Our research has delineated 16 basic human needs, two of which are relevant to predicting fidelity versus cheating in romantic and marital relationships: the need for romance, and the need for honor.
What I call the "Principle of Strong Needs" says that the number of desired gratification objects increases as does the strength of a person's need. A person with a hearty appetite, for example, tends to eat everything, whereas a person with a weak appetite tends to eat like a bird. A curious person (high need for cognition) wants to learn about everything, whereas a incurious person (low need for cognition) wants to learn about only one or two favored topics. A gregarious person (high need for social contact) befriends everybody, whereas a private person (low need for social contact) seeks only a few close friends. People with a high need for status always buy most expensive, whereas those with a weak need for status aren't impressed with material possessions.
By applying the Principle of Strong Needs to sex, I expect people with strong sex drives to seek many partners, whereas those with weak sex drives to seek few. This prediction will not hold every time - there are numerous people who have a high sex drive and are loyal to their spouse - but I think it predicts both cheating and promiscuity much better than anything any other method I know.
People with strong needs tend to be highly motivated, but that does not mean they are reckless. I think it is invalid to say that Eliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton were "reckless" just because they had extramarital sex and got caught. The construct "strength of need" predicts promiscuity; I doubt if measures of "recklessness" add anything to such predictions. The need for sex, and the need for risky behavior, are largely unrelated. Further, I believe the trait of recklessness cannot be inferred from sexual behavior alone but only when it is manifested generally in the person's life.
When predicting the likelihood a married person will cheat, we should consider the strength of a person's need for honor in addition to the person‘s sex drive. People with a strong need for honor believe that their word is their bond and, thus, they take marriage vows seriously. They take pride in being "promise keepers." Married people with both strong needs for sex and honor will seek to gratify their sexual desires within the martial bedroom. In contrast, expedient people believe there is nothing wrong with breaking promises when opportunity presents itself. (In confidential questionnaires, thousands of people have indicated they see nothing wrong with breaking promises when it is to their advantage to do so.) These people have little moral inhibition regarding cheating on their partner.
The late Dr. Stephen Judah, a Columbus (Ohio) marriage counselor, administered the "Reiss Relationship Profile" questionnaire to about 100 couples. The results for one couple were especially memorable because the husband had a strong need for sex and a weak need for honor, while the wife had a weak need for sex and a strong need for honor. He was motivated to have frequent sex and take pride in his opportunism, while she was motivated to have infrequent sex and take pride in keeping to her marital vows. Is it any wonder they ended up in counseling because of the husband's infidelity? In marriage counseling the husband openly defended his "right" to go outside the marriage for sex.
Here is how human needs theory predicts the likelihood a married person will cheat on his or her spouse. If the individual has,
Strong Need for Sex, Weak Need for Honor = significantly high likelihood
Strong Need for Sex, Strong Need for Honor = above-average likelihood
Weak Need for Sex, Weak Need for Honor = below-average likelihood
Weak Need for Sex, Strong Need for Honor = significantly low likelihood
Some readers might wonder if I am being a bit too simple by focusing on human needs and little else. What about childhood? What about the unconscious mind? Actually, neither childhood experiences nor the unconscious mind predict behavior in natural environments particularly well. I stick with the 16 human needs because they seem to predict behavior in natural environments, something that is hard to do.
How all 16 basic human needs play out in relationships encompasses, of course, much more than I have discussed here, as does counseling based on the 16 human needs. For more details, interested readers might consult a chapter on relationships in my book, "The Normal Personality: A New Way of Thinking about People" (Cambridge University Press, 2008). Strength of need is just one key idea for understanding how human needs play out in relationships. Another key idea is self-hugging, or the imposition of one's values on one's partner thinking it is for his/her own benefit. I thought I would start with a simpler idea, such as strength of need, and move on to other ideas in later blogs.
