How Common Is Infidelity? Cheating Statistics, Measurement, and What Surveys Really Show

3 days ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

There is no single scientifically defensible number for “how common is infidelity?” because different studies count different behaviors, ask different populations, use different time windows, and obtain different levels of disclosure. A survey of ever-married adults asking about sex outside marriage is measuring something much narrower than a survey that asks anyone who has ever been in a monogamous relationship about physical or emotional cheating.

For a useful U.S. benchmark, a peer-reviewed analysis of nine waves of the General Social Survey found that self-reported lifetime extramarital sex among ever-married adults declined from 17.8% in 2000 to 16.3% in 2016, while past-year prevalence remained about 3.0% across the period (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017). That is roughly one in six ever-married adults for the lifetime measure, not “one in six people are cheating right now.” A broader 2022 YouGov survey found that 33% of U.S. adults who had ever been in a monogamous relationship said they had cheated physically, emotionally, or both (YouGov, 2022). Those figures are not contradictory. They answer different questions.

The most important fact about infidelity statistics is therefore methodological: the number changes when the definition changes.

Infidelity statistics at a glance

Here are several estimates that are often useful, provided their boundaries are kept visible:

In General Social Survey probability samples of U.S. adults, lifetime extramarital sex among ever-married adults was 17.8% in 2000 and 16.3% in 2016; annual prevalence was about 3.0% across 2000–2016 (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017).
In a population-based U.S. sample of 4,884 married women, past-year sexual infidelity was reported by 1.08% when asked face-to-face and by 6.13% when asked through a computer-assisted self-interview (Whisman & Snyder, 2007). The behavior being estimated was similar; the disclosure method changed dramatically.
In a 2022 YouGov survey, 33% of Americans who had ever been in a monogamous relationship said they had ever cheated physically, emotionally, or both (YouGov, 2022). This is a broader construct than extramarital sex and includes people who were never married.
In a 2025 YouGov survey of U.S. adults, 25% said they had engaged in sexual activity with someone else without the consent of their main romantic partner (YouGov, 2025). Again, this wording and population differ from the GSS marriage-specific measure.
In a U.S. sample of 8,301 young adults in opposite-sex marriages and cohabiting unions, roughly one in four respondents reported that they, their partner, or both had engaged in extradyadic sex (Frisco, Wenger, & Kreager, 2017). That combined “self, partner, or both” measure should not be treated as the percentage who personally cheated.

The correct takeaway is not to average these numbers together. The correct takeaway is to identify what each number measures.

Why infidelity does not have one universal prevalence rate

“Infidelity” is an umbrella relationship concept rather than a single standardized behavior. Researchers may operationalize it as extramarital intercourse, any extradyadic sexual behavior, sexual activity outside an exclusive relationship, emotional involvement outside the relationship, online erotic interaction, a self-defined violation of monogamy, or some combination of these.

That definitional problem is not merely semantic. In a large factorial vignette study using the German Family Panel, 9,104 respondents evaluated 26,633 scenarios involving different combinations of explicit behavior, emotional involvement, duration, and erotic online contact. Judgments about whether behavior counted as infidelity changed with those features (Bozoyan & Schmiedeberg, 2023). A survey that asks only about intercourse will inevitably produce a different estimate from one that lets respondents count emotional affairs, kissing, sexting, or other relationship-boundary violations.

For the broad conceptual definition and forms of infidelity, see What Is Infidelity? Meaning, Types, Examples, and What Research Shows. This article has a narrower job: prevalence, statistics, measurement, and how to interpret survey numbers without turning unlike studies into a single headline.

What the General Social Survey actually measures

The General Social Survey, administered by NORC at the University of Chicago, is one of the most important long-running sources for U.S. social and behavioral data. The current public cross-sectional release includes data through 2024, and NORC explicitly instructs analysts to consult the codebook, use appropriate weights, and account for the survey design (GSS Get the Data; GSS FAQ).

The classic GSS infidelity item is narrow. It asks whether the respondent has ever had sex with someone other than their husband or wife while married. That question measures self-reported extramarital sex. It does not automatically include emotional affairs, romantic texting, sexting without physical contact, kissing if the respondent does not classify it as sex, secret financial behavior, or violations occurring in a nonmarital dating relationship.

That narrowness is a strength when researchers want a comparatively stable behavioral measure. It is also a limitation when a reader asks the broader everyday question “How many people cheat?”

