Cann y Baucom (2004)

7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

1/14

Former partners and new rivals as threats to a

relationship: Infidelity type, gender, and

commitment as factors related to distress andforgiveness

ARNIE CANNa AND TRACY R. BAUCOMb

aUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte and bUniversity of North Carolina at Wilmington

AbstractThe overall aim of this study was to examine differences in responses to relationship infidelity when the infidelity

involves a former romantic partner as opposed to a new rival. Participants indicated, for either sexual or

emotional infidelity, whether they would be more upset if their partner were involved with a former partner or a

new person, and whether they would be forgiving. Men and women saw the former partner as a greater threat

when the infidelity was sexual. However, for emotional infidelity, only women selected the former partner more

frequently. Ratings of the degree of distress and likelihood of forgiveness followed a similar pattern. For women,

measures of relationship commitment were related to distress and forgiveness. For men, these measures were

related to forgiveness only. The gender differences in distress may be related to differences between men and

women in beliefs about the importance of commitment.

Infidelity in a romantic relationship is a

source of strong emotional reactions and a

threat to the stability of the relationship

(Buss, 2000). Any evidence, real or imagined,

that one member of the relationship might

be attracted to, or be involved with, a rival is

likely to arouse distress in the romantic part-

ner and threaten the continuation of the

relationship. However, whereas distress islikely to be the initial response to any

evidence of infidelity, forgiveness for the

infidelity might eventually be granted. In

committed relationships, partners are often

willing to accommodate one another (Rusbult

& Buunk, 1993; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,

1998), so that despite the distress of the

infidelity, forgiveness might be possible (Fine

& Sacher, 1997), although the distress may be

harder to manage in some cases of infidelity

than in others (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett,

2002).The degree of distress or jealousy that

results from potential infidelity, and the

possibility of forgiveness, may be influenced

by a variety of factors related to gender, the

nature of the behaviors involved, and the

qualities of the rival (Buss, 2000; Buunk &

Dijkstra, 2000; DeSteno & Salovey, 1996).

For example, women are more threatened

by a physically attractive rival, while men

fear more a rival who presents himself asdominant (Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk,

& Dijkstra, 2000; Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998).

Moreover, recent research has provided

some support for gender differences when

This research was completed by the second author asan honors research thesis under the guidance of thefirst author. Both authors thank I. J. Toner and AlbertMaisto for their participation in the honors thesiscommittee. Suggestions from the action editor (JulieFitness) and anonymous reviewers greatly improvedthe manuscript.

Correspondence should be addressed to ArnieCann, Department of Psychology, University ofNorth Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University CityBoulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA; e-mail:[email protected].

Personal Relationships, 11 (2004), 305318. Printed in the United States of America.Copyright # 2004 IARR. 1350-4126/02

305

7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

2/14

individuals are forced to choose which one

among alternative forms of obvious infidel-

ity would be more upsetting. Buss and col-

leagues (Buss, Larsen, & Westen, 1996; Buss,

Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buss

et al., 1999; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, &Buss, 1996) have reported consistent differ-

ences between women and men in the distress

anticipated when confronted by imagined

sexual, as compared with emotional, infidel-

ity. Men choose sexual infidelity as more

distressing, while women choose emotional

infidelity.

In each of these instances, the original

predictions have been guided by an evolu-

tionary model, although alternative models

have been suggested to explain the results.

For example, on the basis of an evolution-

ary model, men are expected to be more

distressed by sexual infidelity because they

are less certain of paternity. Women, on the

other hand, should be more distressed by

emotional infidelity, which signals a loss of

commitment and a possible loss of the

future resources and protection they seek

from a mate. Others have suggested that

these same gender differences could bethe result of learned social expectations

(DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Harris, 2000;

Harris & Christenfeld, 1996), without

necessarily requiring a role for evolved sex

differences. Given the conflicting findings in

this area, and the competing explanations

for them, the overall aim of the present

study was to further examine the roles of

gender, rival type, infidelity type, and rela-

tionship commitment in predicting distressand likelihood of forgiveness in response

to imagined infidelity.

