How do definitions of 'cheating' affect reported rates for men vs women?
Executive summary
Definitions of "cheating" — whether researchers count sexual acts, emotional affairs, online flirtation, or suspected but unconfirmed behavior — materially change who is recorded as a cheater and by how much, because men and women differ in the types of infidelity they report and in willingness to disclose sensitive behavior (GSS numbers often cited: 20% men vs. 13% women for sexual infidelity) [1] [2]. Studies that broaden the concept to include emotional or digital infidelity narrow the gap between men and women and sometimes reverse it in younger cohorts, while narrow, sex-only definitions tend to show men cheating more [3] [4].
1. Definitions drive the headline numbers
Most public claims that "men cheat more" lean on a narrow operational definition — typically extramarital sexual intercourse — exemplified by repeated citations of General Social Survey figures that roughly report 20% of men and 13% of women admitting sex with someone other than their spouse [1] [2]. When scholars or media instead count emotional affairs, repeated patterns across relationships, or self-reported "partner cheated on me," prevalence and gender patterns change: emotional infidelity is reported more by women in some studies, and surveys that include non‑sexual betrayals yield higher female representation among cheaters [3] [5].
2. Mode of measurement and social desirability bias
Survey method matters: anonymous online samples, clinical-practice surveys, or convenience samples (like those on Psychology Today or practitioner blogs) attract different respondents and elicit different admissions than nationally‑representative interviews; anonymous self-report tends to increase disclosure of stigmatized acts [3] [6]. Social desirability and safety concerns also skew gendered reporting — past work finds men are more likely to report casual sexual encounters while women may underreport sexual encounters that felt unsafe or were framed as coercion, which can hide female sexual infidelity when data collection doesn’t probe context [3].
3. Age, cohort and shifting definitions interact
The gender gap is not constant over the life course: cohort effects stemming from the sexual revolution and changing gender roles mean older cohorts show different patterns than younger ones, and narrowing gaps among millennials appear in some datasets when broader definitions or younger age brackets are used [1] [4]. Some sources show women’s infidelity peaking in midlife while men’s rates remain higher in older age groups, so whether a study emphasizes a particular age range alters whether men or women "cheat more" in its headline [1] [7].
4. Type and frequency of infidelity matter
Beyond binary "cheated/didn't cheat" measures, frequency and partner type reveal gender differences: some surveys of self-selecting respondents suggest men report more serial affairs and more workplace sexual affairs, whereas women report emotional affairs and one-time incidents at different ages [6] [8]. Counting repeat offenders or weighting by number of affairs amplifies gender gaps in sexual infidelity but may shrink them when emotional or digital betrayals are included [6] [8].
5. Hidden agendas and reporting incentives in secondary sources
Many widely circulated summaries (blogs, legal sites, PR releases) recycle GSS numbers without clarifying definitional limits, sometimes to serve commercial or advocacy narratives — e.g., marriage counseling, legal-advice, dating or detection businesses — which can overstate certainty that "men cheat more" [9] [2]. Academic and clinical pieces caution that results depend on how cheating is framed in the questionnaire and who the respondents are, a caveat not always echoed in media retellings [3] [10].
6. What the data cannot tell us definitively
Existing sources converge on a core pattern: sex‑based definitions typically show men reporting more sexual infidelity while broader definitions reduce that gap and sometimes show parity or higher female rates in certain groups [1] [3]. However, limitations remain: many datasets undercount unrecognized partner infidelity, differ in anonymity and sampling, and rarely capture coercion or the context that changes whether an act is experienced as "cheating" by those involved — limits explicitly acknowledged by researchers and survey centers [5] [3].