The best-known GSS prevalence estimate

Labrecque and Whisman analyzed nine GSS waves from 2000 through 2016. The samples were independent probability samples of the U.S. adult household population. Among ever-married adults, reported lifetime extramarital sex declined modestly from 17.8% in 2000 to 16.3% in 2016. Reported past-year prevalence was about 3.0% and did not show a statistically significant change across that period (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017).

These two numbers answer different questions. Lifetime prevalence accumulates across years of exposure and therefore will ordinarily be much higher than the percentage reporting the behavior during a single recent year. A lifetime estimate also depends on how long respondents have been married, how many marriages they have had, and whether the question asks about any marriage or a current one.

This is why “16% of married people cheat” is an imprecise rewrite. The study did not show that 16% of currently married people were currently cheating. It estimated lifetime self-reported extramarital sex among ever-married adults.

Why this article does not manufacture a single “2024 infidelity rate”

The latest GSS public-use files extend through 2024, and the high-risk-behavior module continues to include the EVSTRAY extramarital-sex item. But a responsible prevalence estimate requires the correct analytic sample, survey weights, design variables, treatment of missing and inapplicable responses, and attention to the GSS transition to mixed-mode data collection.

NORC specifically states that weights should be used to make estimates more representative and that unweighted GSS frequencies should not be treated as population estimates (GSS FAQ). The 2022 and 2024 surveys also bridge the older face-to-face design with newer web, telephone, and in-person modes. Because sensitive sexual behavior is especially vulnerable to mode effects, a raw codebook percentage is not a substitute for a properly specified analysis.

A newer year in a data file is valuable. It does not automatically make an unweighted calculation more valid than a peer-reviewed analysis whose design and denominator are explicit.

Survey mode can change an infidelity estimate several-fold

One of the strongest demonstrations comes from Whisman and Snyder’s population-based study of 4,884 married American women. The researchers compared two ways of asking about annual sexual infidelity. In face-to-face interviews, 1.08% reported infidelity. In computer-assisted self-interviews, 6.13% did (Whisman & Snyder, 2007).

That is not a small technical detail. The estimate was more than five times higher when respondents answered through the more private computer-assisted format.

Sensitive behaviors are vulnerable to social-desirability pressures, embarrassment, fear of judgment, privacy concerns, memory limitations, and differences in how respondents interpret questions. The authors concluded that methods designed to reduce impression-management pressure are important when assessing infidelity.

This study also explains why two credible surveys can produce very different rates without one of them necessarily being fraudulent or incompetent. Survey measurement is part of the phenomenon being observed.

Narrow sexual infidelity and broad “cheating” statistics are different constructs

Popular searches for “cheating statistics” often combine several categories:

extramarital intercourse;
any sexual activity outside an exclusive agreement;
physical cheating that may include kissing or touching;
emotional infidelity;
online sexual or romantic behavior;
a respondent’s own definition of cheating;
a partner’s reported cheating;
having ever been cheated on.

These are related questions, not interchangeable measures.

The 2022 YouGov poll illustrates the difference. Among Americans who said they had ever been in a monogamous relationship, 33% said they had ever cheated physically, emotionally, or both (YouGov, 2022). The survey also found large differences in what respondents themselves considered cheating: majorities classified intercourse, nude-photo exchange, suggestive online messages, lying about time spent with someone else, and intense emotional attachment as cheating, but agreement was not identical across behaviors.

A GSS question limited to sex outside marriage and a YouGov question that includes emotional cheating are not competing measurements of the same variable. The YouGov estimate covers a wider behavioral and relational territory.

This distinction also matters clinically. Infidelity is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Emotional infidelity, online infidelity, and sexual infidelity are relationship constructs with different behavioral boundaries. A prevalence statistic cannot determine whether a specific act violated a specific couple’s agreement.

A 2025 U.S. survey gives another, differently worded estimate

In May 2025, YouGov reported that 25% of American adults said they had engaged in sexual activities with someone else without the consent of their main romantic partner; 11% reported doing so with the partner’s consent (YouGov, 2025).

The wording is useful because it distinguishes consensual from nonconsensual non-monogamy. It still should not be read as equivalent to the GSS measure. The GSS asks about sex outside marriage while married. The YouGov question refers to a “main romantic partner,” which reaches beyond marriage, and its survey design uses an opt-in panel that is weighted to approximate the U.S. population rather than the GSS probability-sampling tradition.

The 25% figure therefore answers a broader lifetime-experience question. It does not establish that one-quarter of current marriages contain ongoing affairs.

