Dating relationships and infidelity attitudes and behaviors
In this way, people who suffer technological infidelity tend to consider it a real episode of infidelity (Whitty and Quigley, 2008), which raises in the offended person the imperative need to demand therapeutic assistance to face the resulting traumatic impact (Schneider et al., 2012). This impact could be considered from the family ecological perspective, which focuses on the environmental result of ecological influences in romantic and family relationships. Attachment styles as predictors of facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. At this point, it is not surprising that infidelity has been considered a common phenomenon that affects many couples regardless of their nature (e.g., marriage, cohabiting, or dating relationships; Treas and Giesen, 2000; Lishner et al., 2008; Fife et al., 2013), so much so that infidelity rates fluctuate significantly according to various studies (Baucom et al., 2006; Abrahamson et al., 2012; Watkins and Boon, 2016; Fincham and May, 2017), with estimations of its prevalence at just over 60% (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b). Around 40% is attributed to men and approximately 20–25% to women (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Thompson and O’Sullivan, 2016b; Fincham and May, 2017). Hooking up: the relationship contexts of “non-relationship” sex. Study 2 (N = 378) examined the influence of experienced extradyadic behaviors on unforgiveness, negative affect, and anxious attachment to the partner.
Similarly, the results of the study indicated that the participants noticed similar effects to those reported for traditional sexual infidelity, such as guilt, shame, loss of trust in the partner, and ending the relationship.
Such factors have shown severe consequences for people who suffer this type of extradyadic behavior (Hertlein and Blumer, 2014).
Consequently, technological infidelity—like traditional sexual infidelity—induces strong negative feelings in the offended person (e.g., feelings of anger, fear, shame or guilt; Whitty, 2005; Zitzman and Butler, 2005; Schneider et al., 2012), undermines marital quality, and results in loss of trust in the partner (e.g., Whitty, 2005; Schneider et al., 2012; Valenzuela et al., 2014), commonly concluding in separation or divorce (Whitty, 2005). The role of identity salience and commitment in the stress process.
More specifically, the family ecological perspective emphasizes how the use of the Internet and new technologies generates changes in the way members of the couple or the family relate (Hertlein and Stevenson, 2010; Hertlein and Blumer, 2014).
Thus, Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) conducted an in-depth review of the factors that represent the individual ecological vulnerabilities derived from technological infidelity and revealed the existence of seven factors known as the “Seven As”: anonymity (i.e., people can hide their true identity), accessibility (i.e., people have access to social networks and the Internet from different areas, and can interact with other people), affordability (i.e., Internet products and applications can be downloaded at a very low cost), approximation (i.e., social networks and the Internet let people meet each other face-to-face outside the virtual world), acceptability (i.e., people can develop romantic relationships through new technologies because they are usually a means of common use), accommodation (i.e., new technologies provide people with new opportunities to behave according to their true self, rather than as they should be), and ambiguity (i.e., communication and determining some behaviors as problematic or questionable may vary between people). doi: 10.1525/sop.2004.47.3.289 Cross Ref Full Text | Google Scholar Marshall, T.