Every Affair Begins With Permission: What New Research Reveals About Unhappy Relationships and Infidelity
Monday, July 27, 2026.
One of the great myths about infidelity is that it begins with attraction.
It usually does not. Attraction is ordinary.
Married people continue to possess functioning eyes.
They meet charming colleagues, notice beautiful strangers, and occasionally discover that an old flame has appeared on social media looking suspiciously serene.
Attraction knocks on the door.
Permission opens it.
A recent study published in Sexual and Relationship Therapy helps explain how that permission may develop.
Researchers examined the connections among relationship quality, attitudes toward casual sex, gender, and the acceptability of infidelity.
Their findings suggest that relationship dissatisfaction does not affect everyone in the same way.
An unhappy relationship may make cheating seem more acceptable, but that shift is partly shaped by a person’s preexisting comfort with sex outside emotional commitment.
In plain English: a deteriorating relationship does not manufacture an entirely new sexual personality. It interacts with the one already there.
That is considerably more interesting than saying unhappy men are more likely to approve of cheating.
It is also considerably less convenient.
What the Researchers Wanted to Know
The researchers began with a familiar relationship-science question:
Why does dissatisfaction make some partners more vulnerable to infidelity while others remain faithful, leave the relationship honestly, or simply become very interested in gardening?
Poor relationship quality has repeatedly been associated with a greater openness to alternatives. When people feel neglected, sexually frustrated, unappreciated, or emotionally disconnected, attention from someone new may become unusually compelling.
The attractive coworker is no longer merely attractive.
They now seem to listen.
The former partner is no longer merely an ex.
They are suddenly the only person who ever truly understood you, although this important insight somehow escaped everyone during the original breakup.
Still, dissatisfaction alone cannot explain infidelity.
Many deeply unhappy people never cheat. They may seek therapy, tolerate misery, separate, divorce, complain to friends, develop elaborate fantasies, or purchase a very expensive bicycle.
The researchers therefore examined whether sociosexual orientation might help explain the difference.
What Is Sociosexual Orientation?
Psychologists possess a rare gift for giving ordinary human differences names that sound like complications discovered during a colonoscopy.
Sociosexual orientation describes how willing a person is to engage in sexual activity without emotional commitment.
Life partners with a more restricted sociosexual orientation tend to connect sex with love, trust, exclusivity, or long-term attachment. They generally prefer sexual intimacy within a committed bond.
But partners with a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation are more comfortable separating sex from love and commitment. They may see casual sexual encounters as acceptable or enjoyable without requiring a serious emotional relationship.
Neither orientation automatically tells us whether someone will be faithful.
A person can enjoy casual sex while single and become entirely monogamous after making a commitment.
Another person can speak reverently about sacred intimacy and still operate three secret messaging accounts.
Sociosexual orientation is a disposition.
It is not a character reference.
Researchers ommonly Divide Sociosexuality into 3 Components:
Sociosexual Behavior
This concerns a person’s history of sexual activity outside committed relationships.
Sociosexual Attitudes
This concerns whether the person approves of or feels comfortable with casual sex.
Sociosexual Desire
This concerns fantasies and interest in uncommitted sexual encounters, whether or not the person ever acts on them.
These distinctions matter because desire, belief, and behavior do not always travel together.
A life partner may experience considerable sexual curiosity and remain faithful.
Another partner may claim to disapprove of casual sex while making a series of highly creative exceptions.
The human personality is less a filing cabinet than a junk drawer.
The Investment Model of Commitment
The study also sits within a broader tradition of relationship research known as the investment model.
Psychologist Caryl Rusbult proposed that commitment is influenced by three broad considerations:
satisfaction with the current relationship.
the investments already made in it.
and the perceived quality of available alternatives.
A person is generally more likely to remain committed when the relationship is rewarding, the investments are substantial, and the alternatives look rather ordinary.
Investments may include years together, children, shared finances, family ties, identity, memories, social networks, and the jointly purchased sofa that neither person particularly liked but both are now prepared to litigate.
The quality of alternatives also matters.
When a relationship is satisfying, the charming person at work may remain simply a charming person at work.
