A Psychologist Reveals 8 ‘Cops’ People Use to Justify Infidelity

Moral disengagement is a psychological process through which individuals justify their own unethical behavior, making it acceptable to themselves and relieving feelings of guilt or discomfort. This process provides insight into how people can engage in morally questionable actions such as infidelity without experiencing significant distress.

A new study published in Personal relations found that people high in moral disengagement committed more acts of “self-determined” infidelity, referring to how they overstep their own and their partner’s boundaries about what is permissible in romantic relationships.

The researchers also found that higher levels of moral disengagement were associated with lower relationship satisfaction in both partners, whether or not the partner knew they were being cheated on.

Moral disengagement includes; eight cognitive mechanisms that disconnect internal moral standards from one’s actions, allowing people to engage in behaviors they might otherwise find reprehensible.

“People with high moral disengagement do not necessarily deny that they are cheating on their partner, but rather choose not to follow their internal moral compass,” the researchers explain.

Here are eight moral disengagement mechanisms that can enable infidelity:

1. Moral justification. This includes shaping harmful or immoral actions that serve a noble or moral purpose. For example, one might justify their infidelity as beneficial to a greater good, believing that it brings them happiness or fulfillment, which in turn makes them a better partner and more enjoyable to be around.
2. Euphemistic label. Using euphemistic language to describe unethical behavior makes it seem less harmful and more acceptable. This includes sanitizing the language to reduce the emotional impact of his actions. For example, describing one’s infidelity as a “harmless fling” rather than recognizing it as an affair or betrayal.
3. Favorable comparison. This mechanism involves comparing one’s unethical actions to more “grave” actions, making the former seem trivial or acceptable by comparison. This can include false excuses such as “at least I don’t abuse my partner like some people do. A little relationship is nothing in comparison.”
4. Shifting responsibility. Here, Individuals attribute their actions to external pressures or influences to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. For example, they might say “my the friends he kept pushing me to go out and have fun. I wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t for them.”
5. Diffusion of responsibility. This includes shares responsibility with others involved to reduce personal liability. For example, saying “my partner knew I was married and still pursued me, so it’s not just me.”
6. Distortion of consequences. This is a strategy of minimizing, ignoring, or distorting the effects of one’s actions to reduce feelings of guilt. Individuals convince themselves that their actions did not cause significant harm. A cheating partner may think that “what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.”
7. Dehumanization. This entails perceiving the victims of unethical actions as less than human, making it easier to mistreat them. For example, viewing a partner as boring or using a lack of romantic chemistry with them to rationalize cheating, since the partner is seen as less of a person with feelings and more of an obstacle to personal satisfaction.
8. Accountability. They often cheat on partners they blame the victims for the harm they cause, shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. This might sound like — “if my partner paid more attention to me and made me feel valued, I wouldn’t have to look elsewhere for affection.” This allows for infidelity by presenting it as a reaction to marital dissatisfaction or a partner’s perceived shortcomings.

These mechanisms collectively facilitate moral disengagement, allowing individuals to maintain a relatively positive self-image while engaging in actions that violate their moral standards.

In light of these ideas, it is clear that moral disengagement is a powerful agent of infidelity, providing a psychological safety net for individuals to override their moral compasses. However, while these mechanisms may provide temporary relief from guilt, they do not excuse or absolve the actions taken.

The long-term impact on relationships can be devastating, eroding the foundations of trust and integrity necessary for a healthy partnership. Recognizing the cognitive tricks we play on ourselves can pave the way for greater self-awareness, responsibility, and a commitment to ethical behavior in our romantic lives, fostering stronger and more honest relationships.

Do you wonder if you have a tendency toward infidelity, even if you may morally disagree with it? Take this test to find out: Infidelity scale