The Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale (ITIS)<\/strong> is a psychometric instrument designed to measure an individual’s subjective behavioral intentions to commit romantic and sexual infidelity within committed partnerships. Developed by Daniel Nelson Jones<\/a>, Sally Gayle Olderbak, and Aurelio Jos\u00e9 Figueredo<\/a>, the scale bridges a critical methodological gap in interpersonal relationship research: while general attitudes toward infidelity and broad personality traits often fail to predict actual infidelity due to distal cognitive and normative barriers, behavioral intentions provide a proximal, actionable determinant of future relationship transgressions. The ITIS comprises 7 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type bipolar scale ranging from -3 (Not at all Likely<\/em>) to +3 (Extremely Likely<\/em>). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate a robust unidimensional factor structure accounting for substantial shared variance across items. The internal consistency of the scale is reliable across diverse university and community samples, with Cronbach’s alpha<\/a> coefficients ranging between .70 and .81. Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate-to-strong positive associations with past infidelity behavior ($r \\approx .60$<\/span>), unrestricted sociosexual orientation (SOI), short-term mating effort, avoidant attachment, impulsive sensation seeking, and aggression\/hostility. Conversely, the instrument exhibits significant negative correlations with relationship satisfaction, long-term mating orientation, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Longitudinal predictive evaluations indicate that baseline ITIS scores predict significant decrements in relationship satisfaction up to 6 months post-assessment, as well as subsequent relationship dissolution and actual infidelity infractions over 12-month follow-up intervals. Furthermore, structural path analyses confirm that the ITIS fully mediates the predictive relationships between distal personality constructs (such as the Alternative Five and Big Five) and actual infidelity behavior. The scale provides clinicians and researchers with an efficient, psychometrically sound instrument that takes less than one minute to administer.<\/p>\n Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale, infidelity, behavioral intentions, Theory of Planned Behavior, sociosexuality, relationship dissolution, romantic commitment, extra-dyadic behavior, psychometrics, attachment avoidance<\/p>\n The Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale was authored by an academic collaboration between psychometricians and personality\/social psychologists specializing in evolutionary psychology, life history strategy, and romantic relationship dynamics:<\/p>\n Infidelity represents one of the most psychologically disruptive and empirically pervasive catalysts for relationship distress, domestic conflict, clinical depression, and legal divorce (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst<\/a>, 1982; Hall & Fincham, 2005). Despite its profound personal and socio-legal repercussions, predicting precisely who<\/em> is predisposed to violate romantic exclusivity has historically presented serious psychometric hurdles. Prior assessment tools generally focused on two domains: general moral or evaluative attitudes toward infidelity, or broad-spectrum omnibus personality inventories such as the Big Five or Zuckerman’s Alternative Five (Zuckerman et al.<\/a>, 1993).<\/p>\n Both of these conventional measurement approaches demonstrate marked theoretical and empirical limitations. Abstract moral attitudes toward infidelity often fail to correspond with actual behavioral output\u2014a well-documented psychometric paradox explained by social desirability response bias and the cognitive gap between generalized normative beliefs and situation-specific behavioral execution (Ajzen & Fishbein<\/a>, 2005). Conversely, while comprehensive personality inventories detect correlates of interpersonal antagonism or low impulse control, their length (often spanning 60 to 240 items) renders them impractical in rapid dyadic screenings or extensive multi-wave survey batteries. More critically, global dispositions evaluate broad interpersonal tendencies rather than isolating the domain-specific cognitive mechanics of romantic betrayal.