Abstract
Apart from the proximate incitement, infidelity implies an intention to inflict harm and suffering to a perpetrator's regular intimate partner for the sake of the perpetrator's own pleasure. The aim of this study was to determine whether Machiavellian deceit (infidelity as a conative style, i.e., 'nothing personal') or subclinical sadism (infidelity with the overt intention to hurt, i.e., 'very personal') is the dominant impetus of infidelity. Our data collected on 111 female and 48 male respondents indicated that Machiavellian antagonism and agency were the best predictors of adulterous behaviour, thus highlighting its 'nothing personal' dimension. No indices of subclinical sadism proved their incremental predictive power in the regression model, thus challenging the 'very personal' approach to the underpinnings of infidelity. In addition, there was no evidence of sex-related differences in proclivity to infidelity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
