Online Infidelity: Social Media, Messaging, Sexting, and Digital Relationship Boundaries

2 days ago

18 min read

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

Online infidelity is human-to-human romantic, sexual, emotionally intimate, or deceptive interaction conducted through digital technology when that interaction violates the relevant agreements or reasonably understood boundaries of a committed relationship. Social media, direct messages, texting, sexting, video calls, dating apps, gaming platforms, and other digital spaces can all become the medium. The technology itself does not determine whether infidelity occurred.

The most useful starting point is therefore the same one used for infidelity more broadly: identify the relationship agreement, the outside interaction, and the boundary that may have been crossed. A private message is not automatically cheating. A hidden sexual exchange may be. A dating profile may be incompatible with one couple’s agreement and explicitly permitted in another. The classification depends on content, intent, consent, relational meaning, and the couple’s actual rules.

A 2026 concept-explication paper describes online infidelity as a construct that remains inconsistently defined and measured across disciplines and identifies four recurring dimensions: emotional involvement, sexual involvement, secrecy and deception, and the technological context itself. That framework is useful because it prevents a common mistake: treating “online” as if it were a single behavior.

What Is Online Infidelity?

Online infidelity refers to an infidelity-related boundary violation that is initiated, developed, maintained, expressed, or concealed through digital communication. It can remain entirely online, move between online and offline contact, or begin offline and continue digitally.

Research has struggled with the definition for decades. Early work found that people did perceive some online interactions as betrayal, while online behaviors did not form one neat category separate from sexual and emotional infidelity. In a study of 1,117 participants, Whitty’s factor analysis produced sexual, emotional, and pornography dimensions rather than a single “online” dimension. A more recent systematic review of 305 infidelity studies likewise found widespread ambiguity in how infidelity is operationalized, especially outside sexual infidelity. Warach and colleagues’ review is a reminder that prevalence figures and claims about causes depend heavily on what a study counted as infidelity.

The 2026 explication by Oliullah and Murtuza makes the digital construct more explicit. Online infidelity can involve emotional and sexual content, but secrecy and deception are also central to many cases, while the technological environment changes access, speed, persistence, reach, and the ways interactions can be concealed or discovered.

The Four Dimensions of Online Infidelity

Emotional involvement

Digital contact can become emotionally significant through romantic disclosure, repeated intimate conversation, expressions of love or longing, emotional prioritization, or a bond that displaces agreed forms of exclusivity in the primary relationship. Emotional closeness alone does not establish infidelity. Close online friendships can be healthy. The relevant question is whether the relationship has become romantic or otherwise crossed an agreed emotional boundary.

Sexual involvement

Sexual online interaction can include sexting, exchanging sexual images, cybersex, sexual voice or video interaction, explicit sexual role-play with another person, or arranging sexual contact. In research on partners who experienced an Internet affair, sexual behaviors such as cybersex, exchanging sexual self-images, and sharing sexual fantasies online were among the behaviors most likely to be judged as infidelity.

That finding comes from Vossler and Moller’s 2020 study, which also showed why online boundaries can feel unusually fluid: participants described digital spaces as confusing, while sexual online behaviors were judged more consistently as infidelity than emotional behaviors.

Secrecy and deception

Secrecy can include deliberately hiding the existence, frequency, content, or relational meaning of digital contact; misrepresenting who a person is; maintaining concealed accounts; or deleting material specifically to prevent a partner from learning about a prohibited interaction. Secrecy can strengthen the case that a known agreement has been violated, but secrecy by itself is not proof of infidelity. People also keep ordinary conversations private, and privacy can be especially important where a partner is controlling or surveilling.

Technological context

Digital environments change the mechanics of extradyadic interaction. Contact can be immediate, asynchronous, persistent, geographically unconstrained, searchable, screenshotable, anonymous, pseudonymous, or intentionally ephemeral. Old partners and potential new partners can remain continuously reachable. These affordances can lower practical barriers to contact, but they do not mechanically cause infidelity and they do not convert ordinary platform use into cheating.

What Online Infidelity Can Look Like

There is no universal checklist that overrides a couple’s agreements. The examples below describe patterns that may constitute online infidelity when they violate an exclusivity or disclosure boundary.

Secret romantic or sexual direct messages

Private messaging can become infidelity when the exchange is romantic or sexual and conflicts with the relationship agreement. The relevant feature is the nature of the interaction and the violated boundary, not the mere existence of a private inbox.