Former Partners as Threats to Relationships

One rival quality that is associated with

jealousy, but for which an evolutionary per-

spective should differ from expectations

based on social beliefs, is a past relationship

between ones partner and a rival. Ratherthan representing a fixed quality of the

rival, a past relationship involves a transient

condition associated with a rival. The

potential salience of these past relationships

is evident in reports of experienced and pro-

voked jealousy. In a survey of college stu-

dents, the two most commonly mentioned

sources of jealousy involved associations

with a previous partner (talking to or

talking about a previous partner; Knox,Zusman, Mabon, & Shriver, 1999). Another

survey found that many college students

intentionally make references to former

partners to evoke jealousy in current part-

ners. In fact, talking about a prior relation-

ship was rated as likely to cause a fight in

the relationship by 28% of a sample (Sheets,

Fredendall, & Claypool, 1997). Obviously,

a former relationship is believed to be a

potential threat to a current relationship.

Why might a former partner be such a

potent and recognized source of jealousy?

On the basis of evolutionary processes, for-

mer partners should be seen as minimal

threats, because the current partners

already have successfully out-competed

them, proving their fitness advantage, to

establish the existing relationship. If the

competition for a mate is based on fitness

advantages, the rival who has been

defeated should become less of a threat.On the other hand, the common and appar-

ently successful use of a former partner to

arouse jealousy implies that these rivals are,

in fact, seen as serious threats. A prediction

based on learned social expectations would

reflect the fact that individuals are often

portrayed in narratives about relationships

as returning to past lovers. The media are

filled with stories of lovers being reunited

after a separation, leading to a happyending. The implication of these socially

constructed messages may be that the

emotional connection with a former partner

is a bond that remains even though the

relationship has ended, eventually drawing

partners back together again. If some emo-

tional connection is assumed to persist,

women, more so than men, may feel more

threatened by past partners, given their

greater concern about emotional infidelity.Because no study has directly compared a

previous partner with a new rival, it

remains to be shown that the prior partner

is truly perceived as a greater threat to a

306 A. Cann and T. R. Baucom

7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

3/14

relationship or, as predicted by an evolu-

tionary model, that the former partner is

not perceived as a serious threat.

The first aim in the current study was to

directly test the differences, if any, in

responses to former partners and new rivalsas threats to relationships. Social uses of

former partners as a common means of

arousing jealousy imply that these indivi-

duals are seen as serious rivals, yet an evo-

lutionary model predicts the opposite, that

a new rival will be more of a threat since a

fitness advantage over the new rival has not

been established. One possible reason a for-

mer partner might be a greater threat is

because we have learned, through social

messages, that emotional ties may not be

completely broken even though a relation-

ship ended. Given the demonstrated ten-

dency to use former partners to arouse

jealousy, we would predict that former part-

ners would cause greater concern. In add-

ition, because emotional ties are held to be

more important to women than to men, we

would expect women, more than men, to

fear the former partner.

Infidelity Type

As indicated earlier, researchers have con-

sistently found a gender difference in

womens and mens reports of which type

of infidelity (sexual or emotional) would be

more distressing (Buss et al., 1992, 1996,

1999; Buunk et al., 1996). Men choose sex-

ual infidelity, and women choose emotional

infidelity. However, the gender differencesin distress because of infidelity type appear

consistently only when using a forced-

choice comparison. Studies that have

looked at separate ratings of the degree of

distress each infidelity would cause, or the

physiological indicators of arousal asso-

ciated with each infidelity, have produced

inconsistent results. Cann, Mangum, and

Wells (2001) and Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens,

and Thompson (2002) found the predictedgender differences in rated distress, while

DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, and Salovey

(2002) and Harris (2000) did not. Similarly,

Buss et al. (1992) and Pietrzak et al. (2002)

found physiological responses (heart rate

and electrodermal activity) consistent with

predictions, but Harris (2000) did not. It

could be argued that when men and

women are forced to choose, they choose

what they believe they should choose, andso they choose differently. However, when

each infidelity is considered separately,

mens and womens responses may be

based solely on their evaluation of the

impact of the infidelity presented.

