How Could You? A Six Part Series on Why We Commit Betrayal with Infidelity

EMS Online registration opens today at 12:00 PM Central Time USA. Space is limited.
EMS Online is our online course for couples to heal after infidelity. It often sells out within a few short hours

Several years ago, Stephanie and I spent a weekend at Terlingua with some of our oldest friends enjoying the beauty of Big Bend National Park. In the course of conversation, our friend Lynn told me about an incident where he and another good friend, Tom, were backpacking in Arkansas. Driving in, they spotted a sign indicating some hot springs just a short distance off their route. Both decided if they successfully completed their hike, they'd reward themselves with a trip to the springs.

Two days later, on their way back, they drove over to the springs. There were three geo-thermally heated pools, each at different temperatures. In the hottest of the pools was a man and two women occupied the other two pools. As they prepared to enjoy a long relaxing soak in the pools, both women stood up wearing nothing but the suit God had given them.

Lynn asked Tom, "What do you want to do?"

"As much as I hate it, I think we'd better leave," Tom replied. Later, as they drove away, Tom said, "I'm not sure how hot that water was, but it's nothing compared to the hot water I'd be in with my wife if I'd stayed."

Let's face it, our own actions aren't just determined by our values and morals. If that were the case, moral reasoning and good intentions would suffice in keeping us on the straight and narrow.

I'd invite you, the unfaithful spouse, to read that statement again and again till it sets in.

Last week, we reviewed an experiment where ordinary citizens abandoned their values and participated in an experiment in which they believed they were causing pain and harm to another human being. While the experiment was not designed to identify the moral disengagement present when during an affair, it did reveal that 65% of the population acted in ways contrary to their beliefs of how they should treat fellow humans.

Albert Bandura¹ developed a theory he called "the social cognitive theory of the moral self." Here's my paraphrase of what he's saying:

Moral reasoning is linked to moral action through a self-regulating mechanism we've traditionally called a "conscience." Once that self-regulating mechanism is activated, we tend to act in a morally responsible way. Bandura suggests, "the moral self is thus embedded in a broader socio-cognitive self-theory encompassing self-organizing, proactive, self-regulative and self-regulative mechanisms."

We all develop a moral self whereby we adopt standards, which serve as guides and deterrents for right and wrong.

Banduras suggests that people monitor their conduct and the conditions under which it occurs and then judge it in relation to their moral standards and perceived circumstances. During self-regulation, they then apply consequences to themselves based on those action. Going forward, they do things that give themselves satisfaction and a sense of self-worth; they refrain from behaving in ways that violate their moral standards. If they don't, that conduct will bring self-condemnation.

"The constraint of negative self-sanctions for conduct that violates one's moral standards, and the support of positive self-sanctions for conduct faithful to personal moral standards actually operate anticipatorily. In the face of situational inducements to behave in inhumane ways, people can choose to behave otherwise by exerting self-influence."

"Self-sanctions keep conduct in line with internal standards. It is through the ongoing exercise of evaluative self-influence that moral conduct is motivated and regulated. Morality is thus rooted in a self-reactive selfhood, rather than in dispassionate abstract reasoning (Bandura, 1999)."

In short, people do not act independently of the social realities in which they are involved. Moral choices are the product of interactions between what we believe, our conscience, and social influences we surround ourselves with.

As humans, we tend to act in ways that give us a sense of worth and self-satisfaction. We are, in fact, selfish and in many ways, self-absorbed. We avoid acting in ways that cause us to feel any discomfort such as fear, guilt, or shame.

The anticipated self-condemnation which would be activated if moral standards were violated inhibit those behaviors. And the anticipated benefits stemming from being faithful to our moral standards help guide moral behavior.

I apologize if this seems a little abstract, but without an elementary understanding of how we choose to act morally responsible, it's impossible to explain how we can selectively disengage our morals and act in ways that hurt and destroy those we love.

Here's where it all really hits home though:

According to Bandura, in order for someone to selectively disengage their moral standards, they must distort what they are doing into something justifiable.

With a backdrop of infidelity, you'll be even more interested to read the methods used to disengage their morals are as follows, according to Bandura:

• moral justification
• sanitizing language
• exonerative social comparison
• disavowal of personal agency in the harm one causes by diffusion or displacement of responsibility
• disregarding or minimizing the injurious effects of one's actions
• attribution of blame to dehumanize those who are victimized

EMS Online registration opens today at 12:00 PM Central Time USA. Space is limited.
EMS Online is our online course for couples to heal after infidelity. It often sells out within a few short hours

Harboring Hope registration opens January 22^nd at 12:00 PM Central Time USA. Subscribe to be notified.
Harboring Hope is our online course for the betrayed to heal after infidelity. It often sells out within a few short hours. Don't miss it!

1. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.