Social-media research has used “infidelity-related behaviors” rather than treating all messaging as infidelity. In a study of 338 married or cohabiting people from 176 families, McDaniel, Drouin, and Cravens examined behaviors such as hiding messages, communicating with relationship alternatives, or sharing emotional and intimate information outside the relationship. Only a small proportion endorsed specific behaviors, and greater engagement was associated with lower relationship satisfaction and greater ambivalence. The study was correlational; it does not show that social media use caused infidelity or relationship dissatisfaction.

Sexting and sexual image exchange

Sexting with another person can include sending or requesting explicit sexual messages, sexual images, sexual videos, or descriptions of sexual fantasies. Because it is active interpersonal sexual communication, many people and studies judge it more like a sexual boundary violation than like passive media consumption. Whether a particular exchange constitutes cheating still depends on the couple’s agreement and context.

An exploratory comparison of sexual, emotional, cyber-, and parasocial behaviors found that sexually explicit digital behaviors were often rated as serious forms of infidelity. Adam’s 2019 study supports the practical distinction between active sexual interaction with another person and the broader universe of online behavior.

Cybersex, sexual voice calls, and sexual video calls

Real-time sexual interaction can occur without physical co-presence. Cybersex, mutual sexual activity on video, explicit sexual voice interaction, and personalized erotic role-play with another person can cross a monogamy boundary even when the participants never meet offline. Physical distance does not erase the interpersonal sexual behavior.

Dating-app activity

Using a dating app can raise a different boundary question depending on what the person is doing there. An inactive profile left from before a relationship is not equivalent to actively matching, flirting, soliciting dates, exchanging sexual content, or arranging meetings. For a couple that has agreed to romantic and sexual exclusivity, active pursuit of alternatives through a dating app may itself violate the agreement even before an offline meeting occurs.

Reconnecting with an ex or keeping a “back burner”

Contact with an ex is not automatically infidelity. Some people co-parent, share communities, or remain friends with former partners. The boundary changes when contact becomes a concealed romantic or sexual alternative, includes prohibited sexual or romantic communication, or is maintained for the possibility of a future relationship in conflict with the current commitment.

Research on digital communication with “back burners” illustrates the need for nuance. In a study of 246 noncollege adults in committed relationships, Banas and colleagues found that having an ex as a highly desired back burner was associated with more digital communication, which in turn was related to sexual activity with that person. These are associations within a specific design, not evidence that ordinary contact with an ex proves cheating.

Social-media flirting

Flirting can range from playful interaction with no exclusivity implications to sustained romantic pursuit that clearly violates a couple’s agreement. Likes, reactions, follows, comments, and public jokes are therefore poor stand-alone evidence. Their meaning depends on content, repetition, intent, secrecy, and the relationship’s boundaries.

What Does Not Automatically Count as Online Infidelity?

The fact that a behavior is digital, private, emotionally meaningful, or uncomfortable to a partner does not by itself establish online infidelity. Context is essential.

Ordinary online friendship is not automatically emotional infidelity. People can have close friendships, private conversations, mutual support, and meaningful disclosure outside a romantic partnership without violating exclusivity.

Using social media frequently is not evidence of cheating. Neither is following attractive people, receiving messages from strangers, having a private password, or spending time online. Those behaviors may become relevant in a larger pattern, but none proves an affair.

Deleting a message is not proof of infidelity. Deletion can have many explanations. The evidentiary meaning changes if a person admits that messages were deleted specifically to conceal a prohibited romantic or sexual relationship, but inference from deletion alone remains uncertain.

Pornography is also conceptually distinct from interpersonal online infidelity. Some couples define pornography use as a sexual boundary violation and others do not. Because pornography does not necessarily involve reciprocal contact with another person, it should not be silently collapsed into human-to-human online infidelity.

Consensually non-monogamous relationships require their own agreement-based analysis. Digital flirting, sexting, dating-app use, or outside sexual interaction can be permitted under one consensual structure and prohibited under another. Infidelity is about violating the relationship’s rules, not simply about interaction with more than one person.

Is Sexting Cheating?

Sexting is one of the clearest digital behaviors that can fall within sexual infidelity because it is an interpersonal sexual exchange. In an explicitly monogamous relationship where partners have agreed that sexual communication with others is exclusive, sexting with another person crosses that boundary.

The answer becomes less categorical when the couple has never discussed sexual messaging, permits some forms of erotic interaction, participates consensually in shared sexual communication, or has a non-monogamous agreement. The correct analysis is not “all sexting is always cheating” or “it is not cheating because nobody touched.” The analysis is whether the sexual exchange violated the relationship’s actual consent structure.