The second aim in the current study was

to further examine gender differences in the

rating of the distress associated with sexual

versus emotional infidelity. In past research,

distress ratings for the two forms of infidel-

ity have always been collected as a within-

subject variable. In the current study, the

two ratings are treated as a between-subject

variable, to minimize the likelihood of

social expectations about how one should

respond to one type of infidelity or the like-

lihood of the other altering the responses.

Without the ability to compare the two

types of infidelity, it is expected that gender

differences will be minimal or entirely

absent. Both types of infidelity are undesir-able, but sexual indiscretions should be

more distressing than emotional indiscre-

tions to men and women alike.

Predicting Distress and Forgiveness

Following Infidelity

Recent research has found gender differ-

ences in forgiveness following infidelity,

depending on both the type of infidelityinvolved and the degree of distress reported.

In a direct comparison of sexual versus

emotional infidelity, both men and women

found sexual infidelity more difficult to for-

give, but compared to women, men more

frequently selected sexual infidelity as

harder to forgive (Shackelford et al., 2002).

In a subsequent question in which partici-

pants were asked to imagine that both

sexual and emotional infidelity hadoccurred, women now more frequently

selected emotional infidelity as the aspect

of the dual infidelity that would be hardest

to forgive. Because men find sexual

Infidelity and forgiveness 307

7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

4/14

infidelity more distressing than emotional

infidelity, these results are consistent with

the idea that distress is negatively associated

with the likelihood of forgiveness. The third

aim in the current study was to examine the

correspondence between distress ratingsand judgments of likely forgiveness. By col-

lecting ratings of distress and likelihood

of forgiveness, and by assessing infidelity

type as a between-group factor, the results

allow for a determination of the reliability

and generality of the findings reported by

Shackelford et al. (2002).

The Role of Relationship Commitment

Romantic relationships, like any relation-

ships, require a certain degree of commit-

ment to ensure their continuation. As

commitment increases, the relationship

becomes more stable, and the willingness to

accommodate one another in the relation-

ship increases (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993;

Rusbult et al., 1998). One likely accommoda-

tion in committed romantic relationships

involves a willingness to forgive some trans-

gressions. However, the degree of commit-ment also is likely to be related to the distress

experienced if the relationship ends (Fine &

Sacher, 1997). Thus, commitment should be

an important factor in helping to understand

both distress and forgiveness responses

following infidelity.

Indirect evidence that forgiveness will

vary with commitment can be drawn from

studies reporting that the decision to leave

or stay in an abusive relationship canbe predicted from variables associated

with commitment (Rusbult, & Martz,

1995; Truman-Schram, Cann, Calhoun, &

Van Wallendael, 2000). Although these

decisions may not be based on forgiveness

alone, results indicate that even after being

seriously wronged in a relationship, higher

commitment leads to a greater attempt

to maintain the relationship. Two recent

studies provide more direct support for theproposed relationship. McCullough et al.

(1998) found a link using a relationship

satisfaction/commitment composite, and

Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon

(2002) found consistent associations between

commitment, as measured using a more

specific measure of relationship commitment,

and positive reactions, viewed as instances

of forgiveness, following betrayal.

The final aim in the current study was toexamine the associations among measures

of relationship commitment and reactions

to infidelity. Specifically, relationship com-

mitment variables are used to predict mens

and womens distress and forgiveness in

response to the two types of infidelity. If

differences in relationship commitment

explain a significant portion of the variabil-

ity in distress and forgiveness, beyond the

impact of the infidelity type, the results

would provide additional support for the

proposal that learned social expectations

are important in understanding mens and

womens reactions to relationship infidelity.

