ArticleSocial and personality psychology compass2024
Revisiting the Charmed Circle: A Reflexive Examination of Unanswered Questions in the Infidelity Literature.
Article in Social and personality psychology compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Infidelity is a common experience in romantic relationships, and as such, relationships researchers have amassed a large infidelity literature. In the current manuscript, we provide a brief overview of the infidelity literature, specifically focusing on how infidelity is defined, infidelity attitudes, predictors of infidelity, and infidelity outcomes. Next, we introduce readers to the "Charmed Circle" (Rubin, 1984), a theoretical perspective that conceptualizes monogamous sex as part of society's view of "good, normal, and natural" sex, otherwise known as mononormativity. As scholars, we are equally socialized in a system that endorses and reinforces mononormativity. In this article, we call on scholars to engage in reflexivity and consider how mononormativity has shaped the infidelity literature and their approach to research. We highlight pressing questions within the infidelity literature and argue that by questioning our own biases, assumptions, and methodologies, we will be able to further advance our understanding of infidelity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.