrout and Weigel2019) and couple data as in Friesen et al. (Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005), we aim to investigate the mechanisms leading to breakup following infidelity within relationships. However, there are sex differences in what kind of infidelity (sexual vs. emotional) people find most distressing, and there might be different mechanisms involved in decisions to dissolve relationships for sexual versus emotional infidelity.

While both women and men find infidelity a major threat to their relationship, there is a relative sex difference in what aspect of infidelity individuals find most disturbing. Women report being more upset than men about the emotional aspect than about the sexual aspect of the infidelity (e.g., Bendixen, Kennair, & Buss, Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Buss2015; Buss, Reference Buss2013; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, Reference Buss, Larsen, Westen and Semmelroth1992; Sagarin et al., Reference Sagarin, Martin, Coutinho, Edlund, Patel, Skowronski and Zengel2012), and men find it more difficult to forgive sexual infidelity than women (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett, Reference Shackelford, Buss and Bennett2002). From an evolutionary perspective this has been ascribed to the asymmetries between the sexes in parental certainty and parental investment in the joint offspring (Buss, Reference Buss2013: Sagarin et al., Reference Sagarin, Martin, Coutinho, Edlund, Patel, Skowronski and Zengel2012). In a study of coupled students responding to hypothetical infidelity vignettes, women found it harder to express forgiveness than men did, and they wanted to keep more distance after imagining their partner falling in love with someone else as opposed to imagining their partner having sex with them (Bendixen et al., Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Grøntvedt2018). In addition, men seem to be less concerned about own or partner's emotional infidelity and would both forgive more and expect more forgiveness following infidelity that does not involve sex (Bendixen et al., Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Grøntvedt2018). While there has been some debate over the use of scenarios for measuring jealousy responses (e.g., Harris, Reference Harris2003; Sagarin, Reference Sagarin2005), sex differences in jealousy are found regardless of real or hypothetical infidelity, study design, and sample characteristics. For instance, Sagarin and colleagues (Reference Sagarin, Martin, Coutinho, Edlund, Patel, Skowronski and Zengel2012) found no differences when comparing hypothetical infidelity scenario responses with responses to actual infidelity, while Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, and Sagarin (Reference Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc and Sagarin2006) found sex differences in responses to actual infidelity experiences. In a very large dataset, Frederick and Fales (Reference Frederick and Fales2016) found that sex differences in responses to hypothetical scenarios were not influenced by age, length of relationship, history of infidelity, or history of being cheated on in a large heterosexual sample. Also, sex differences were only found among heterosexuals. Finally, Bendixen et al. (Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Buss2015) found that history of partner infidelity did not influence jealousy ratings of hypothetical infidelity scenarios, and that continuous and force choice methods provided highly comparable effect sizes. However, few studies that investigate forgiveness have considered sex differences in responses to different types of infidelity — emotional or sexual (see Bendixen et al., Reference Bendixen, Kennair and Grøntvedt2018; Shakelford, Buss, & Bennett, Reference Shackelford, Buss and Bennett2002).

The Current Study

While sex differences in levels of distress to emotional and sexual infidelity, perceived transgression severity (level of threat), forgiveness and breakup have been addressed in prior studies, the underlying psychological mechanisms for breakup following infidelity have received scant attention. Clearly missing from the forgiveness literature is an examination of mechanisms that may influence breakup following infidelity, and whether these mechanisms are different for men and women across different types of infidelity. In this study we use data from 92 romantically involved heterosexual couples, specifically examining how current relationship quality, level of threat (i.e., perceived transgression severity), blame (i.e., nonbenign attributions), and likelihood of forgiving one's partner's imagined infidelity affects each partner's likelihood of breaking up. Similar to Shrout and Weigel (Reference Shrout and Weigel2019), we consider the most severe form of transgression, infidelity. However, unlike Shrout and Weigel, the current study will consider sexual and emotional forms of infidelity in separate models using couple data. Our main prediction is that forgiveness will be the primary predictor of breakup, and that the effect of partner blame will be fully mediated by forgiveness (Hall & Fincham, Reference Hall and Fincham2006). Friesen et al. (Reference Friesen, Fletcher and Overall2005) did ask participants to recall transgressions, and the couples participating in the study had been able to work through the problems. As such, there could be an effect on relationship quality and a self-selection bias in the sample, with couples dissolving as a consequence of the transgression not being investigated. But provided there are no studies to our knowledge that have investigated relationship quality in couples prior to transgressions, this is an open question. To the extent that imagined future transgressions activate similar psychological mechanisms as recalled past transgressions, we would expect that relationship quality will be negatively associated with blame and positively with forgiveness also for imagined transgressions. The tested model is outlined in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. The tested model for likelihood of relationship breakup.