Online-affair research supports the view that sexual digital interaction is usually judged more severely than many ambiguous social behaviors. Vossler and Moller reported that cybersex, exchanging sexual self-images, and sharing sexual fantasies online were among the behaviors their respondents most readily classified as infidelity. Earlier work by Whitty similarly found that people recognize some online sexual and emotional acts as betrayal even without offline contact.

Emotional Online Infidelity vs Sexual Online Infidelity

Online infidelity can be primarily emotional, primarily sexual, or both. The distinction describes the content of the outside involvement; it does not rank one form as universally more serious.

Emotional online infidelity centers on a romantic or emotionally exclusive bond that violates the primary relationship’s boundaries. Sexual online infidelity centers on sexual interaction such as sexting, cybersex, or explicit sexual exchange. A digital affair can move between the two: private emotional disclosure may become romantic, romantic messaging may become sexual, and online contact may eventually lead to offline meetings.

Research comparing emotional and sexual infidelity online and offline has found that people can experience both dimensions in cyberspace. Whitty and Quigley examined emotional and sexual infidelity across offline and online contexts, reinforcing the point that the digital medium does not erase familiar relational dimensions.

This article owns the digital form of the question. The broader definition of emotional infidelity, the friendship-versus-affair boundary, and recovery after an emotional affair belong to separate canonical topics in this cluster.

Why Secrecy Matters—and Why It Is Not a Stand-Alone Test

Secrecy often matters because it can reveal a mismatch between behavior and the relationship’s known rules. If someone says, in effect, “I knew my partner would regard this sexual exchange as outside our agreement, so I deliberately hid it,” the concealment is relevant to the boundary analysis.

The 2026 conceptual work on online infidelity explicitly identifies secrecy and deception as a major dimension. Social-media studies have also measured concealment-related behaviors. In the McDaniel study, examples included hiding messages or feeling uncomfortable about a partner reading particular communications. These measures are useful for research, but they are not lie detectors and should not be used as a checklist for proving an affair.

Privacy and secrecy are not synonyms. Privacy is a legitimate relational need. Secrecy is the intentional withholding of information. Even secrecy can have multiple meanings. In relationships involving coercive control, stalking, or surveillance, hiding ordinary communication can be a safety behavior rather than evidence of infidelity. Safety takes priority over demands for access or “proof.”

Why Digital Technology Changes the Context of Infidelity

Access to alternatives is continuous

Social platforms, messaging apps, professional networks, games, and dating services can keep former partners, acquaintances, strangers, and potential alternatives continuously reachable. This changes opportunity and contact patterns, but opportunity is not destiny.

Online contact can intensify quickly

Repeated messaging can create a sense of immediacy and continuity. People can disclose personal material over long text exchanges, communicate at times when they would not meet face to face, and sustain a relationship across distance. That can make a digital bond psychologically significant even before an offline meeting.

Communication can be persistent or ephemeral

Digital exchanges can leave durable records, screenshots, timestamps, location traces, and shared media. Other tools are designed to disappear. Both persistence and ephemerality can affect how a relationship is maintained and discovered, but neither is inherently proof of wrongdoing.

Digital behavior can be ambiguous

A heart reaction, late-night message, private channel, gaming friendship, or repeated comment can carry very different meanings. The same visible behavior can represent friendship, flirtation, romantic pursuit, work, community participation, or a relationship violation. Context must do the interpretive work.

Online and offline relationships can merge

The distinction between “online” and “real life” is increasingly artificial for relationship behavior. A bond may begin on social media, continue by text, move to video, and later become physical. Conversely, an offline relationship can be sustained almost entirely online. What matters clinically and relationally is the pattern of involvement, not whether it fits one channel.

Does Social Media Cause Infidelity?

Current evidence does not justify a deterministic claim that social media causes infidelity. Social platforms create opportunities for communication, but people, relationships, motivations, social contexts, and platform practices vary widely.

The strongest relevant studies are largely observational. McDaniel and colleagues found associations between social-media infidelity-related behaviors, lower relationship satisfaction, greater ambivalence, and attachment insecurity. A preliminary study of 341 Hispanic women in Puerto Rico likewise found that relationship satisfaction and ambivalence were associated with infidelity-related behavior on social networks. These designs do not establish a one-way causal chain.