The predictions are that higher commitment

will be associated with both greater distress

and a higher likelihood of forgiveness, for

both men and women.

Method

Participants

Participants were students enrolled in intro-

ductory psychology courses who volun-

teered to fulfill a course requirement. The

announcement soliciting volunteers indi-

cated that participants had to be unmarried

but currently involved in a committed

romantic relationship. There were 71 men,

with a mean age of 20years (SD 2.78),

and 69 women, with a mean age of

19.3 years (SD 2.18). The current roman-

tic relationship had a mean length of

17 months (SD 14.3), with a range from

1 month to 72 months. The current relation-

ship was reported to be sexual (Is this a

sexual relationship?) by 81% of the sample

(n 134). There were no gender differences

on any of these variables.

Materials

Responses to the infidelity. After providing

the demographic information described


7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

5/14

above, the second section of the survey

varied depending upon the participants

assigned condition. Participants responded

to an imagined episode of either emotional

infidelity or sexual infidelity. In all cases,

they were told to imagine that the personthey were currently involved with had been

unfaithful. One of the two phrases described

below was used to specify the nature of the

infidelity. For those in the sexual infidelity

group, they were asked to: Imagine your

partner having casual sexual intercourse

without emotional involvement with. . .

For those presented with emotional infidel-

ity, they were asked to: Imagine your

partner becoming emotionally involved

without sexual intercourse with. . .

Within

each of these conditions, they were asked to

indicate which of two rivals (a former part-

ner or a new person) would upset them

more. The following phrases were inserted

at the end of the sentences describing the

infidelity to represent the different rivals:

. . . a former partner (someone your part-

ner dated before) or . . . a new person

(someone your partner recently met).

After choosing which other person, theformer partner or the new person, would

be more upsetting as a rival, the participants

rated how distressing each possibility would

be on a nine-point scale [slight distress (1) to

extreme distress (9)]. Finally, they rated

how likely they would be to forgive their

partner for the infidelity with each rival,

on a nine-point scale [definitely would

not forgive (1) to definitely would for-

give (9)]. Therefore, a participant waspresented with an episode of either sexual

or emotional infidelity (a between-group

manipulation), where the rival was a former

partner or a new person (a within-group

variable). This design provides for the

desired direct comparison between the two

rivals and for the assessment of distress

when the two forms of infidelity are inde-

pendently rated. For each of the three meas-

ures (the forced choice as to which rival wasmore upsetting to imagine, the ratings of

distress for each rival, and the ratings of

forgiveness for each rival), the order of the

options (former partner or a new person)

was varied across participants. These very

brief descriptions of the infidelity were pat-

terned after those used in studies that had

previously tested for forced-choice decisions

(Buss et al., 1999; Cann et al., 2001). Although

the descriptions lack detail, providing choicessimilar to those included in previous studies

will allow for clearer comparisons across

studies.

Commitment measures. The next section of

the survey was the Investment Model Scale

(Rusbult et al., 1998). The scale provides

separate measures for the four components

of the Investment Model. There are 22

items, with composite scores created for

satisfaction (five items, e.g., I feel satisfiedwith our relationship.), investments (five

items, e.g., I have put a great deal into

our relationship that I would lose if the

relationship were to end.), quality of alter-

natives (five items, e.g., My alternatives to

our relationship are close to ideal.), and

commitment (seven items, e.g., I am com-

mitted to maintaining my relationship with

my partner.). Each item was rated on a

nine-point scale [do not agree at all (0)to agree completely (8)]. The participants

were instructed to respond to the items

based on their current relationship.

Procedure

Participants were scheduled in small groups

(310 per group). After reading the necessary

informed-consent information, participants

received the survey packet. Within a group,surveys containing the sexual infidelity and

emotional infidelity scenarios were randomly

distributed. When all participants at a ses-

sion had completed the surveys, participants

were debriefed, and any questions were

answered. Sessions lasted about 30 min.