Results

Within Couple Difference in Means and Within-Individual Associations

As can be seen from Table 1 and Table 2, both women and men reported very high and equal levels of relationship quality (M ≥ 6.1 on a 7-point Likert-type scale). For the sexual infidelity vignette, both sexes reported very high levels of perceived threat following imagined infidelity in their partner (M ≥ 6.3). There were no sex differences in level of blame, forgiveness (not keeping distance and not wanting revenge), or likelihood of breakup. In comparison, men reported lower levels of threat (t = –2.75, d = –0.29), more forgiveness (distance: t = 3.39, d = 0.37), and less likelihood of breakup (t = –2.45, d = –0.26) than women imagining their partner's emotional infidelity. In general, likelihood of forgiveness was relatively low with regard to keeping distance (M ≈ 3.0), whereas forgiveness as not wanting revenge was relatively high (M ≈ 5.0) for both vignettes.

Table 1. Zero-Order (Pearson's r) Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Women (Upper Panel) and Men (Lower Panel) for the Sexual Infidelity Vignette

Note: *p < .05. All variables were measured using 7-point Likert-type scales.

Table 2. Zero-Order (Pearson's r) Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Women (Upper panel) and Men (Lower Panel) for the Emotional Infidelity Vignette

Note: *p < .05. All variables were measured using 7-point Likert-type scales.

Within each couple, men and women agreed moderately on the level of relationship quality (r = .40). However, across both types of imagined partner infidelity and for each sex, relationship quality was unrelated to perceived threat, level of blame and forgiveness, and likelihood of breakup. Threat was moderately associated with blame and wanting revenge, and strongly associated with keeping distance. Blame had a somewhat stronger association with keeping distance and wanting revenge when imagining one's partner's emotional infidelity (rs ranging from –.34 to –.42) compared to sexual infidelity (rs ranging from –.17 to –.27). Blame and wanting revenge were both moderately associated with breakup, while forgiveness in terms of not keeping one's distance and level of threat evinced particularly strong associations with likelihood of breakup for both infidelity types and both sexes (rs ranging from –.58 to –.68).

Likelihood of Breakup: Imagining One's Partner's Sexual Infidelity

In the path models, women and men in each pair were treated as distinguishable dyads. Despite the imaginative nature of the infidelity, we allowed for cross-loadings between men and women within each dyad (none were significant). We first tested the outlined model (Figure 1). This model demonstrated poor fit to the data, χ²(31) = 164.52, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.218, CFI = 0.521, TLI = 0.073). Relationship quality had no effect on blame or forgiveness (not keeping distance and not wanting revenge) for either sex. For this reason, we omitted relationship quality from the model and let perceived threat be the first predictors allowing for indirect and direct effects on breakup. Blame and level of forgiveness (i.e., keeping less distance and wanting less revenge) were mediating factors. The residuals for these two dimensions of forgiveness were allowed to correlate within each sex (these were moderately correlated; see Table 1).

The path model for sexual infidelity (Figure 2) suggests that perceived threat clearly increased the likelihood of breakup. Threat was positively associated with blame, but blame did not have a knock-on effect on forgiveness. The pattern of associations was essentially similar for women and men. The model accounted for 57% of the variance of likelihood of breakup for women, and 47% of the variance in likelihood of breakup for men. The model also accounted for a sizeable amount of variance in forgiveness; larger for keeping less distance (women: 41%; men: 36%), but less so for wanting less revenge (women: 12%; men: 14%).

Note: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI < Tucker Lewis index; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual.

Fig. 2. Likelihood of break-up imagining partner being sexually unfaithful. Standardized path coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients are presented separately for the two dimensions of forgiveness (keeping distance before the slash, wanting revenge after the slash). Model fit: χ²(13) = 25.48, p = .020, RMSEA = 0.102 [0.040, 0.161], pclose = .076, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.844, SRMR = 0.071.