Consensual non-monogamy should not be counted automatically as infidelity

Prevalence estimates become inflated or conceptually confused when all extradyadic activity is labeled cheating regardless of agreement.

Consensual non-monogamy refers to relationship arrangements in which partners knowingly permit some form of romantic or sexual involvement with others. A 2022 review estimated that at least 5% of the North American population is currently in some form of consensually non-monogamous relationship and emphasized that explicit knowledge and consent distinguish these arrangements from infidelity (Scoats & Campbell, 2022).

A sexual encounter outside a couple can therefore be extradyadic without being a betrayal of the couple’s agreement. Researchers who study infidelity need to specify whether “outside relationship” behavior was permitted, undisclosed, prohibited, or simply not assessed.

This is one reason “number of sexual partners outside the primary relationship” and “infidelity” are not always the same variable.

Marriage, cohabitation, and dating samples should not be merged casually

Relationship type changes the denominator and often the wording of the behavior being measured.

The GSS extramarital-sex item applies to people who have been married. A study of dating relationships may ask about exclusivity rather than marriage. A study of cohabiting young adults may define extradyadic sex relative to a current union. A survey of everyone who has ever had a monogamous relationship covers a wider and more heterogeneous population.

Frisco, Wenger, and Kreager analyzed 8,301 young adults in opposite-sex married and cohabiting unions using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. Roughly one in four respondents reported that either they, their partner, or both had engaged in extradyadic sex (Frisco et al., 2017). The study is valuable because it includes young adult marriages and cohabiting unions and distinguishes respondents’ own behavior from reports about partners.

But “roughly one in four unions involved EDS by someone” is not the same statistic as “one in four respondents cheated.” Changing the unit of analysis changes the number.

Self-reported cheating and being cheated on are not mirror-image statistics

It may seem that the number of people who report cheating should equal the number who report being cheated on. In ordinary surveys, those numbers need not match.

Several mechanisms can create a gap. One person can cheat on multiple partners. A person may not know that a partner cheated. Respondents may use different definitions for their own behavior and a partner’s behavior. Samples may include people whose affair partners are outside the sampled population. Recall and disclosure can differ depending on whether the question concerns one’s own behavior or someone else’s.

In YouGov’s 2022 survey, 33% of respondents who had ever been in a monogamous relationship said they had cheated physically, emotionally, or both, while 54% said they had been cheated on (YouGov, 2022). Those two figures cannot be used as a consistency check that one must invalidate the other. They are reports from different perspectives with different opportunities for knowledge and disclosure.

Lifetime, past-year, current-relationship, and point prevalence answer different questions

Time window is one of the most common sources of misleading headlines.

Lifetime prevalence asks whether the behavior has ever occurred during a defined portion of a person’s life. It accumulates events across time.

Past-year prevalence asks whether the behavior occurred during the preceding 12 months. It is closer to an annual incidence-like measure, although survey terminology and repeated events can complicate that interpretation.

Current-relationship prevalence asks whether the behavior occurred in the relationship a respondent is in now. It excludes events in prior relationships.

Point prevalence would ask whether behavior is occurring at or around the time of measurement. Infidelity studies rarely have a clean point-prevalence measure because affairs can be intermittent and disclosure is retrospective.

A lifetime rate of approximately 16% and an annual rate of approximately 3% can therefore both be true. Treating the lifetime percentage as if it described what is happening this year radically overstates current prevalence.

Denominators matter as much as percentages

Before interpreting an infidelity statistic, ask: percentage of whom?

Possible denominators include:

all adults;
all adults who have ever had a romantic relationship;
people who have ever been in a monogamous relationship;
ever-married adults;
currently married adults;
currently partnered adults;
people in cohabiting unions;
people who report sexual activity;
people who received a particular survey module;
people who answered the sensitive item rather than skipping it.

A headline can preserve the percentage and silently change the denominator. That transforms the meaning.

For example, “16.3% of ever-married adults reported lifetime extramarital sex in a 2016 GSS analysis” is materially different from “16.3% of Americans cheat.” The second statement expands the population, removes the lifetime qualifier, and turns a narrow sexual behavior into a broad cheating construct.

What do studies show about men and women?

Large U.S. studies have often found higher self-reported extramarital sex among men than women. Labrecque and Whisman found men more likely than women to report both past-year and lifetime extramarital sex in the 2000–2016 GSS waves (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017). The 2025 YouGov survey likewise reported that 29% of men and 21% of women said they had engaged in sexual activity outside a main romantic relationship without the partner’s consent (YouGov, 2025).