When the relationship is deteriorating, that same person can begin to look like an emergency exit.
The new study adds an important layer: alternatives may not become equally compelling to everyone. Their appeal may depend partly on how comfortable a person already is with sex detached from commitment.
How the Study Was Conducted
The researchers surveyed 303 adults from the Delhi region of India.
The sample included 135 men and 168 women ranging in age from 18 to 65, although most were young adults between 18 and 24.
Just over half were dating. Others were cohabiting, involved in casual relationships, or described their arrangements as fluid.
Participants anonymously completed three principal assessments:
a measure of current relationship quality,
the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory,
and the Attitudes Toward Infidelity Scale.
The sociosexuality measure examined behavior, attitudes, and desire related to uncommitted sex. The infidelity measure assessed how acceptable participants considered cheating under various circumstances.
The researchers then tested a moderated mediation model.
That phrase sounds as though an accountant and a divorce lawyer conceived a child.
But the question was sensible:
Does sociosexual orientation help explain the connection between poor relationship quality and more favorable attitudes toward infidelity—and is that pathway different for men and women?
What the Researchers Found
The first finding was pretty straightforward.
Participants who reported poorer-quality relationships also tended to hold more favorable attitudes toward infidelity.
They did not necessarily report having affairs.
They were simply more likely to view infidelity as understandable, permissible, or acceptable.
That distinction matters:
The study examined attitudes toward cheating, not cheating itself.
The second finding was more important.
Sociosexual orientation statistically helped explain the connection between relationship quality and attitudes toward infidelity.
The pattern looked roughly like this:
Lower relationship quality → more unrestricted sociosexuality → more favorable attitudes toward infidelity
This is what researchers mean by a mediated pathway.
Poor relationship quality was associated with a more unrestricted orientation toward casual sex, and that unrestricted orientation was then associated with more approving attitudes toward cheating.
The researchers did not conclude that relationship distress directly turns restrained monogamists into nightclub promoters.
The finding is subtler.
It suggests that dissatisfaction may activate, strengthen, or make more relevant a person’s existing comfort with sexual intimacy outside commitment.
What “Mediation” Means in Real Life
Imagine two people who are equally unhappy in their relationships.
The first person has a strongly restricted sociosexual orientation. For this person, sex and emotional commitment are deeply connected. Even during profound dissatisfaction, an affair may feel fundamentally incompatible with the meaning they assign to intimacy.
The second person has a more unrestricted orientation. Sex and emotional attachment are more psychologically separable. As that person becomes unhappier, outside sexual intimacy may appear less contradictory, less morally disruptive, and more personally imaginable.
Both people are dissatisfied.
Only one may begin seeing infidelity as a plausible response.
That does not mean the second person will cheat.
It means the internal barrier may be lower.
The relationship problem is the same.
The psychological terrain is different.
This is the study’s real contribution: dissatisfaction does not operate in a vacuum. It moves through personality, sexual values, and existing dispositions.
Did Relationship Dissatisfaction Change Sociosexuality?
Possibly.
But the study cannot prove that it did.
This was a cross-sectional study, meaning all the information was collected at one point in time.
The researchers therefore cannot establish which variable came first.
Several explanations remain possible:
poor relationship quality may make unrestricted attitudes more salient;
people with unrestricted orientations may become less satisfied in certain monogamous relationships;
increasingly permissive attitudes toward infidelity may damage relationship quality;
or some unmeasured factor may influence all three.
The statistical model supports a plausible pathway.
It does not show us a time-stamped recording of one variable causing another.
That distinction is important because research language can become misleading remarkably quickly.
A study finds an association.
The news article announces a cause.
Social media identifies a villain.
By dinner, somebody has declared that evolutionary biology made her boyfriend download Tinder.
What the Study Found About Gender
The researchers also found that men reported a higher average level of unrestricted sociosexuality than women.
When relationship quality declined, men were more likely than women to view outside sexual involvement favorably, suggesting that men become more tolerant of infidelity when relationships falter.
But the actual finding requires a bit more restraint.
The study did not show that all men approve of cheating.
