The thought processes of cheaters closely resemble those of criminals, study suggests

A new qualitative study suggests that the motivations and rationalizations behind romantic infidelity closely mirror those found in criminal behavior. By analyzing online forum posts from self-identified cheaters, researchers found that individuals often turn to infidelity to cope with life stressors, utilize calculated strategies to avoid detection, and employ specific psychological justifications to alleviate guilt. The findings were published in the journal Deviant Behavior.

Criminologists typically focus their attention on actions that violate the law. However, the distinction between illegal acts and behaviors that are merely deviant is often defined by social context rather than the nature of the act itself.

Infidelity serves as a prime example of this conceptual overlap. While generally legal in Western nations, it shares core characteristics with criminal offenses. It offers rewards to the perpetrator, causes significant harm to the victim, and carries the risk of severe personal or social consequences.

The authors of the new study, led by Timothy Dickinson of the University of Alabama, sought to determine if theories designed to explain criminal behavior could illuminate the thought processes behind extramarital affairs. They also aimed to explore if studying infidelity could provide feedback to improve criminological theories themselves.

“We started with a simple question: do people who commit infidelity think and act like criminals?” explained co-author Tova Cohen, a doctoral student at Rutgers University-Newark. “As far as we know, this has never been rigorously studied before, but we suspected that excuses from people who cheat (such as ‘I’m not appreciated by my current partner and she won’t know’) often sound like those made to justify crime (such as ‘I needed the cash and didn’t hurt anyone’). To approach this scientifically, we applied three criminological theories to our qualitative analysis of statements from self-identified cheaters. This could also help us learn more about the theories themselves.”

To conduct the investigation, the research team collected data from two popular online discussion forums: “Talk about Marriage” and “Surviving Infidelity.” These platforms allow users to discuss their relationships and transgressions anonymously. The researchers specifically targeted posts from the “Coping with Infidelity” and “Wayward Side” threads. They selected posts from users who self-identified as having engaged in sexual infidelity.

The researchers prioritized depth of information over quantity. To ensure the data was rich enough for meaningful analysis, they only included posts and associated comments that exceeded 250 words. The final sample consisted of 81 individuals. The researchers intentionally included more men than women to mirror the gender disparities often seen in criminal statistics. Specifically, 64 posts were authored by men and 17 by women.

The team then performed a detailed content analysis. They coded the text for themes related to three specific criminological frameworks: strain theory, restrictive deterrence, and neutralization theory.

The first major finding centered on general strain theory. This perspective posits that individuals engage in deviant behavior to cope with negative emotions resulting from adversity. The analysis suggests that strain plays a substantial role in motivating unfaithful behavior. Participants frequently cited negative life events as triggers. These included workplace stress, financial difficulties, or demanding family responsibilities.

Problems within the relationship also fueled the decision to cheat. Users complained about a lack of intimacy, often describing “dead bedrooms” or feeling their sexual needs were ignored. In these cases, the affair was framed as a corrective action to relieve the frustration of blocked goals. Some users described a sense of “cake-eating,” where they wished to maintain their marriage while simultaneously satisfying their needs elsewhere.

The study indicates that infidelity often generates new forms of strain rather than just resolving old ones. Cheaters reported significant anxiety about living a double life. They described feelings of guilt, confusion, and fear that their marriage might end. This paradox sometimes drove them to continue the affair for temporary relief from the very stress the affair was causing.

The second theoretical framework applied was restrictive deterrence. This concept refers to how offenders alter their behavior to avoid punishment or minimize consequences. The researchers found ample evidence of this among the cheaters. Participants employed sophisticated tactics to lower the certainty of getting caught. This included the use of “burner” phones, secret email accounts, or meeting in locations where they were unlikely to be recognized.

Deception played a central role in this risk management. Many participants described acting “normal” or even being more attentive to their spouses to deflect suspicion. Some went as far as “gaslighting” their partners, making them question their own intuition regarding the affair. These strategies mirror how criminals might try to blend in with lawful society to avoid drawing the attention of law enforcement.