These differences should be described as survey associations, not biological laws. They can reflect cohort, age, opportunity, social norms, disclosure patterns, relationship history, sampling, and how the question defines infidelity. The size of a sex/gender difference can change across cohorts and measurement methods.

A subgroup estimate also does not predict an individual. Knowing that one demographic group reports a behavior more often than another does not establish whether a particular person has cheated.

Is infidelity becoming more common?

The best answer is: it depends on the behavior, period, population, and measurement system.

In the GSS analysis covering 2000–2016, lifetime reported extramarital sex among ever-married adults declined modestly from 17.8% to 16.3%, while annual prevalence remained about 3.0% without a statistically significant trend (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017). That evidence does not support a simple claim that sexual infidelity was rapidly increasing during that period.

At the same time, contemporary relationship life includes digital behaviors that a narrow extramarital-sex item does not capture. Erotic messaging, private online relationships, sexual image exchange, and emotionally intimate digital interaction may be treated as infidelity by many couples without becoming “extramarital sex” in a survey.

That does not prove that infidelity overall has increased. It means the construct has acquired additional channels, making long-term trend claims more difficult when the historical measure is narrower than current everyday language.

The 2024 GSS also uses a mixed-mode design during a methodological transition. Trend analysis must separate real behavioral change from changes in who responds, how questions are administered, and how comfortable respondents feel disclosing sensitive behavior.

Why “one in two people cheat” is usually a bad statistic

Very high headline estimates often arise from one or more of the following moves:

combining emotional and sexual behaviors without saying so;
using a convenience sample and presenting it as national;
counting having ever cheated across any relationship and describing it as current-marriage prevalence;
counting either partner’s behavior and presenting it as the respondent’s own behavior;
including suspected infidelity as confirmed infidelity;
using “ever been cheated on” as if it measured the prevalence of people who cheat;
treating all consensual non-monogamy as cheating;
combining different studies with different denominators;
citing an online poll without describing recruitment or weighting;
stripping away the time window.

A large number can be real for the question that was asked. The problem begins when the question disappears and only the number remains.

Why infidelity may be underreported

Infidelity is socially sensitive. Respondents may conceal behavior, reinterpret it, forget it, or avoid answering. Whisman and Snyder’s 1.08% versus 6.13% annual estimates in the same national sample of married women show how strongly the mode of disclosure can matter (Whisman & Snyder, 2007).

Underreporting does not mean that every published prevalence estimate should simply be multiplied by an arbitrary correction factor. The size of disclosure bias varies with question wording, privacy, survey mode, perceived consequences, culture, relationship status, and the behavior being asked about.

Indirect survey methods can sometimes yield higher estimates for sensitive behaviors. A study in Taiwan using a randomized-response/crosswise design was developed specifically because direct questioning can underestimate extradyadic sex (Tu & Hsieh, 2017). That evidence strengthens the general measurement point, but its prevalence estimate should not be transplanted to the United States.

The scientifically responsible conclusion is narrower: self-report is imperfect, and privacy-enhancing methods can materially affect disclosure.

Why infidelity may also be overcounted in some statistics

Measurement error does not only push estimates downward.

A broad survey can overcount relative to a narrower concept if respondents include consensually permitted behavior, behaviors that occurred before exclusivity was agreed, relationship overlap during a breakup transition, emotional closeness that a particular couple did not define as a violation, or a wide range of digital acts under one “cheating” label.

Partner-reported infidelity can also include suspicion, misunderstanding, or a definition that differs from the actor’s definition. This does not mean the partner’s experience is unreal. It means “my partner cheated” and “I engaged in behavior X” are different survey variables.

For prevalence research, precise behavioral questions are usually easier to interpret than a single undefined word such as cheating.

International statistics are not substitutes for U.S. prevalence

Infidelity research exists across countries, but national rates cannot be moved across borders as though culture and measurement were irrelevant.

For example, a 2002 random-sample survey in Norway found lifetime extradyadic sexual relationships among 29% of ever-married or cohabiting men and 23% of women, with lower estimates for the current relationship (Træen, Holmen, & Stigum, 2007). A national probability study in China reported different past-year patterns by gender and type of extramarital sexual activity (Zhang et al., 2012).

These studies are useful evidence that prevalence is context-sensitive. They are not evidence that a Norwegian or Chinese estimate is the “real” U.S. rate.