It did not show that women are naturally monogamous.
It did not show that men actually cheated more.
It found an average difference in attitudes within one sample.
Group averages describe patterns.
They do not predict every individual response.
Some women in the study undoubtedly held more unrestricted attitudes than many of the men. Some men undoubtedly regarded casual sex with the enthusiasm normally reserved for root canals.
Gender matters statistically.
It does not replace personality.
Why Might Men Have Responded Differently?
The researchers discussed both evolutionary and sociocultural possibilities.
The evolutionary explanation
Sexual strategies theory argues that men and women faced different reproductive pressures over human history.
Ancestral men could theoretically increase reproductive success through multiple partners. Women faced pregnancy, birth, nursing, and greater obligatory parental investment, which may have favored greater selectivity.
This theory is often used to explain average gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex.
It may contribute to the pattern.
But evolutionary explanation is not personal absolution.
A predisposition is not a permission slip.
Human beings are influenced by ancient reproductive pressures, but they are also influenced by moral commitments, attachment, social expectations, empathy, contraceptive technology, religious beliefs, and the knowledge that their spouse knows the password to the family cloud account.
Biology may help explain a tendency.
It does not dictate a decision.
The cultural explanation
Cultural double standards may be equally important.
In many societies, men receive considerably more social permission for sexual variety than women.
The sexually adventurous man may be treated as amusing, virile, or merely “going through something.”
A woman engaging in identical behavior may face shame, exclusion, reputational damage, or physical danger.
Women may also face greater practical risks from outside sexual relationships, including pregnancy, violence, economic abandonment, and harsher social consequences.
These uneven costs can shape both behavior and reported attitudes.
Men and women do not form sexual opinions in a cultural vacuum.
They learn what their society rewards, excuses, punishes, and pretends not to see.
Nature and culture are rarely competing explanations.
They are usually accomplices.
Self-Congruency: When Cheating Begins to Feel More Like “Being Yourself”
The researchers also connected their findings to self-congruency.
Folks tend to experience less internal conflict when their choices align with their existing identity and values.
For someone with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation, casual sex may feel consistent with how they already understand sexuality. They may believe sex can be meaningful, enjoyable, or affirming without love or commitment.
When the primary relationship becomes disappointing, outside intimacy may therefore feel not only tempting but psychologically congruent.
It may feel like:
“This is who I have always been.”
Or:
“I have denied this part of myself.”
Or the increasingly fashionable:
“I am finally choosing authenticity.”
Authenticity has become one of modern culture’s most useful words.
It can describe the courageous recovery of a suppressed self.
It can also describe doing precisely what one wants while asking everyone else to admire the bravery involved.
Feeling authentic does not make a decision harmless.
A choice may fit the self beautifully and still devastate another person.
What the Study Did Not Show
This study did not measure actual infidelity.
That point deserves repetition because attitudes and behaviors are not interchangeable.
A person may become more accepting of cheating during a bad period and never act on it.
They may fantasize about alternatives, feel tempted, or privately sympathize with people who have affairs while remaining faithful.
Many other factors influence whether attitudes become actions:
empathy.
moral identity.
religious beliefs.
commitment.
impulsivity.
opportunity.
secrecy.
alcohol or drug use.
fear of consequences.
and concern for the partner’s wellbeing.
A favorable attitude may lower one barrier.
It does not remove every barrier.
There is considerable psychological distance between thinking:
“I understand why someone might do that”
and sending:
“Delete this message after you read it.”
Other Really Important Limitations
The sample was relatively small and heavily weighted toward younger adults.
The participants came from one region of India, so the findings may not generalize to older married couples or people living under different cultural expectations.
The sample also included varied relationship arrangements. Dating, cohabiting, casual, and fluid relationships may involve different understandings of exclusivity.
All information was self-reported.
Participants may have forgotten, minimized, embellished, or strategically interpreted their sexual histories and attitudes.
Study participants are not always reliable witnesses to their own motives.
This is particularly true when the motive is “I am an unusually ethical person who happened to make twelve consecutive scheduling errors involving the same coworker.”