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the ITIS is to deliver a hyper-brief, theoretically targeted measurement tool that directly operationalizes behavioral intentions toward unfaithfulness. By shifting the level of measurement from abstract moral evaluations (“Is cheating wrong?”) to concrete behavioral contingencies (“How likely would you be to hide your relationship?”), the ITIS captures the subjective probability of engaging in romantic betrayal under realistic socio-cognitive conditions, such as perceived impunity or encountering attractive alternative mates. The instrument serves vital dual functions:<\/p>\n The Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale operationalizes the psychological construct of infidelity intention<\/strong>: an individual’s conscious cognitive formulation of subjective probability regarding their likelihood of committing romantic or sexual boundary violations against a partner. In the taxonomic architecture of social cognitive psychology, behavioral intentions reflect the deliberate readiness to execute a specific course of action, integrating attitudes, subjective normative pressures, and perceived behavioral control into a definitive decision matrix (Ajzen<\/a>, 1991).<\/p>\n Rather than assessing unfaithfulness as an isolated, instantaneous act of physical copulation, the construct measured by the ITIS captures a multidimensional spectrum of preparatory, deceitful, and long-term infidelity-related cognitive appraisals across several distinct operational facets:<\/p>\n A core element of the construct assesses an individual’s propensity to cheat when the perceived risk of external detection is artificially minimized (e.g., Item 1: “How likely are you to be unfaithful to a partner if you knew you wouldn\u2019t get caught?”<\/em>). This captures Machiavellian or opportunistic moral disengagement, wherein fidelity is maintained solely through surveillance rather than intrinsic ethical commitment or relationship devotion.<\/p>\n Infidelity is rarely an overt act; it necessitates complex secondary cognitive calculations regarding deception, mendacity, and communication control. The construct incorporates the individual’s readiness to actively conceal transgressions (Item 2: “How likely would you be to lie to a partner about being unfaithful to them?”<\/em>) versus their dispositional transparency and willingness to confess (Item 3, reverse-scored: “How likely would you be to tell a partner if you were unfaithful to them?”<\/em>). This dimension reflects the deceptive maintenance strategies that sustain extra-pair relations.<\/p>\n The construct encompasses self-efficacy beliefs regarding covert behavior (Item 4: “How likely do you think you would be to get away with being unfaithful to a partner?”<\/em>). In accordance with social cognitive paradigms, high subjective competence in orchestrating deceptive acts significantly lowers the cognitive barrier to behavioral execution.<\/p>\n Infidelity frequently originates in the strategic downplaying or active hiding of one’s committed relationship status when encountering high-value potential mates (Item 5: “How likely would you be to hide your relationship from an attractive person you just met?”<\/em>). This item captures mate poaching susceptibility and immediate flirtatious boundary crossing, reflecting a cognitive posture of relational availability.<\/p>\n Finally, the construct moves beyond the immediate relationship frame to evaluate persistent temporal projections across hypothetical future partnerships (Item 6: “How likely do you think you are to be unfaithful to future partners?”<\/em>) and solemnized institutional unions (Item 7: “How likely do you think you are to be unfaithful to your present or future husband or wife?”<\/em>). This longitudinal projection distinguishes situational relationship dissatisfaction from enduring, trait-like orientations toward chronic unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n The construction and validation of the ITIS are grounded in four complementary theoretical paradigms within social, personality, and evolutionary psychology:<\/p>\n Pioneered by Icek Ajzen<\/a> and Martin Fishbein<\/a> (1975, 2005; Ajzen, 1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior<\/a> (TPB) posits that behavioral intention is the most immediate, proximal predictor of actual behavior. While distal variables (e.g., generalized attitudes toward marriage, social norms, Big Five personality traits) influence overall psychological dispositions, their effect on manifest behavioral choices is mediated through specific behavioral intentions. Jones, Olderbak, and Figueredo (2009) leveraged this framework to demonstrate that while general attitudes toward infidelity explain limited behavioral variance, the ITIS fully mediates the direct path between broad personality dimensions and actual frequency of infidelity, satisfying the classic mediating architecture established by Fishbein and Ajzen.<\/p>\n Rooted in evolutionary biology and applied to human behavioral ecology by Aurelio Jos\u00e9 Figueredo<\/a> and colleagues (Figueredo et al., 2006; Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005), Life History Theory<\/a> conceptualizes how individuals allocate limited bioenergetic and material resources across the lifespan. Individuals on a “fast” life history continuum prioritize immediate mating effort, opportunistic resource acquisition, high sexual novelty, and low parental\/dyadic investment, whereas “slow” life history strategists prioritize somatic investment, high long-term relationship commitment, mutual parental investment, and enduring pair-bonding. The ITIS operates as an empirical marker of fast life history trajectories, capturing high mating effort and low relational fidelity.