Results

Forced-choice responses to infidelity

scenarios

Overall, infidelity involving a former part-

ner was selected as the more upsetting


7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

6/14

event, but the extent of the preference did

vary as a function of the type of infidelity

(Table 1).1 The former partner was selected

with a higher relative frequency when the

infidelity involved was sexual (73%) ratherthan emotional (57%) [2(1, N 140)

3.80, p 0.05]. However, when the gender

of the participant was considered, men and

women differed in their rate of choosing the

former partner when the infidelity was emo-

tional (women 70%, compared to men 46%)

[2(1, N 70) 4.02, p 0.045], but with sex-

ual infidelity, the frequencies were equivalent

(women 72%, men 74%) [2(1, N 70)

0.02, p 0.902].

Ratings of distress

The distress ratings (1 slight, 9 extreme)

were evaluated in a 2 (gender) 2 (infidelity

type) 2 (rival) analysis of variance, with

repeated measures across the two rivals.

The means for each cell are summarized in

Table 2, so that distress ratings can be

matched to the choices depicted in Table 1.

Two main effects were significant, and one

of the interactions reached significance.

Sexual infidelity (M 7.73, SD 1.69) was

more distressing than emotional infidelity(M 6.65, SD 2.03) [F(1, 136) 14.38,

p< 0.001], and infidelity involving a former

partner (M 7.48, SD 1.86) was more

distressing than infidelity with a new person

(M 6.89, SD 2.02) [F(1, 136) 16.84,

p< 0.001]. However, the interaction of gen-

der with rival indicated that women showed

greater sensitivity to the distinction between

rivals. Men were equally distressed by both

rivals [M 6.81, SD 2.01 for new person;

M 7.10, SD 1.99 for former partner,

t(70) 1.42, p 0.16], but women were

more distressed when the rival was a former

lover [M 7.90, SD 1.63 for former part-

ner; M 6.99, SD 2.03 for new person,

t(68) 4.39, p< 0.001].

Ratings of forgiveness

The ratings of likely forgiveness

(1definitely would not, 9definitelywould) for the infidelity were also analyzed

in a 2 (gender) 2 (infidelity type) 2

(rival) analysis of variance, with repeated

measures across the two rivals. The means

for each cell are summarized in Table 3, so

that forgiveness ratings can be matched to

the choices depicted in Table 1 and distress

ratings in Table 2. The main effects for rival

[F(1, 136) 4.66, p 0.033] and for type of

infidelity [F(1, 136) 40.26, p< 0.001] weresignificant, as was the interaction of gender

with rival [F(1, 136) 7.11, p 0.009].

Participants believed that they would be

more likely to forgive emotional infidelity

(M 5.23, SD 2.41) than sexual infidelity

(M 3.04, SD 1.98). Forgiveness in reac-

tion to different rivals revealed an overall

bias in favor of forgiving when the rival was

the new person (M 4.28, SD 3.99) com-

pared to the former partner (M 3.99,SD 2.46), but this was qualified by the

interaction with gender. Only women

showed a varied reaction to different rivals,

with forgiveness more likely when the rival

Table 1. Choice of New Person or Former

Partner as More Distressing in Emotional or

Sexual Infidelity

New person

Former

partner

Sexual

infidelity

Men 9 (26) 25 (74)

Women 10 (28) 26 (72)

Total 19 (27) 51 (73)

Emotional

infidelity

Men 20 (54) 17 (46)

Women 10 (30) 23 (70)

Total 30 (43) 40 (57)

Note. Entries represent the number of participants

choosing that option as more upsetting, with corres-

ponding percentages in parentheses.

1. The order in which the two rivals appeared on thesurvey forms was varied. Analyses of both forced-choice responses and ratings of distress andforgiveness revealed no effects due to the order ofpresentation.