Future research would benefit from following couples over time, separating the three components of sociosexuality more carefully, and measuring actual boundary violations rather than attitudes alone.
What the Research Really Tells Us
The study does not show that unhappy relationships cause affairs.
It suggests that relationship dissatisfaction may interact with a partner’s existing sexual orientation to make infidelity seem more acceptable.
That could become a meaningful finding.
It tells us that the question is not simply:
“How happy is my partner?”
We should also ask:
“What does my partner believe sex means?”
“How easily can my partner separate sex from emotional commitment?”
“What happens to their beliefs if our relationship becomes painful?”
Two faithful partners may appear identical during good times.
Their differences may emerge only under strain.
One experiences fidelity as an expression of identity:
“This is who I am, even when I am unhappy.”
Another experiences fidelity as part of a functioning relational bargain:
“This is what I do while the relationship is meeting certain needs.”
Both may behave faithfully for years.
But those are not the same internal contracts.
Dissatisfaction reveals the fine print.
My Commentary: Attraction Is Not the Dangerous Part
Here is where the research findings end and my attempt at clinical interpretation begins.
I do not believe affairs usually begin when someone meets an attractive person.
Attractive people are everywhere.
They appear in offices, airports, supermarkets, school committees, conferences, and apparently every pharmaceutical advertisement involving people over fifty.
The dangerous shift occurs when attraction becomes morally available.
That is when a person begins developing a story in which crossing the boundary no longer feels like betrayal.
It feels like relief.
Justice.
Destiny.
Self-respect.
Or personal growth.
Attraction knocks.
But permission opens the door.
A Clinical Scene I Have Seen Many Times
A husband sits in a therapist’s office.
Six months earlier, he would have described private messages with a coworker as inappropriate.
Now he explains that his wife has been emotionally unavailable for years.
The messages are “just friendship.”
The secrecy is “privacy.”
The excitement is “finally feeling alive.”
Nothing physical has happened.
Perhaps nothing physical ever will.
But psychologically, nearly everything has changed.
The boundary did not disappear.
It was renamed.
That is how permission usually develops.
Not with one grand announcement.
With vocabulary.
Every Affair Begins Twice
An affair begins first as an attitude.
Only later does it become a behavior.
Before the hotel room, the kiss, the hidden account, or the deleted messages, there is often a gradual moral repositioning.
The language changes in stages:
“I would never cheat.”
becomes:
“I understand why some people do.”
Then:
“Every situation is different.”
Then:
“Nobody knows what my marriage is really like.”
And finally:
“Under these circumstances, this is not really cheating.”
The behavior may appear sudden to the betrayed partner.
The permission has often been under construction for months.
The Human Mind Is a Remarkable Defense Attorney
Almost nobody wants to see themselves as the villain.
We therefore become unusually talented attorneys on our own behalf.
We gather evidence.
My spouse stopped appreciating me.
We identify mitigating circumstances.
We have not had sex for months.
We establish diminished responsibility.
I was lonely and vulnerable.
We attack the credibility of the injured party.
They checked out first.
Some of these complaints may be legitimate.
A marriage can be lonely, neglectful, cruel, or sexually barren.
But a truthful grievance can still be recruited into a dishonest defense.
The best rationalizations contain enough truth to remain emotionally persuasive.
Human beings rarely invent an entirely false story.
We curate.
How Dissatisfaction Becomes Entitlement
Pain carries an understandable wish for relief.
But sometimes that wish evolves into entitlement.
I have suffered.
Therefore I am owed.
My spouse disappointed me.
Therefore our agreement has changed.
My needs were neglected.
Therefore I may meet them secretly.
This is a crucial transformation.
Dissatisfaction becomes not merely an explanation for desire, but a moral credential.
The person begins acting as though pain has granted special privileges.
It has not.
Pain deserves attention.
It does not automatically confer diplomatic immunity.
Bowen Would Call This a Differentiation Problem
Murray Bowen understood that chronic anxiety narrows thinking.
Poorly differentiated people borrow stability from circumstances.
When the marriage feels good, they feel principled.
When the marriage feels painful, their principles begin negotiating.
