Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences
Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences

Extramarital Relationships and the Social and Cultural factors Affecting Them: A Qualitative Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Masoumeh Mayeli 1
Talat Allahyari 2

1 PhD Student in Social Work Allameh, Department of Social Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22062/jqr.2022.91880
Abstract
Introduction: Extramarital relationships are considered as one of the most serious threats to the stability of marital relations and family functioning, one of the main reasons for divorce, and one of the most critical issues faced by families. Accordingly, the present study aimed to explore extramarital relationships in women and find out social and cultural factors affecting such relationships.
Methods: This study was conducted qualitatively using a qualitative content analysis method. The data were collected to the theoretical saturation point through semi-structured interviews with 34 women.
Results: The analysis of the participants’ experiences indicated that a set of cultural factors and major developments such as individualism, changing values ​​and promoting alternative values, the absence of an authentic relationship, facilitating effects of technology and social media, changing women’s attitudes toward womanhood and its responsibilities, and diminution of religious and ideological beliefs play a role in the emergence and increase of extramarital relationships.
Conclusion: The development of extramarital relationships in women is not just an individual phenomenon but a process influenced by many factors. Therefore, the role of cultural and social factors in the formation and increase of these relationships should not be underestimated.

Keywords

Extramarital relationships
Cultural factors
Social factors
Women
Qualitative research

  1.  

    1. Mark KP, Janssen E, Milhausen RR. Infidelity in heterosexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex. Arch Sex Behav. 2011; 40(5):971-82. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z.
    2. Jeanfreau MM. A qualitative study investigating the decision- making process of women’s participation in marital infidelity. [dissertation]. Manhattan: Kansas State University; 2009.
    3. Fathi M, Satar P, Javadeyan R. Comparing the causes of infidelity in marital relationships among men and women: A qualitive research. J Qual Res Health Sci. 2017; 6(4):401-18. [In Persian].
    4. Kubrebwa M, Dzimiri W. Unmaking Factors that Propel Men into Extramarital Affairs as Perceived by Men in Gweru's Mkoba Suburb: Zimbabwe. Sch J Arts Humanit Soc Sci. 2015; 3(1): 252-56.
    5. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(1):107-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
    6. Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim, E. Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage; 2002 .doi: 1177/000169930204500212.
    7. Bauman Z. liquid love on the frailty of human bonds. In Sabeti E (ed). Tehran: Goognoos publication; 2003.
    8. Apostolou M. Why greek cypriots cheat? The evolutionary origins of the bigf five of infidelity. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. 2019; 13(1):71-83. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000140.
    9. Pak Khasal A, Seif Allahi S, Mirzaei, Kh. A qualitative study of spouse relationships and negative consequences of using virtual social networks in Tehran. Bi-Quarterly journal of Policing & Social Studies of Women & Family. 2019; 7(1):48-61. [In Persian].
    10. Zuckerman P .Invitation to the sociology of religion, deihimi. Routledge: London, UK; 2003.
    11. Clayton RB, Nagurney A, Smith JR. Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013; 16(10):717-20. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0424.
    12. Norton AM, Baptist J. Couple boundaries for social networking in middle adulthood: Associations of trust and satisfaction. Cyberpsychology. 2014; 8(4):58-64. doi: 5817/CP2014-4-2.
    13. Valenzuela S, Halpern D, Katz J. Social network sites, marriage well-being, and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Comput Human Behav. 2014; 36:94-101. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034.
    14. Moghaddam, Kobra. The effect of the presence of married women in social networks on satisfaction couples marriage) a case study of married women in [dissertation]. Tehran: Islamic Azad University of Central Tehran; 2016. [In Persian].
    15. Vossler, A. Internet infidelity 10 years on a critical review of the literature. The Family Journal. 2016; 24(4):67-77. doi: 1177/1066480716663191.
    16. Jamalnik M, Fagsafinejad M. Khodabakhshi-koolaee A, Long term marital satisfaction: Couple’s narratives of the role of mate selection. Journal of Client Centered Nursing Care. 2020; 6(4):267-27. doi: 32598/JCCNC.6.4.337.1.
    17. Burdette AM, Ellison CG, Sherkat DE, Gore KA. Are there religious variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues. 2007; 28(2):1553-81. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07304269.
    18. Firozjaeian AA, Ghadiri H. A phenomenological study of the causes of marital infidelity.  Journal of Iranian Social Studies. 2017; 11(1):123-47. [In Persian]. dor: 1001.1.20083653.1396.11.0.17.2.
    19. Sharaf al-Din SH, Salehizadeh A. Fields of extramarital relations in Iran; Stud Case of Tehran. Knowledge of Social Culture. 2016; 7(3):117-38. [In Persian].
    20. Lambert NM, Dollahite DC. He threefold cord: Marital commitment in religious couples. Journal of Family Issues. 2008; 29(4):592-614. doi: 1177/0192513X07308395.
    21. Mattingly BA, Wilson K, Clark EM, Bequette AW, Weidler DJ. Foggy faithfulness, relationship quality, religiosity, and the perceptions of dating infidelity scale in an adult sample. Journal of Family Issues. 2010; 31(11):1465-80. doi: 1177/0192513X10362348.
    22. Mahoney A, Pargament KI, Tarakeshwar N, Swank AB. Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. J Fam Psychol. 2001; 15(4):559-96. doi: 1037/0893-3200.15.4.559.
    23. Giddens A. Modernity and self - Identity: Self and society in the late modern age. California, USA: Stanford University Press; 2006.

     

Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences
Volume 11, Issue 1
Spring 2022
Pages 1-9

  • Receive Date 15 May 2020
  • Revise Date 29 October 2020
  • Accept Date 14 November 2020

Home page

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us