When discovery seemed imminent or had already occurred, the strategy shifted to managing the severity of the consequences. A common tactic identified was “minimizing” or “trickle truthing.” This involves admitting to a minor transgression, such as a kiss, while hiding the full extent of a sexual affair. Others agreed to counseling not necessarily to heal the relationship, but to demonstrate penitence and reduce the anger of the betrayed partner. This behavior is comparable to a criminal defendant expressing remorse in court to secure a lighter sentence.

The third area of focus was neutralization theory. This framework explains how individuals suppress feelings of guilt to protect their self-image. The study highlighted how cheaters use specific psychological techniques to neutralize their internal moral censors. One common method was the denial of responsibility. Men in the study frequently appealed to biological drives, claiming they had needs that simply had to be met.

Participants also engaged in the denial of the victim. They often blamed their spouse for being cold, abusive, or withholding sex. By framing the spouse as the antagonist, the cheaters could view their own actions as a justified reaction rather than a betrayal. This effectively argues that the partner brought the infidelity upon themselves.

Another technique observed was the denial of injury. Cheaters convinced themselves that as long as the partner did not find out, no harm was actually done. This rationale allowed them to frame the affair as a victimless act. Some participants justified their secrecy as a form of kindness, arguing that confessing would only cause unnecessary pain to their spouse.

“Cheaters frequently described their lies and concealment as a way to not only protect themselves, but also to ‘protect’ their partners from harm,” Cohen told PsyPost. “Regardless of whether these claims reflect their self-interested motives or genuine concern for their partners, the cheaters consistently used strategies aimed at reducing the likelihood of discovery.

“This became even more fascinating when we considered whether there are crimes perpetrated by offenders who claim the moral thing is for them to not get caught because that way their victim would not know they were even victimized. For example, is robbery, fraud, and theft sometimes hidden by perpetrators who believe it is kinder to the victim if they never know why their money or property suddenly disappeared – which then functions as a neutralization to make offending easier?”

Some users justified their actions by appealing to higher loyalties. This often manifested as falling in love with the affair partner. By elevating the affair to the status of “true love,” they could frame their betrayal of the spouse as a necessary pursuit of happiness. Others distanced their current identity from their past actions. They would describe their past selves in derogatory terms, implying they had since evolved into a different, more moral person who should not be blamed for the old behavior.

The interaction between these theories provides further insight. The study suggests that the experience of strain often informs the specific neutralizations used. For example, the pain of a sexless marriage becomes the justification for the denial of responsibility. Furthermore, the strategies of restrictive deterrence, such as hiding the affair, reinforce the denial of injury by ensuring the victim remains unaware of the harm.

“The motivations and thought processes of criminals are not necessarily different from those of people who engage in other harmful but legal behavior,” Cohen said. “The same processes—strain, risk management, and moral justification—can shape behavior across both domains. For anyone who has been cheated on and felt like they were victimized by their cheating partners, or believe their partners acted like criminals, our findings provide support for that comparison.”

But as with all research, there are some limitations. The research relied on qualitative data from online forums. This provides anonymity and potentially greater honesty, but it limits how much the findings can be generalized to all cheaters. The sample was heavily skewed toward men, which was a deliberate choice by the authors but may obscure gender differences in motivations. The researchers cannot verify the true identity of the posters or the objective truth of their stories.

For future inquiries, the authors suggest applying these criminological theories to other forms of legal but harmful behavior. They also note that criminologists could learn more about criminal concealment by studying how non-criminals hide their tracks. The parallels suggest that the line between the criminal mind and the average person may be thinner than commonly believed.

“It would be interesting to look into how these criminological theories extend to other lawful yet deviant behaviors that involve harm, concealment, and moral negotiation (e.g., workplace misconduct, financial deception within families, digital exploitation, or violations of professional norms),” Cohen explained. “Additionally, it may be pertinent to analyze the present infidelity study alongside current studies—and future ones—that examine crimes of sexual deviance (Lankford et al., 2024).”

The study, “Examining Infidelity Through Strain, Restrictive Deterrence, and Neutralizations,” was authored by Timothy Dickinson, Tova Cohen, Adam Lankford, and Katy Lankford.