<\/p>\n Developed by David Buss<\/a> and David Schmitt (1993), Sexual Strategies Theory<\/a> articulates that humans have evolved a complex repertoire of both short-term and long-term mating adaptations. Extrapair copulation (infidelity) functions as an adaptive strategy under specific evolutionary conditions (e.g., dual-mating strategies, genetic diversity enhancement, mate switching, or resource acquisition). The ITIS quantifies an individual’s active inclination toward short-term opportunistic mating tactics even while ostensibly embedded in a long-term monogamous union.<\/p>\n Expanding John Bowlby’s (1982<\/a>) ethological model to adult romantic partnerships (Hazan & Shaver<\/a>, 1987; Brennan et al., 1998), attachment theory identifies two primary dimensions of insecurity: attachment anxiety (fear of abandonment and hyperactivating strategies) and attachment avoidance (compulsive self-reliance and deactivating strategies). In the context of the ITIS, individuals exhibiting high attachment avoidance systematically deactivate intimacy needs, keeping emotional distance from romantic partners, which manifests as elevated intentions toward infidelity and relational concealment.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the ITIS has been empirically examined across multiple cross-sectional, longitudinal, and mediational investigations (Jones, 2009; Olderbak, 2008; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2009). The scale satisfies traditional criteria for convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and predictive validity.<\/p>\n The ITIS demonstrates substantial convergent validity when correlated against behavioral records and theoretically linked psychological constructs. In cross-sectional samples evaluated by Jones (2009), the ITIS demonstrated a robust correlation with self-reported past frequency and current behavioral occurrences of infidelity, yielding an average effect size across cohorts of approximately $r = .60$<\/span> (categorized as a large effect size under Cohen’s<\/a> 1988 taxonomy). Correlation patterns with established relational and personality measures further confirm construct validity:<\/p>\n A central psychometric finding reported by Jones (2009) is that the ITIS serves as a full mediator<\/strong> between distal personality and motivational constructs (including Big Five traits, Alternative Five traits, mating effort, and attachment avoidance) and the actual lifetime frequency of infidelities committed. Structural equation path analyses confirmed that indirect paths through ITIS scores rendered previous direct paths from personality dispositions to infidelity statistically non-significant, corroborating the Ajzen-Fishbein premise that behavioral intentions represent the definitive proximal cognitive conduit for action execution.<\/p>\n In an extensive longitudinal design conducted by Olderbak (2008), the ITIS was administered at baseline to individuals in romantic relationships and tracked across four multi-wave follow-ups at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Criterion validity was established across three distinct objective markers:<\/p>\n The Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale demonstrates robust internal consistency across independent empirical evaluations:<\/p>\n To examine the latent dimensional structure of the ITIS, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted across college-aged and community romantic samples (Jones, 2009; Olderbak, 2008):<\/p>\n Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extractions with unrotated solutions revealed a clear unidimensional factor structure<\/strong>. The primary common factor accounted for the vast preponderance of common variance, with scree plot examinations exhibiting a classic single “elbow” drop-off after the first extraction. Eigenvalues for the primary factor substantially exceeded Kaiser’s criterion (> 1.0), while secondary eigenvalues dropped below 0.85, confirming an absence of meaningful multidimensionality<\/span>.<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Conditional Impunity and Opportunistic Exploitation<\/h3>\n
2. Active Deception and Impression Management<\/h3>\n
3. Perceived Efficacy and Subjective Impunity<\/h3>\n
4. Relational Obfuscation in the Presence of Desirable Alternatives<\/h3>\n
5. Trans-Temporal and Structural Relationship Commitments<\/h3>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
1. The Theory of Planned Behavior and the Reasoned Action Approach<\/h3>\n
2. Human Life History Theory<\/h3>\n
3. Sexual Strategies Theory<\/h3>\n
4. Adult Romantic Attachment Theory<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Structural Mediation Modeling<\/h3>\n
Longitudinal and Criterion-Related Predictive Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Structure<\/h3>\n