Men and Women Differ in Infidelity

Detection and Prevention Strategies

Kelsey Wallach
Honors 221 B
Paper 2

Beyond crushing heartbreak, infidelity between romantic partners can creates substantial
risks to reproductive fitness. It is no surprise then that certain mechanisms and processes have
evolved in humans specifically to prevent infidelity. However a study by Ein-Dor et al. (2005)
suggests that, contrary to the widely accepted mate-guarding hypothesis, men and women have
evolved distinctly different mechanisms to detect and deter cheating.
Evolutionary theory maintains that the disparity in parental investment between males
and females creates an imbalance in populations that allows females to be selective in mate
choice and requires males to compete among each other for mates. As a result, only the largest,
strongest and most aggressive males are able to pass on their genes to the next generation,
eventually resulting in exaggerated sexual dimorphisms between men and women (eg. body size)
Ein-Dor et al. suggest that males are able to use these dominant qualities to ensure fidelity in
their mate while women are unlikely to successfully dominate their partner using forceful tactics.
They hypothesize that women instead focus on the behaviors of their potential rivals to deter mate
poaching before it begins. Responsible for monitoring multiple threats, and not just the behaviors of
their partner, it is also likely that women have developed a higher sensitivity to signs of infidelity.
To test women and mens respective sensitivity to infidelity Ein-Dor et al. gave
participants a questionnaire describing ambiguous partner-related incidents. They hypothesized
that women would judge more of these incidents as a threat of infidelity than men would.
Analysis of the questionnaires revealed that women were indeed much more likely to see threats
of infidelity in ambiguous situations than men (Fig. 1).
The researchers also theorized that women would be more accurate in identifying threats
of infidelity than men. They presented male and female participants with picture matrices
containing a single target picture portraying an act of infidelity (Fig. 2). Women detected the
target picture more quickly than men (1.3 seconds faster on average) and also had a higher rate of
accuracy (Fig 3). This result suggests that not only are women more sensitive to threats of
infidelity but they are also more accurate in their appraisal of situations. When presented with

matrices containing a target photo of a poisonous animal women were no faster than men at
detecting the threat (Fig 4), suggesting that womens ability to quickly and accurately detect signs
of infidelity does not relate to a general sensitivity to perceived threats. Ein-Dor et al. proposed
that this difference in sensitivity could also be correlated with a difference in infidelity-prevention
behaviors.
In their last study the researchers tested the hypothesis that womens sensitivity to
infidelity is channeled at rivals, while men focus on the behaviors of their mate. Participants
were presented with a set of progressing scenes, which began with a man looking at his spouse
and ended with the man looking away from his spouse at an attractive stranger, a within-couple
threat of infidelity (Fig. 5). A second set was also presented which began with an attractive
stranger looking at anothers spouse and ended with the stranger looking in the opposite direction,
an outside threat of infidelity. The photos of interest were those in the middle of the set, where
it is difficult to tell where the man/stranger is looking. Men were significantly more likely than
women to detect within-couple threats and say that the partnered male was looking at the
attractive stranger in the ambiguous middle photos. In contrast, in the second set of photos
women were much more likely than men to report outside threats; that the attractive stranger was
looking at the partnered spouse in the ambiguous photos (Fig. 6). These results provide support
for the authors rival sensitivity hypothesis; women are more alert to the behaviors of their samesex rivals while men are more attuned to their partners interest in others.
This research introduces new concepts of human mating behavior as well as challenges
the sex-equivalent behaviors proposed by the traditional mate-guarding hypothesis. Future studies
could measure participants ability to detect infidelity within their own relationships to examine
how these mechanisms may affect mate retention and reproductive fitness. Interestingly enough,
the differences in infidelity-prevention behaviors discovered by Ein-Dor et al. seem to align with
the stereotypes of the jealous girlfriend and overprotective boyfriend. These labels demonstrate
how originally adaptive behaviors often come to adopt separate social implications over time.

Appraisal of ambiguous partner-related

incidents
14
12

Men with experience of

in5idelity

10
Number of
ambiguous
8
incidents
appraised as
6
threat of
in4idelity
4

Men with no experience of

in5idelity
Women with experience
in5idelity
Women with no experience of
in5idelity

2
0

Fig 1. Analysis of questionnaire describing partner-related incidents reveals that women

are more likely to detect threats of infidelity in ambiguous situations than men.

Fig. 2 Picture matrices portraying a target photo of infidelity were used to determine
sensitivity to and accuracy of identifying threats of infidelity. Participants were asked to
identify the target photo as quickly as possible; response latency and accuracy were
recorded.

Time taken to detect

threats of in4idelity
14
12
Time take 10
to detect
8
target
phoro of 6
in4idelity
4
(sec)

Men
Women

2
0

Accuracy in indentifying
threats of in4idelity
2
# of
1.5
mistakes
when
identifyin 1
g taget
photo of
in4idelity 0.5
0

Men
Women

Fig. 3 Women were faster and more accurate than men at detecting target photos of threats of
infidelity.

Time taken to detect generalized

threat
14
12
10
Time taken to
detect target 8
photo of
6
poisonous
animal (sec)
4

Men
Women

2
0

Fig. 4 There was no significant difference in time taken to detect a target photo of a poisonous
animals between men and women, suggesting that womens ability to quickly and accurately
detect signs of infidelity is not related to an overall heightened sensitivity to threats.

Fig. 5 A set of photos displaying progressing scenes of within couple threats were used to
evaluate how men and women direct their infidelity-prevention strategies. Despite the ambiguity
of the middle photo, men were much more likely than women to say that the target man was
looking at the woman at the end of the bar, suggesting that men tend to focus on within couple
threats.

Fig. 6 In the left-most graph gaze directions are coded 1 (partner is looking at his/her partner) to 9
(partner is looking at attractive stranger). In the right-most graph gaze directions are coded
1(attractive stranger is looking away from spouse) to 9 (attractive stranger is looking at spouse).
In the first series men were significantly more likely to state that the partner was looking at the
attractive stranger than women (within couple threat of infidelity). In the second series women
were more likely than men to say the attractive stranger was looking at the spouse (outside threat
of infidelity).

Sources

T. Ein-Dor, A. Perri-Paldi, G. Hirschberger G. Birnbaum & D. Duestch. 2015. Coping

with mate poaching: gender differences in detection of infidelity-related

threats. Evolution and Human Behavior 36:17-24.