Perceived threat was the major predictor of breakup for both sexes. For women, the total effect of threat on breakup was β = .549, but mediation analysis (MEDSEM) suggests that 44% of the total effect of perceived threat on breakup was accounted for by forgiveness, as measured by keeping less distance (z = 3.78, p < .001; partial mediation). For men, the total effect of threat on breakup was β = .627. Again, this effect was partly mediated (29%) by keeping less distance (z = 2.60, p = .009). The level of perceived threat related to one's partner's sexual infidelity seemed to have a more direct effect on breakup for men than for women, but a direct comparison of men and women's threat–breakup paths showed no statistical difference, χ²(1) = 0.65, p = .422. In contrast to keeping distance, wanting revenge did not significantly mediate the total effect of perceived threat on breakup for either sex (z _women = 1.94, p = .052; z _men = –1.29, p = .196). Similarly, blame did not affect breakup and did not mediate the effect of perceived threat on breakup for neither sex. Noteworthy, blame was unrelated to both dimensions of forgiveness (keeping less distance and wanting less revenge) in the sexual infidelity vignette. Only two of the four fit indices (CFI and SRMR) met the criteria for a good-fitting model. A trimmed model with blame omitted demonstrated a significantly better fit to the data.

In summary, for the sexual infidelity vignette, perceived threat leads to likelihood of breakup. The effect of perceived threat was partially mediated by a pathway through forgiveness (mainly distancing) and slightly more so for women. Perceived threat also leads to blame, but that does not have a knock-on effect on forgiveness. The path coefficients were not significantly different for men and women within dyads.

Likelihood of Breakup: Imagining One's Partner's Emotional Infidelity

Similar to the sexual infidelity vignette, we first tested the outlined model (Figure 1). This model demonstrated poor fit to the data, χ²(31) = 136.99, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.194, CFI = 0.530, TLI = 0.089. Relationship quality had no effect on either blame nor forgiveness for either sex imagining their partner being emotional unfaithful. For this reason, men's and women's reports of relationship quality were omitted as predictors in the remaining analyses, and we tested a model that was identical to the sexual infidelity vignette model (Figure 3). The analysis suggests that higher perceived threat strongly increased the likelihood of breakup when imagining one's partner's emotional infidelity. The total effect (direct and indirect) was substantial (β_women = .604; β_men = .622). Further, forgiveness (keeping less distance) had a strong and direct effect on breakup for men and women. The model accounted for 57% of the variance of likelihood of breakup for women, and 58% of the variance in likelihood of breakup for men. Perceived threat and blame also accounted for a sizeable amount of variance in forgiveness; again, relatively more for the distance dimension (women: 32%; men: 37%) than for the revenge dimension (women: 19%; men: 15%).

Note: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI < Tucker Lewis index; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual.

Fig. 3. Likelihood of breakup imagining partner being emotionally unfaithful. Standardised path coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients are presented separately for the two dimensions of forgiveness (keeping distance before the slash, wanting revenge after the slash). Model fit: χ²(13) = 15.65, p = .269, RMSEA = 0.047 [0.000, 0.119], pclose = .472, CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.969, SRMR = 0.055.

The effect of perceived threat on breakup was partially mediated by forgiveness (keeping less distance) for both women, z = 3.11, p = .002, and men, z = 2.76, p = .006. The distance dimension of forgiveness accounted for 37% and 39% of the variance of perceived threat on breakup for women and men respectively. In contrast to the sexual infidelity vignette, blame was significantly associated with forgiveness for men and women. Blame was moderately associated with keeping less distance for both sexes (β_women = –.260, β_men = –.282). The mediation analysis suggests that the effect of blame on breakup was indirect only, and fully mediated by the effect of keeping less distance for both sexes (z _women = 2.20, p = .028; z _men = 1.96, p = .050). The distance dimension of forgiveness accounted for 79% and 83% of the variance of blame on breakup for women and men respectively. Although blame was moderately associated with wanting less revenge for both sexes (β_women = –.369, β_men = –.309), this did not have a knock-on effect on the likelihood of breakup for either men or women in the emotional infidelity vignette. All four fit indices indicate a good-fitting model.