Country, age range, marriage patterns, cohabitation, sexual norms, survey privacy, and exact wording all matter.

How to evaluate an infidelity statistic in eight questions

Before trusting a prevalence claim, ask the following:

What exactly counted as infidelity? Was it intercourse, any sexual activity, physical cheating, emotional cheating, online behavior, or a respondent-defined violation?
Who was surveyed? All adults, ever-married adults, currently married adults, people in monogamous relationships, dating adults, or a clinical/convenience sample?
What was the time window? Lifetime, past year, current relationship, current marriage, or another period?
Was the sample designed to represent a population? Probability sampling, quota matching, an opt-in panel, college participants, therapy clients, and website visitors support different levels of generalization.
How was the question asked? Face-to-face, telephone, web, computer-assisted self-interview, anonymous questionnaire, or indirect randomized-response methods can produce different disclosure rates.
What was the denominator? Did the percentage exclude never-married respondents, people who skipped the module, missing responses, or people with no relevant relationship history?
Was the estimate weighted appropriately? Representative surveys often require weights and design variables. Raw frequency tables are not automatically population prevalence.
Is the headline preserving the study’s boundaries? If the paper says “lifetime extramarital sex among ever-married U.S. adults,” a headline should not quietly become “how many Americans are cheating.”

These questions are more useful than memorizing a single percentage.

What infidelity statistics cannot tell you about your relationship

Population prevalence cannot establish whether a specific partner is being unfaithful.

A behavior can be statistically associated with infidelity and still be common among people who are faithful. Changes in phone use, privacy, travel, sexual interest, mood, scheduling, grooming, or communication are not proof of cheating. Statistical base rates do not convert ambiguous “signs” into evidence.

Likewise, knowing that infidelity is common enough to appear in population surveys does not mean it should be assumed in a relationship with no direct evidence. Prevalence informs population-level expectations; it does not adjudicate an individual accusation.

The same principle applies in the other direction. A relatively low annual prevalence does not prove that a particular report of infidelity is unlikely to be true. Population statistics are not lie detectors.

Infidelity statistics are not mental-health statistics

Infidelity is not a mental disorder. Prevalence figures for cheating are not rates of psychopathology.

People affected by infidelity can experience intense distress, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, depressed mood, sleep disruption, hypervigilance, anger, grief, or trauma-like symptoms. Those experiences may warrant support, but the presence of such symptoms does not by itself establish PTSD, OCD, or another diagnosis.

The DSM-5-TR and the WHO ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements are authoritative diagnostic classifications. Neither lists “post-infidelity stress disorder” or “betrayal trauma” as a standalone diagnosis. In this context, betrayal trauma is used as a theoretical and research framework rather than a diagnostic label.

This distinction matters in a statistics article because search results sometimes mix the prevalence of infidelity with the prevalence of post-betrayal symptoms, as though they were the same outcome. They are not.

What is the most defensible answer to “How common is cheating?”

For U.S. adults, the most defensible answer is a range of construct-specific estimates rather than one universal rate.

If you mean sexual extramarital behavior among ever-married adults, high-quality GSS research places lifetime self-reported prevalence around the mid-teens in the 2000–2016 period and past-year prevalence around a few percent (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017).

If you mean a broader lifetime experience of physical and/or emotional cheating across any monogamous relationship, survey estimates can be substantially higher; YouGov reported 33% in 2022 among Americans who had ever been in a monogamous relationship (YouGov, 2022).

If you mean sexual activity outside a main romantic relationship without the partner’s consent, YouGov reported 25% of U.S. adults in 2025 (YouGov, 2025).

Those numbers should remain side by side, not be averaged. Their differences are information about measurement.

Frequently asked questions

What percentage of married people cheat?

There is no single current percentage that applies to every marriage and every definition. In a peer-reviewed GSS analysis, 16.3% of ever-married U.S. adults reported lifetime extramarital sex in 2016, and about 3.0% reported extramarital sex in the past year across the 2000–2016 period. These are self-reported sexual-behavior estimates, not rates of emotional or online infidelity.

Is “one in five married people cheat” accurate?

It can be a rough shorthand for some historical lifetime estimates of extramarital sex, especially for particular subgroups, but it is too imprecise as a general fact. The best-known GSS analysis found 16.3% among ever-married adults in 2016. Other designs and definitions produce higher or lower figures.

Is cheating more common among men or women?