A newer 2025 study of 765 social-media users in romantic relationships reported that social-media addiction scores were positively associated with social-media infidelity-related behaviors and inversely associated with relationship satisfaction. Importantly, the authors themselves emphasize that statistical moderation requires careful interpretation. Association is not a diagnosis, and it is not proof that a platform, an “addiction,” or a relationship problem caused a specific person to cheat.

Older platform-specific studies illustrate the same limitation. Clayton, Nagurney, and Smith found associations among Facebook use, Facebook-related conflict, and negative relationship outcomes in a sample of 205 users. Such findings can identify patterns worth studying, but they should not be converted into the rule “Facebook causes affairs.”

Messaging, Social Media, and Online Sexual Activity: Keep the Constructs Separate

Research often studies overlapping but nonidentical behaviors: social-media infidelity-related behavior, online sexual activity, cybersex, flirting, communication with relationship alternatives, Internet affairs, and general social-media use. Those constructs should not be treated as interchangeable.

For example, Li and Zheng studied online sexual activities among Chinese heterosexual adults in committed relationships, including sexually explicit media, sexual partner seeking, cybersex, and online flirting. Relationship quality predicted participation frequency in their sample. That finding does not mean every form of online sexual activity in the study was infidelity under every couple’s rules.

Likewise, early ethnographic work on Internet chat rooms examined committed partners seeking interactive contact online. Mileham’s study helped establish the research problem, but Internet use has changed dramatically since that period. Contemporary interpretation should therefore combine older foundational work with newer research on social platforms, messaging, and current digital environments.

How Couples Can Define Digital Relationship Boundaries

Digital boundaries work best when they are explicit enough to guide behavior before a conflict occurs. The goal is not universal surveillance. It is shared understanding about what each partner considers exclusive, permissible, private, or disclosable.

Define sexual interaction

Discuss whether sexting, explicit image exchange, sexual video calls, erotic role-play, sexual comments, or personalized sexual interaction with another person are inside or outside the relationship agreement. If the relationship is monogamous, specificity prevents the later defense that a digital sexual exchange “did not count” because there was no physical contact.

Define romantic and emotionally intimate interaction

Discuss romantic declarations, repeated private flirtation, emotional exclusivity, secret confiding, and sustained contact with someone who is being treated as a romantic alternative. A boundary can protect the primary relationship without banning friendship.

Discuss dating apps

Clarify whether keeping a profile, browsing, matching, chatting, collecting attention, or arranging dates is permitted. These are different behaviors, and couples may draw the line at different points.

Discuss contact with ex-partners and former romantic interests

Some ex-partner contact is ordinary or necessary. The useful question is whether the contact is friendly, logistical, co-parenting-related, romantic, sexual, or maintained as a concealed relationship alternative.

Discuss privacy without making surveillance the relationship model

A healthy boundary conversation can distinguish a right to private space from a right to maintain prohibited relationships. Password sharing, device access, location sharing, and message inspection are separate choices; they should not become automatic prerequisites for proving fidelity. Broad privacy and surveillance questions belong to the trust domain, while this article concerns infidelity-specific digital boundaries.

Revisit the agreement when technology changes

New platforms and interaction formats can create situations a couple never discussed. Updating an agreement is usually more useful than pretending an old rule automatically answers every new technological question.

Signs, Suspicion, and Proof: What Digital Behavior Can and Cannot Tell You

Behavioral changes can raise questions, but they do not prove infidelity. Increased phone use, a new password, deleted messages, less visible notifications, new followers, late-night messaging, more time online, or changes in sexual behavior all have multiple possible explanations.

The same caution applies to algorithmic recommendations and platform traces. Suggested contacts, “people you may know,” location anomalies, likes, follows, and ad targeting are not reliable evidence of an affair.

Where there is uncertainty, direct clarification about the relationship agreement and the specific interaction is more informative than treating an ambiguous digital sign as a verdict. If there is coercion, stalking, threats, violence, or abuse, safety planning takes priority over confrontation or couple-preservation goals.

Psychological Impact of Online Infidelity

Discovery of online infidelity can produce intense emotional distress, anger, grief, anxiety, shame, confusion, rumination, sleep disruption, or a loss of trust. These reactions can be severe even when no physical meeting occurred because the injured partner may experience the violation as relationally real.

Qualitative and clinical literature on Internet affairs has long described significant partner impact. Vossler and Moller found that participants whose partners had engaged in Internet affairs often defined the betrayal broadly and described the online environment as creating distinctive uncertainty. Cravens and Whiting’s clinical review of Internet infidelity and Facebook likewise emphasized the need to assess how technology affects the affair’s meaning, discovery, and relational consequences.

