How do affairs start? Here are 11 factors…

Saturday, February 17, 2024.

At this point in American culture, many researchers believe that about 70% of infidelity takes place at the office…

Workplace affairs can start for various reasons, often from personal, situational, and relational factors. While there isn't a one-size-fits-all explanation, several common themes emerge from research on workplace relationships and infidelity.

• Proximity and Opportunity: One key factor is the amount of time individuals spend together in the workplace. Research by Hall and Fincham (2009) found that increased proximity can amplify attraction and potential romantic involvement, particularly if individuals perceive each other as physically attractive or share common interests.

• Emotional Connection: Emotional intimacy and connection with a coworker can pave the way for an affair. According to a study by Vangelisti and Sprague (1998), emotional infidelity often precedes physical infidelity, suggesting that feelings of closeness and connection may drive humans to seek fulfillment outside of their primary relationships.

• Unmet Needs: Dissatisfaction or unmet needs within your current relationship can also contribute to initiating a workplace affair. Research by Kniffin and Wilson (2005) suggests that humans who feel unappreciated or unsupported in their primary relationship may seek validation and companionship elsewhere, including in the workplace.

• Shared Goals and Challenges: Collaborative work environments where humans share common goals and face challenges together can often foster bonds that extend beyond professional boundaries.

  Research by Kluwer et al. (2010) highlights the role of shared experiences and mutual reliance in strengthening interpersonal connections and increasing the likelihood of romantic involvement.

• Opportunistic Circumstances: Certain workplace environments, such as business trips or late-night work sessions, can create opportunities for affairs to develop. Research by Treas and Giesen (2000) suggests that situations involving travel or extended periods away from home may increase the likelihood of extramarital affairs due to reduced oversight and increased privacy.

• Personality Traits: Individual characteristics, such as openness to new experiences or propensity for risk-taking, can also influence the likelihood of engaging in workplace affairs. Schmitt et al. (2004) found that personality traits associated with sensation-seeking and impulsivity were positively correlated with infidelity.

• Flirtation and Ambiguity: Workplace flirtation can escalate into more intimate relationships, even if seemingly harmless. Research by O'Sullivan et al. (2011) suggests that ambiguous communication and flirtatious interactions in the workplace can blur the lines between professional and personal boundaries, paving the way for emotional or physical infidelity.

• Opportunistic Rationalization: Individuals involved in workplace affairs may rationalize their behavior by minimizing the perceived harm or consequences. Research by Treas and Giesen (2000) indicates that humans may justify their actions by framing the affair as a response to unmet needs or dissatisfaction in their primary relationship, thus reducing feelings of guilt or moral conflict.

• Peer Influence: Social dynamics within the workplace, including peer influence and social norms, can shape attitudes and behaviors related to infidelity. Research by Cole (2009) suggests that social networks and peer support may play a role in facilitating or discouraging extramarital affairs, depending on prevailing norms and attitudes within the organizational culture.

• Digital Communication: The proliferation of digital communication channels in the workplace, such as email, instant messaging, and social media, has provided additional avenues for developing interpersonal connections.

  Research by Papp and Danielewicz (2018) highlights the role of digital communication in fostering emotional intimacy and facilitating covert relationships, particularly in settings where face-to-face interactions are limited. Technology has both shaped and impeded our capacity for intimacy.

• Power Dynamics: Power differentials within the workplace can also influence the dynamics of workplace affairs. Research by Cole et al. (2009) suggests that humans in positions of authority may be more likely to engage in extramarital affairs, driven by a sense of entitlement or the perception of being above the rules that govern interpersonal relationships.

Final thoughts

While these factors shed light on the dynamics underlying workplace affairs, it's not necessarily how things are in your workplace.

Remember that each situation is unique, and multiple factors may contribute to initiating and developing such problematic relationships.

Additionally, ethical considerations and organizational policies regarding workplace conduct play a crucial role in shaping the boundaries of professional relationships.

By considering these factors, management can implement effective HR strategies to mitigate the risk of problematic workplace affairs, such as establishing clear policies on appropriate conduct, promoting a culture of transparency and accountability, and supporting employees to address relational challenges in healthy and constructive ways.

Be well, stay kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Christensen A, Atkins DC, Baucom B, Yi J. Marital status and satisfaction five years following a randomized clinical trial comparing traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr;78(2):225-35. doi: 10.1037/a0018132. PMID: 20350033.

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

Fox, J., & Warber, K.M. (2013). Romantic Relationship Development in the Age of Facebook: An Exploratory Study of Emerging Adults' Perceptions, Motives, and Behaviors. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 16 1, 3-7 .

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of dating infidelity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327189

Kluwer, E.S. (2010), From Partnership to Parenthood: A Review of Marital Change Across the Transition to Parenthood. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2: 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00045.x

Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). Utilities of Gossip across Organizational Levels: Multilevel Selection, Free-Riders, and Teams. Human Nature, 16(3), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-005-1011-6

Lee J, Gillath O, Miller A. Effects of self- and partner's online disclosure on relationship intimacy and satisfaction. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 4;14(3):e0212186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212186. PMID: 30830918; PMCID: PMC6398828.

O'Sullivan PB, Smith AJ, Beales DJ, Straker LM. Association of biopsychosocial factors with degree of slump in sitting posture and self-report of back pain in adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Phys Ther. 2011 Apr;91(4):470-83. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100160. Epub 2011 Feb 24. PMID: 21350031.

Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Attachment matters: Patterns of romantic attachment across gender, geography, and cultural forms. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 75–97). Psychology Press.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x

Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Hurtful Interactions and the Dissolution of Intimacy. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 133–152). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.