Many large U.S. surveys have found higher self-reported sexual infidelity among men. The size of the difference varies by cohort, age, definition, and survey method. It should be treated as a population association rather than a rule about individuals.

Is emotional cheating included in most infidelity statistics?

Not in the classic GSS extramarital-sex measure. Broader surveys such as YouGov’s 2022 cheating survey explicitly allowed physical cheating, emotional cheating, or both. That broader definition is one reason its lifetime estimate is higher.

Does online infidelity count in the statistics?

Only if the survey asks about it or uses a broad self-defined cheating category that respondents apply to online behavior. A survey restricted to sex outside marriage will miss nonphysical online affairs. Online infidelity therefore needs its own operational definition rather than being silently folded into a sexual-infidelity rate.

Are infidelity surveys trustworthy?

They can be useful, especially when sampling, wording, weighting, and methods are transparent. But self-report of sensitive behavior is vulnerable to nondisclosure and interpretation differences. The Whisman and Snyder study showed that changing from face-to-face to computer-assisted self-interview changed annual prevalence from 1.08% to 6.13% in the same population-based sample.

Why do some websites say 20%, 30%, 50%, or even more?

Often because they are citing different populations and definitions. A 16% lifetime estimate for extramarital sex among ever-married adults, a 33% estimate for physical/emotional cheating among people ever in monogamous relationships, and a 54% estimate for ever having been cheated on are three different statistics. None should be substituted for the others.

Does a high prevalence mean infidelity is normal or harmless?

Prevalence describes frequency, not acceptability, relationship impact, or clinical significance. A behavior can be common and still violate an agreement or cause substantial distress. Population rates do not determine what a couple should accept.

Does a low prevalence mean suspected cheating is probably false?

No. A population base rate cannot establish what happened in an individual relationship. Evidence about a specific event has to come from the specific situation, not from a national percentage.

Has infidelity increased because of social media and dating apps?

Current evidence does not support a simple population-wide conclusion. Digital technologies create new channels for boundary violations, but long-running sexual-infidelity measures do not automatically capture them. The GSS study found a modest decline in lifetime extramarital sex and no significant change in annual prevalence from 2000 to 2016. Broader digital forms require separate measurement.

The bottom line

Infidelity statistics are meaningful only when the behavior, population, time window, and survey method are kept attached to the number.

For narrow sexual extramarital behavior in the United States, strong probability-sample research supports a lifetime prevalence around the mid-teens among ever-married adults and an annual prevalence around a few percent. Broader surveys that include emotional cheating or any monogamous relationship history produce substantially higher lifetime estimates. Privacy of assessment can change reported prevalence several-fold.

The scientifically useful answer to “How common is infidelity?” is therefore not one magic percentage. It is a map of estimates with their definitions intact.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). APA releases Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/apa-releases-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-of

Bozoyan, C., & Schmiedeberg, C. (2023). What is infidelity? A vignette study on norms and attitudes toward infidelity. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(8), 1090–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2104194

Davern, M., Bautista, R., Freese, J., Herd, P., & Morgan, S. L. (2025). General Social Survey, 2024 GSS Documentation and Public Use File. NORC at the University of Chicago. https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data.html

Frisco, M. L., Wenger, M. R., & Kreager, D. A. (2017). Extradyadic sex and union dissolution among young adults in opposite-sex married and cohabiting unions. Social Science Research, 62, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.013

Labrecque, L. T., & Whisman, M. A. (2017). Attitudes toward and prevalence of extramarital sex and descriptions of extramarital partners in the 21st century. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(7), 952–957. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000280

Scoats, R., & Campbell, C. (2022). What do we know about consensual non-monogamy? Current Opinion in Psychology, 48, 101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101468

Træen, B., Holmen, K., & Stigum, H. (2007). Extradyadic sexual relationships in Norway. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 55–65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17195948/

Tu, S.-H., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2017). Estimates of lifetime extradyadic sex using a hybrid of randomized response technique and crosswise design. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0740-4

Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147

World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263

YouGov. (2022). How many Americans have cheated on their partners in monogamous relationships? https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/43605-how-many-americans-have-cheated-their-partner-poll

YouGov. (2025). Half of Americans say they’ve been cheated on; one-third say they’ve been the cheater. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/52212-half-americans-say-been-cheated-on-one-third-say-been-the-cheater-relationships-poll

Zhang, N., Parish, W. L., Huang, Y., & Pan, S. (2012). Sexual infidelity in China: Prevalence and gender-specific correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9930-x

Psychological Encyclopedia