The person’s sense of self becomes dependent on what the partner is giving or withholding.
“I can be faithful if you make me feel loved.”
“I can be honest if you make honesty comfortable.”
“I can behave according to my values if the relationship rewards me sufficiently.”
That is not a stable self.
It is an emotional subcontract.
Differentiation asks something much more challenging:
Can I remain connected to my partner without making that partner responsible for the integrity of my conduct?
Can I say:
“I am lonely.”
“I am angry.”
“I feel unwanted.”
“I am not sure this marriage can survive.”
and still add:
“And I remain responsible for deciding who I will be.”
That is the work.
Differentiation does not require remaining in a destructive marriage.
It may lead someone to leave.
It does require leaving honestly rather than secretly creating a replacement relationship while continuing to enjoy the benefits of the old one.
Explanation Is Not Exoneration
Relationship quality matters.
Neglect matters.
Sexual rejection matters.
Contempt matters.
Loneliness matters.
These conditions can help us understand why someone became vulnerable to an affair.
But understanding is not absolution.
An unhappy person has choices.
Speak plainly.
Request change.
Seek therapy.
Renegotiate the relationship.
Separate.
Leave.
Infidelity is one possible response to distress.
It is not the inevitable result of distress.
It is not something that “happens” in the way a tree falls on a garage.
Agency remains.
The sentence:
“I cheated because my marriage was unhappy”
is incomplete.
The fuller sentence is:
“My marriage was unhappy, and I chose infidelity as my response.”
That sentence is less flattering.
Because it is also where useful therapy begins.
What Couples Should Discuss Before There Is an Affair
Couples often wait until a betrayal occurs before discussing vulnerability.
By then, they are trying to install a smoke detector while standing in the kitchen fire.
A better conversation begins earlier.
What does monogamy mean to each of us?
What counts as infidelity?
Is private messaging acceptable?
What about emotional intimacy with a coworker?
What happens when one of us feels attracted to someone else?
What do we do when the relationship becomes lonely or sexually frustrating?
And perhaps most importantly:
What has our dissatisfaction begun making psychologically permissible?
That question reaches beyond behavior.
It examines the movement of the internal boundary.
Has secrecy become privacy?
Has flirting become harmless affirmation?
Has emotional dependence become friendship?
Has a former partner become “the one person I can talk to”?
An affair is often preceded by a long period during which language launders intention.
What Therapists Should Ask
Therapists should certainly ask whether partners are satisfied.
But satisfaction is not enough.
We should also explore:
what sex means to each partner.
how each person understands monogamy.
whether love and sex are psychologically linked.
attitudes toward casual intimacy.
perceived alternatives.
previous infidelity.
resentment.
entitlement.
secrecy.
and the stories being used to justify changing boundaries.
A particularly useful question is:
“What are you now allowing yourself to consider that would once have felt unacceptable?”
That question can expose moral drift before it becomes behavioral fact.
It invites responsibility without pretending that attraction itself is a crime.
Men Are Not Destined to Cheat
The gender finding deserves neither dismissal nor melodrama.
Men in this study showed a stronger pattern of permissiveness toward infidelity as relationship quality declined.
That is worth understanding.
It is not a prophecy.
Biology may influence desire.
Culture may grant men greater permission.
Peer groups may reward sexual opportunism.
Women may face greater consequences.
But no average difference eliminates individual responsibility.
A man is not a helpless parcel delivered by evolutionary history to the nearest available affair partner.
He remains a person capable of reflection, restraint, honesty, and choice.
So does a woman.
The Difference Between Temptation and Betrayal
Faithful people are not necessarily people who never feel tempted.
They are people who refuse to interpret temptation as instruction.
They may notice someone attractive.
Enjoy attention.
Feel lonely.
Imagine another life.
None of this automatically constitutes betrayal.
The crucial issue is what they do next.
Do they create distance or opportunity?
Do they disclose vulnerability or hide it?
Do they protect the relationship boundary or begin negotiating with it?
Do they say:
“This attraction tells me something needs attention”
or:
“This attraction proves I have finally met my true self”?
Temptation is an experience.