These reactions are not, by themselves, a psychiatric diagnosis. Online infidelity is not a mental disorder. Distress after discovery does not automatically establish PTSD, OCD, major depressive disorder, an anxiety disorder, or any other diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis requires the relevant criteria and assessment.

The severity of impact also does not provide a universal ranking of forms of betrayal. For one person, a sexual image exchange may be devastating; for another, sustained emotional secrecy may feel more consequential than a single sexual episode. Meaning depends on the relationship, the violation, the history, and the person affected.

If You Discover Possible Online Infidelity

The first task is to clarify what is known. Separate direct evidence from interpretation. A disclosed sexual conversation, an admitted hidden dating profile, or an explicit romantic exchange provides different information from a change in phone habits or a vague suspicion.

Then identify the boundary at issue. What had the partners agreed about sexual messaging, romantic contact, dating apps, exes, privacy, and outside relationships? If the agreement was never explicit, both partners may still have meaningful expectations, but ambiguity should be named rather than rewritten as certainty.

Avoid escalating uncertainty into compulsive checking, stalking, impersonation, unauthorized account access, or constant surveillance. Those behaviors can create additional harm and may cross legal or safety boundaries. Broad checking and surveillance belong to separate trust and digital-life topics.

You do not need to make an immediate decision about staying, leaving, forgiving, or reconciling. Those are separate recovery and decision questions. If safety is threatened, prioritize physical and digital safety, trusted support, and appropriate professional or legal resources over reconciliation.

When Professional Support May Help

Professional support can be useful when discovery leads to persistent distress, repeated conflict, difficulty functioning, uncertainty about whether to continue the relationship, or difficulty discussing what happened without escalation. Individual therapy can focus on the person’s emotional response and decision-making. Couples therapy can focus on the relationship process when both partners choose to participate and the setting is safe.

Therapy does not turn infidelity into a diagnosis, and no treatment can guarantee reconciliation, forgiveness, relationship survival, or a fixed recovery timeline. The appropriate clinical focus depends on the people involved, the severity of distress, the relationship context, co-occurring mental health concerns, and safety.

Earlier literature reviews and clinical work on Internet infidelity stressed the importance of assessing the medium, secrecy, emotional and sexual content, and couple-specific meanings rather than assuming all online behavior is equivalent. Hertlein and Piercy’s review and Cravens and Whiting’s later clinical discussion are useful historical anchors, while the 2026 concept-explication updates the construct for a more technologically saturated relationship environment.

Online Infidelity in the Artificial Era: Human-to-Human and Human–AI Boundaries Are Different Questions

This article defines online infidelity as digitally mediated human-to-human relationship behavior. AI companions, romantic chatbots, synthetic intimacy, and AI-specific attachment raise a different canonical question because the interaction is not an extradyadic human relationship in the ordinary sense.

For that topic, see Is an AI Companion Emotional Cheating? Intimacy and Couple Boundaries in the Artificial Era. The distinction matters for search intent and conceptual clarity: a partner can experience AI use as a genuine relationship boundary violation, while the mechanism is different from human-to-human online infidelity. The related AI Companions and Marriage: Attachment, Secrecy, Jealousy, and Relationship Boundaries article examines the broader marriage context.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is online flirting cheating?

It can be, but flirting is not universally classified the same way. The answer depends on what the interaction contains, whether it is romantic or sexual, whether it is sustained or exploratory, what the partners agreed, and whether the behavior is being concealed because it violates that agreement.

Is sexting cheating if you never meet the person?

In a relationship that defines sexual exclusivity to include sexual communication, yes. Sexting is interpersonal sexual behavior even without physical contact. Research shows that sexual online interactions are among the digital behaviors people most readily classify as infidelity.

Are secret DMs always online infidelity?

No. A private or secret message is not automatically romantic or sexual. The content, intent, relationship agreement, and reason for concealment matter. Secrecy is relevant context, not a stand-alone diagnostic test for cheating.

Does deleting messages prove cheating?

No. Message deletion has many possible explanations. It becomes stronger contextual evidence only when linked to other reliable information, such as an admission that romantic or sexual messages were deleted to conceal a prohibited relationship.

Is using a dating app cheating if there was no date?

It can violate a relationship agreement before an offline meeting occurs. Active matching, flirting, sexual messaging, or seeking alternative partners may cross a monogamy boundary. An old inactive profile is a different situation. The exact agreement and behavior matter.

