All
 
|
 
 


Representations about infidelity in romantic relationships among young russian generation
 
PIIS020595920013331-0-1
DOI10.31857/S020595920013331-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
M. Nepomelueva 
Occupation: Consulting psychologist
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Moscow, Mokhovaya, 11, bld. 9
A. Rikel
Occupation: Associate Professor of the Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Mokhovaya, 11, bld. 9
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 42 Issue 1
Pages56-65
Abstract

The socio-psychological aspects of the phenomenon of infidelity are not much covered in scientific research. It is becoming important to study the social representations of modern young people about infidelity, taking into account different types of romantic relationships. The aim of the work is to study the social representations of infidelity in romantic relationships among the modern younger generation. A survey and focus groups were conducted. The survey involved 156 people (18 - 30 years old), who are in different types of relationships: monogamous, conventionally non-monogamous, secret relationships. It was taken into account whether the respondents are married and whether they have passed the religious wedding ceremony. The author's questionnaire contained associative questions. The structure of social representations was built according to the Vergesse method based on the results of content analysis. The results obtained in three focus groups (the total number of group participants was 28 people aged 18 to 30 years), whose participants were in monogamous and conventionally non-monogamous relationships, were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Structures of representations about infidelity in general, about male and female infidelity were constructed. Differences were found in the perceptions of young people who are in different types of relationships. For monogamous people, the concept of infidelity often is described through sexual actions, for conventionally non-monogamous people, this concept is more flexible, its’ boundaries are determined by agreements within the relationship. Women’s infidelity is more condemned and perceived as more emotional and less sexually oriented. The absence of gender differences in the perception of the forgiveness of physical and emotional infidelity casts doubt on the interpretations proposed in the framework of evolutionary concepts. Social-cognitive interpretative approach seems more meaningful. So called double standards in representations about infidelity were found. 

Keywordsinfidelity, social representations, romantic relationships, monogamous relationships, conventionally non-monogamous relationships
Received08.01.2021
Publication date20.01.2021
Number of characters24423
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 4, views: 1400

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Andreeva T. V. Semejnaya psihologiya: ucheb. posobie. St. Petersburg: Rech', 2004. (in Russian)
2. Baklanova O.E., Muhanova N.A. Lichnostnye osobennosti i harakter povedeniya suprugov v semejnyh konfliktah. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2011. V. 32. № 2. P. 48–58. (in Russian)
3. Golynchik E.O., Gudkova N.N. Social'nye predstavleniya molodezhi ob izmene v romanticheskih otnosheniyah. Fundamental'nye i prikladnye issledovaniya sovremennoj psihologii: rezul'taty i perspektivy razvitiya. Ed. A.L. ZHuravlyov, V. A. Kol'cova. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psihologii RAN”, 2017. P. 1664–1672. (in Russian)
4. Levkovich V.P. Osobennosti dobrachnyh otnoshenij suprugov kak faktor stabil'nosti sem'i. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2009. V. 30. № 2. P. 87–91. (in Russian)
5. Perel' E. Pravo na “levo”. Pochemu lyudi izmenyayut i mozhno li izbezhat' izmen. Per. s angl. Mamed'yarova Z. Moscow: Eksmo, 2018. (in Russian)
6. SHnejder L.B. Osnovy semejnoj psihologii: ucheb. posobie. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo psihologicheskogo instituta, 2010. (in Russian)
7. Barker M., Langdridge D. Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities. 2010. V. 13. № 6. P. 748–772.
8. Barta W., Kiene S. Motivations for Infidelity in Heterosexual Dating Couples: The Roles of Gender, Personality Differences, and Sociosexual Orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2005. V. 22. № 3. P. 339–360.
9. Bettinger M. Polyamory and Gay Men. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2005. V. 1. №1. P. 97–116.
10. Bendixen M., Kennair L., Buss D. Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015. № 86. P. 212–216.
11. Buss D. Sexual jealousy. Psychological Topics. 2013. V. 22. №2. P. 155–182.
12. Carpenter C. Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to sexual versus emotional infidelity: men and women are more similar than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2012. V. 36. № 1. P. 25–37.
13. Conley T., Moors A., Matsick J., Ziegler A. A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2013. V. 17. № 2. P. 124–144.
14. Feldman S., Cauffman E. Sexual betrayal among late adolescents: Perspectives of the perpetrator and the aggrieved. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1999. № 28. P. 235–258.
15. Haritaworn J., Lin C. Polylogue: A critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities. 2006. V. 9. № 5. P. 515–529.
16. Harris C. Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science. 2002. V. 13. № 1. P. 7–12.
17. Harris C. Male and female jealousy, still more similar than different: Reply to Sagarin. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2005. V. 9. P. 76–86.
18. Henline B., Lamke L. Exploring perceptions of online infidelity. Personal Relationships. 2007. V. 14. № 1. P. 113–128.
19. Hertlein K., Wetchler J., Piercy F. Handbook of the Clinical Treatment of Infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2005. V. 4. № 2. P. 112–127.
20. Hertlein, K., Weeks G. Two roads diverging in a wood: The current state of infidelity research and treatment.. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy. 2007. V. 6. № 3. P. 95–107.
21. Hertlein K., Webster M. Technology, relationships and problems: A research synthesis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2008. № 34. P. 445–460.
22. Knox D., Zusman M., Kaluzny M. Attitudes and behavior of college students toward infidelity. College Student Journal. 2000. V. 34 № 2. P. 162–164.
23. Lieberman B. Extrapremarital intercourse: Attitudes toward a neglected sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research. 1988. № 24. P. 291–298.
24. Luo S., Cartun M., Snider A. Assessing dyadic behavior: A review, a new measure and two new models. Personality and Individual differences. 2010. V. 49. № 3. P. 155–163.
25. McAnulty R., Brineman J. Infidelity in Dating Relationships. Annual Review of Sex Research. 2007. V. 18. № 1. P. 94–114.
26. Moller N., Vossler A. Defining Infidelity in Research and Couple Counseling: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2015. V. 41. № 5. P. 487–497.
27. Moscovici S. Why a theory of social representations?. Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions. Ed. by K. Deaux, G. Philogène. Oxford: Blackwell Publichers, 2001. P. 18–61.
28. Randall H., Byer E. What is sex? Students’ definitions of having sex, sexual partner and unfaithful sexual behavior. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2003. V. 11. № 2. 87–96.
29. Sabini J., Silver M. Gender and Jealousy: Stories of Infidelity. Cognition and Emotion. 2005. №. 19. P. 713–727.
30. Shackelford T., LeBlanc G. Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition and Emotion. 2000.V. 14. № 5. P. 643–659.
31. Sheff E.,Hammers C.The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality. 2011. V. 2. №3. P. 198–223.
32. Sweeney B. Slut shaming. The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender. Ed. By K. Nadal. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017. P. 1579–1580.
33. Tawfik L. Watkins S. Sex in Geneva, sex in Lilongwe, and sex in Balaka. Social Science & Medicine. 2007. V. 64. № 5. P. 1090–1101.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up