Betrayal is a sequence of decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does relationship dissatisfaction cause infidelity?
No. The study found an association between poorer relationship quality and more favorable attitudes toward infidelity. It did not establish that dissatisfaction causes cheating.
What is sociosexual orientation?
Sociosexual orientation describes a person’s openness to sexual intimacy without emotional commitment. It includes behavior, attitudes, and desire related to casual sex.
Is unrestricted sociosexuality the same as infidelity?
No. Someone may be comfortable with casual sex while single and remain completely faithful after entering a monogamous relationship.
What did sociosexuality explain in the study?
More unrestricted sociosexuality statistically helped explain why poorer relationship quality was associated with more accepting attitudes toward infidelity.
What is a mediated pathway?
A mediated pathway occurs when a third variable helps explain the relationship between two other variables. Here, sociosexual orientation helped explain the association between relationship quality and attitudes toward infidelity.
Did poor relationship quality make participants more unrestricted?
The study cannot establish that. Because the data were collected at one time, the direction of the relationships remains uncertain.
Did the study find that men cheat more than women?
No. It measured attitudes toward infidelity, not actual cheating. Men in the sample reported more unrestricted sociosexuality and showed a stronger link between poor relationship quality and favorable attitudes toward infidelity.
Why might men view infidelity more favorably?
Possible influences include average differences in sociosexuality, evolutionary pressures, cultural double standards, greater social permission, and lower perceived consequences. The study cannot determine which explanation is most important.
Does approving of infidelity mean someone will cheat?
No. Attitudes may affect behavior, but values, empathy, opportunity, commitment, self-control, religion, and fear of consequences also matter.
Can someone feel tempted and still remain faithful?
Absolutely. Attraction and temptation are normal human experiences. Fidelity is not the absence of temptation; it is how a person chooses to respond to it.
Does an unhappy relationship excuse an affair?
No. Dissatisfaction can explain vulnerability, but it does not remove agency. A person can seek therapy, speak honestly, renegotiate the relationship, separate, or leave without deceiving a partner.
What warning signs appear before an affair?
Warning signs may include growing secrecy, romanticizing an alternative partner, redefining emotional intimacy as harmless friendship, minimizing boundaries, and developing stories that make betrayal seem justified.
How can couples reduce the risk?
Couples can address dissatisfaction early, clarify their definition of monogamy, discuss attraction honestly, establish boundaries around outside relationships, and seek help before loneliness becomes entitlement.
What should therapists assess?
Therapists may explore relationship satisfaction, attitudes toward casual sex, sexual meaning, perceived alternatives, commitment, entitlement, secrecy, previous infidelity, and the narratives clients use to justify changing boundaries.
My Take
This study may have given us a more sophisticated understanding of infidelity vulnerability.
Poor relationship quality was associated with more favorable attitudes toward cheating.
A more unrestricted sociosexual orientation statistically helped explain that association, and the pattern was stronger among men in this sample. But the study measured attitudes, not actual affairs, and its cross-sectional design cannot establish causation.
Those are the findings.
Here is my interpretation.
Affairs rarely begin with irresistible passion.
They begin with revised permission.
Life partners do not usually abandon their principles in one dramatic act.
They edit them.
They change:
“never”
to:
“unless.”
They change:
“wrong”
to:
“understandable.”
They change:
“secrecy”
to:
“privacy.”
They change:
“betrayal”
to:
“choosing myself.”
Eventually, the new story becomes emotionally convincing enough to inhabit.
Attraction may provide the opportunity.
Dissatisfaction may provide the grievance.
Sociosexual orientation may help shape the vulnerability.
But permission is the bridge.
After years of working with couples, I have become convinced that the most dangerous person in an affair is not always the attractive stranger.
It is the private attorney inside the dissatisfied partner, quietly preparing the case that ordinary rules should no longer apply.
Attraction knocks.
Permission opens the door.
And permission almost always arrives carrying a story.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Pandey, K., Tiwari, P., Duggal, T., & Khusboo, K. (2026). The entwined nature of infidelity and relationship quality: Parallels in theory and practice through a moderated mediation analysis. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2026.2651359
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870