7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

7/14

was a new person [M 4.39, SD 2.49 for

new person; M 3.71, SD 2.41 for the

former partner, t(68) 4.55, p< 0.001].

Men did not differentiate by the type of

partner [M 4.17, SD 2.44 for the new

person; M 4.25, SD 2.49 for the former

partner, t(70) 0.35, p 0.730].

Predicting reactions to infidelity from

investment model variables

The investment model variables were first

subjected to a regression analysis to ensure

that the relationships predicted by the the-

ory were valid for this sample.2 The three

predictor variables, satisfaction, invest-

ments, and quality of alternatives, were

used to predict commitment. Because of

some omitted items that appear to follow

no pattern, there were 134 usable responses to

the Investment Model Scale. The regression

analysis was significant [F(3, 130) 56.30,

Table 2. Ratings of Distress in Response to Sexual or Emotional Infidelity with a New

Person or Former Partner

New person Former partner Total

Sexual infidelity

Men (n 34) 7.56 1.78 7.71 1.82 7.63 1.63Women (n 36) 7.47 1.81 8.17 1.34 7.82 1.35

Total 7.51 1.78 7.94 1.60 7.73 1.69

Emotional infidelity

Men (n 37) 6.05 1.96 6.49 1.98 6.27 1.77

Women (n 33) 6.52 2.17 7.64 1.88 7.08 1.85

Total 6.27 2.06 7.03 2.01 6.65 2.03

Grand total 6.89 2.02 7.48 1.86

Note. Entries represent the mean ratings on a 1 (slight) to 9 (extreme) rating of distress standard deviation.

Table 3. Ratings of Likely Forgiveness in Response to Sexual or Emotional Infidelity with a

New Person or Former Partner

New person Former partner Total

Sexual infidelity

Men (n 34) 3.24 2.15 3.03 1.85 3.13 1.78

Women (n 36) 3.17 2.09 2.72 1.88 2.94 1.90

Total 3.20 2.10 2.87 1.86 3.04 1.98

Emotional infidelity

Men (n 37) 5.03 2.41 5.38 2.49 5.20 2.18

Women (n 33) 5.73 2.21 4.79 2.50 5.26 2.27

Total 5.35 2.33 5.10 2.49 5.23 2.41

Grand total 4.28 2.46 3.99 2.46

Note. Entries represent the mean ratings on a 1 (definitely not forgive) to 9 (definitely forgive) rating of

likely forgiveness standard deviation.

2. The Investment Model Scale was administered last.To ensure that the between-group manipulationsdid not affect responses on this measure, analysesof variance were conducted with the InvestmentModel scores as the dependent variables. Therewere no significant effects.


7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

8/14

p< 0.001, R2 0.565]. All three variables

provided significant unique contributions to

the prediction of commitment (Table 4).

The three predictor variables from the

investment model were then used to predict

the distress and forgiveness ratings in

response to the infidelity. Given the gender

differences in distress and forgiveness rat-

ings, separate regressions were conducted

for men and women for each of the four

separate measures, with the effects of the

between-group variable, infidelity type,

removed in a first step of the regression,before the model variables were introduced.

The goal was to determine whether the

investment model variables could predict

reactions above and beyond the effects of

infidelity type. In predicting distress when

the rival was a former partner, the invest-

ment model variables did produce a signifi-

cant improvement in the regression model

for women but not for men (Table 5). An

examination of the contributions by indivi-dual investment model variables revealed

that the investment variable was the only

significant predictor for women. For men,

only infidelity type was a significant pre-

dictor of distress. No investment model

variables added significantly to the predic-

tion of distress, individually or as a set. The

same pattern emerged when the criterion

was the distress associated with infidelity

involving a new person. The investmentmodel variables did significantly improve

the model for women, but only the invest-

ment variable was individually significant.

