James Macon, M.Ed., BCBA

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Infidelity can be one of the most painful experiences that a person goes through in life.   We all have ideals, values, and expectations of our spouses, and when that ideal and trust is broken through infidelity, it can be overwhelmingly painful.  The betrayed often struggles with the “why” and “how” of why someone would betray them and seemingly throw away everything for a fling.   Often, there are no good answers, but behavior analysis can at least provide a scientific underpinning to explain the context. So what makes a cheater cheat, through the lens of behavior analysis?

The Motivating Operation

For starters, it is not sufficient to say someone just “wanted” to cheat, or that they had some immoral fiber that caused it. That would amount to circular reasoning, and wouldn’t explain anything. For our analysis, we must first analyze the motivation, or in behavioral terms, the motivating operation (MO).  A motivating operation is any set of events, stimulus, or condition that alters the value of some stimulus as a reinforcer and alters the frequency of some response that has produced that consequence (Michael, 1993).  In simple terms, it’s something that happens before behavior, and it makes some type of stimulus more reinforcing.  For example, if you haven’t drunken water or eaten food for some period of time (a state of deprivation), sustenance becomes more valuable and food or beverage seeking behavior will be altered to become more likely, even if that type of food or beverage isn’t something that you would normally prefer.

While the specific MO for infidelity will undoubtedly vary from person to person, there is strong evidence from the broader psychological community to suggest that men and women cheat for different reasons. Men often cheat for as a way to get physical (i.e., sexual) needs met. Women on the other hand often cheat as a way to meet an “emotional” need. In either case, some level of deprivation, be it sexual or emotional, can influence the motivation to engage in some form of infidelity.

If we were to map it out, it might look something like this

To reference Jack Michael’s definition again, the reinforcing value of sexual behavior with a novel person who could provide temporary sexual or emotional reinforcers could establish a situation that momentarily increases its value. That behavior is then reinforced with a corresponding change between the before and after conditions, such as when the person receives those temporary sexual or emotional reinforcers.

Multiple Reinforcement Contingencies

This reinforcement contingency can be very problematic for both the betrayed and the betrayer, as it means that sexual behavior with a novel person, or cheating, is likely to occur again in the future. The old adage, “once a cheater, always a cheater” has it’s underpinnings in behavior analysis.  Not only is that behavior likely to continue in the future due to the positive reinforcement contingencies from sexual or emotional reinforcers, but also from something researchers call the “cheater’s high” (Ruedy, 2013), an aptly named operant contingency describing the neurochemical and emotion response of “getting away with it.”

Sexual behavior also corresponds with a special type of MO called an unconditioned motivating operation (UMO). Much like unlearned reinforcers, such as water, pain, food, and sex, no learning is required for UMO to evoke behavior. In the case of UMO, environmental conditions historically tied to reproduction, like the passage of time, light, temperature, can all act as eliciting stimuli that make the probability of sexual or cheating behavior more likely.  Other powerful MO can include examples like the level of alcohol ingested, the setting (e.g., a night club or bar), and the company kept (being out with your single or more scandalous friends).

While this analysis has sought to answer the “why” of infidelity, an equally valid question is “why not” in others.  After all, nearly everyone at some point in their relationship with another person will experience an MO where emotional or sexual needs are not met.  While this research question has yet to be answered, a behavior analysis of the topic suggests strong rule-governed behavior may play a role.  For example, a covert rule describing the fear of “getting caught” cheating and causing unnecessary emotional pain to a loved one may be sufficient to prevent infidelity for a large sample of the population.

Clinical Behavior Analysis

In addition, Clinical Behavior Analysis, often recognized by its sub-discipline of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), may provide more answers to the “why not” question, as well as provide evidence-based treatment options to begin dealing with the associated trauma of infidelity.  In ACT, a common tool practitioners use is something called a “values clarification” worksheet.  This exercise helps individuals label key areas of their life that are important to them, be it their relationship, career, family, leisure, etc.  After labeling important areas, individuals specify specific, concrete behaviors that they can engage in to be more closely aligned with their values.  Since the behaviors are specified, they can then be measured over time to see how closely someone is living to their stated values.

Having clearly defined values may also create incompatible operant contingencies that better promote faithful behavior.  For our example, a value (or rule) is specified, and concrete behaviors are identified to help support that value.   If the values specified include being a faithful partner, specific behaviors listed might include being rigorously honest, rejecting the sexual or flirtatious advances of others, actively avoiding situations that could foster infidelity, having dedicated date nights to spend with your partner, etc.  If that same person finds themselves out on the town, in a night club with some of their single or more scandalous friends, and they’ve been drinking and experiencing either sexual or emotional states of deprivation (all MO that have been shown influence cheating behavior), having a stated value with those concrete behaviors listed (and reinforced over time) may be the difference between cheating or faithful behavior.

Rule-Governed Contingency for faithful behavior.

Regardless, cheating behavior can be exceptionally traumatic and difficult.  As Behavior Analysts, we know the universe is a lawful and deterministic place, and it is our responsibility to find applied interventions that can help address socially significant behavior in society, such as this.  With roughly 50% of marriages ending in divorce, behavior analysis is in a unique position to analyze and prescribe effective interventions (through clinical behavior analysis, like ACT), in a way that completely avoids the subject of morality, and instead, relies on science.

What are your thoughts?  Do you think this analysis of cheating behavior is correct?  Leave your comments below!