Is pornography online infidelity?

Pornography use can violate a couple’s sexual agreement, but it is conceptually distinct from human-to-human online infidelity because it does not necessarily involve reciprocal sexual or romantic interaction with another person. Couples can still decide that pornography is outside their agreement.

Can an online affair be serious if the people never met?

Yes. A digital relationship can involve sustained romantic attachment, explicit sexual behavior, secrecy, deception, or plans for a future relationship. The absence of physical contact changes the form of the behavior, not necessarily its psychological significance.

Is frequent social-media use a sign of cheating?

No. Frequent use is not evidence of infidelity. Studies report associations between some social-media patterns and infidelity-related behaviors, but those findings cannot identify whether a specific person is cheating.

Is talking to an ex online cheating?

Not automatically. Co-parenting, friendship, professional contact, shared community ties, or ordinary conversation can all be legitimate. The boundary is crossed when the interaction becomes romantic, sexual, or otherwise violates the couple’s agreement.

Is an AI companion online infidelity?

That is a separate Human–AI Relationships question. AI use can be experienced as a real couple-boundary violation, but it should not be collapsed into human-to-human online infidelity. See Is an AI Companion Emotional Cheating? for the dedicated analysis.

The Bottom Line

Online infidelity is best understood as a relationship-boundary violation expressed through digital interaction, not as a list of forbidden apps. The most informative questions are: What happened? Was the interaction emotional, sexual, deceptive, or some combination? What had the partners agreed? Was consent present? What role did secrecy play? And how did the technology shape the interaction?

This framework keeps ordinary online life from being medicalized or criminalized as “cheating” while still recognizing that digitally mediated relationships can be psychologically consequential and can violate real commitments. Social media, messaging, sexting, dating apps, and cybersex are channels and behaviors; infidelity is the boundary violation that gives them their relational meaning.

References

Abbasi, I. S., & Dibble, J. L. (2025). Social Media Addiction, Infidelity-Related Behaviors, and Relationship Satisfaction: Statistical Moderation Requires Careful Interpretation. The Family Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807251358821

Adam, A. (2019). Perceptions of Infidelity: A Comparison of Sexual, Emotional, Cyber-, and Parasocial Behaviors. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 13(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v13i2.376

Banas, J. A., Dibble, J. L., Bessarabova, E., & Drouin, M. (2021). Simmering on the Back Burner or Playing with Fire? Examining the Consequences of Back-Burner Digital Communication Among Ex-Partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(7), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0717

Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, Breakup, and Divorce: Is Facebook Use to Blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 717–720. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0424

Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Clinical Implications of Internet Infidelity: Where Facebook Fits In. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2013.874211

González-Rivera, J. A., Aquino-Serrano, F., & Pérez-Torres, E. M. (2020). Relationship Satisfaction and Infidelity-Related Behaviors on Social Networks: A Preliminary Online Study of Hispanic Women. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(1), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010023

Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2006). Internet Infidelity: A Critical Review of the Literature. The Family Journal, 14(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480706290508

Li, D., & Zheng, L. (2017). Relationship Quality Predicts Online Sexual Activities Among Chinese Heterosexual Men and Women in Committed Relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.075

McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. D. (2017). Do You Have Anything to Hide? Infidelity-Related Behaviors on Social Media Sites and Marital Satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031

Mileham, B. L. A. (2007). Online Infidelity in Internet Chat Rooms: An Ethnographic Exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.033

Oliullah, M., & Murtuza, H. M. (2026). Explication of Online Infidelity in Virtual Romantic Relationships. The Family Journal, 34(3), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807261448229

Vossler, A. (2016). Internet Infidelity 10 Years On: A Critical Review of the Literature. The Family Journal, 24(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480716663191

Vossler, A., & Moller, N. P. (2020). Internet Affairs: Partners’ Perceptions and Experiences of Internet Infidelity. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1654577

Warach, B., Bornstein, R. F., Gorman, B. S., & Moyer, A. (2024). The Current State of Affairs in Infidelity Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Romantic Infidelity Prevalence and Its Moderators. Personal Relationships, 31(4), 1001–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12571

Whitty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the Wrong Buttons: Men’s and Women’s Attitudes Toward Online and Offline Infidelity. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103322725342

Whitty, M. T., & Quigley, L.-L. (2008). Emotional and Sexual Infidelity Offline and in Cyberspace. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(4), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00088.x

Psychological Encyclopedia