For men, only infidelity type was related to

distress. Women reported more distress

over infidelity when they felt that they had

invested more in the relationship. Satisfac-

tion and quality of alternatives did not

individually contribute a significant amount

to womens predicted distress.

The predictions of the forgiveness ratings

revealed a contribution by the investment

model variables for both women and men.

In predicting forgiveness when the rival was

a former partner, the investment model

variables improved the prediction for

women and men. For men, the satisfactionvariable helped most to explain forgiveness,

but for women, it was investment that

helped predict forgiveness (Table 6).

Again, a similar pattern was repeated

when the rival was a new person, although

the improvement in prediction was not

quite significant for men (p< 0.07). Signifi-

cant individual contributions were again

made by the satisfaction variable for men

and the investment variable for women(Table 6). Hence, men were more likely to

forgive their partner when they were satis-

fied with their current relationship, while

women were more likely to forgive when

they had invested less in their partner. The

Investment Model predicts a greater rela-

tionship stability with increasing invest-

ments; hence, the opposite result would

have been expectedmore forgiveness

with more investments. To determinewhether, perhaps, the true relationship is

nonlinear, the curvilinear relationships

between investments and forgiveness were

examined for women. The power curve

Table 4. Regression Testing of Investment Model Predictions

M SD B SE B b sr

Satisfaction 6.55 1.46 0.532 0.083 0.460 0.371*

Investments 5.53 1.54 0.328 0.073 0.301 0.259*

Quality of alternatives 3.93 1.75 0.162 0.062 0.168 0.151*Commitment 6.67 1.68

Note. Satisfaction, Investments, and the Quality of Alternatives were used to predict overall Commitment to the

Relationship. Ratings were made on 08 scales, with higher numbers indicating more of the variable measured.

The sr is the semipartial correlation.

*p< 0.01.


7/27/2019 Cann y Baucom (2004)

9/14

Table5.PredictingDistressfromInvestm

entModelVariables

Men

Women

Rateddistress

B

SEB

b

sr

B

SEB

b

sr

Newperson

Step1

Infidelitytype

1.5

71

0.4

66

0.38

8

0.3

88*

0.9

67

0.4

93

0.2

38

0.2

38

R2

0.1

5*

R2

0.0

57

Step2

Infidelitytype

1.4

92

0.4

65

0.36

8

0.3

62*

0.9

70

0.4

63

0.2

30

0.2

36

Satisfactio

n

0.0

05

0.1

86

0.00

4

0.0

03

0.0

20

0.2

12

0.0

13

0.0

11

Investmen

ts

0.3

17

0.1

79

0.24

6

0.1

96

0.5

79

0.1

66

0.4

25

0.3

92*

Qualityofalternatives

0.0

39

0.1

72

0.02

8

0.0

25

0.0

48

0.1

50

0.0

40

0.0

36

ChangeR

2

0.0

67

ChangeR

2

0.1

71*

Formerpartn

er

Step1

Infidelitytype

1.2

01

0.4

65

0.30

1

0.3

01*

0.4

61

0.4

07

0.1

40

0.1

40

R2

0.0

91*

R2

0.0

20

Step2

Infidelitytype

1.0

84

0.4

56

0.27

2

0.2

68*

0.4

19

0.3

85

0.1

27

0.1

26

Satisfactio

n

0.2

01

0.1

87

0.15

8

0.1

22

0.2

88

0.1

76

0.2

23

0.1

89

Investmen

ts

0.0

70

0.1

80

0.05

5

0.0

44

0.4

73

0.1

38

0.4

28

0.3

95*

Qualityofalternatives

0.2

37

0.1

72

0.17

5

0.1

55

0.0

78

0.1

25

0.0

81

0.0

72

ChangeR

2

0.0

98

ChangeR

2

0.1

67*

Note.Thesris

thesemipartialcorrelation.

*p

Cann y Baucom (2004)

Documents

Transcript of Cann y Baucom (2004)