December 3, 2015 Virginia Commonwealth University College of the Humanities and Sciences Sociology Undergraduate Senior Research Paper The Family

1. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 1
Marital Infidelity:
Beliefs and Practices Changing America’s Most Famous Institution
Rachel B. Woodward
Virginia Commonwealth University

2. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 2
Marriage is like the sphinx - a conspicuous and recognizable monument on the landscape,
full of secrets. In assessing matrimony’s wonders or terrors, most people view it as a matter of
private decision-making and domestic arrangements. The monumental public character of
marriage is generally its least noticed aspect,” (Cott, 2002, pg. 1). Such vital relationships in
one’s life, including kinship networks, community status, and even one’s self-identity, have
become affiliated with the institution of marriage in the United States. In 1944, The U.S.
Supreme Court declared the U.S. Constitution as a protector of a “private realm of family life
which the state cannot enter,” (pg. 1), legally binding the institution of marriage into a contract
fundamentally enforced by public affirmation, recognition and knowledge. Based upon Christian
principles practiced by the British colonists, the marital contract was formed out of common
sense, in order to link the Christian doctrine of monogamy with Anglo-American law. Once the
union was formed, husband and wife each assumed a new legal status as well as a new status in
their community. That meant that neither could break the terms set without offending the larger
community, the law, and the state, as much as offending the partner (Cott, 2002, pg. 11). In
today’s society, media coverage of scandals regarding marital infidelity and adultery seem to
engulf every television station, news site and media source available. Although marital infidelity
and adultery has been a longstanding historical trend, Americans continue to practice castigatory
scrutiny of public figures who challenge the virtues deeply embedded in the committal of a
marriage based on monogamy.
One of the most powerful influences the media has, when casting information or news
segments, is the ability to propagate or modify the beliefs, understandings and opinions held by
its viewers. A significant way the media has affected American society, historically, is through
the depiction of public figures exposed or reputed for participating in extramarital affairs. In the

3. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 3
article, “Why the Strauss-Kahn and Schwarzenegger Scandals Don’t Go Together,” Juliet A.
Williams challenges the way American media and, subsequently, the American public,
responded to the sex scandals surrounding Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fathered a child with his
mistress, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was indicted for seven counts of criminal sexual
assault. Williams’ writes, “When a term such as ‘sex scandal’ is used to describe behaviors
running the gamut from politically irrelevant to legally actionable, I’d say we’ve got a problem,”
(2011). In regards to both scandals, news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC responded with
articles that attributed the actions of both men to “manly urges” and “men behaving badly”
(2011). Williams’ main point of the article, however, is to delineate to the reader that it is not as
important what these men did, but rather, who did it. In a summary of why these particular cases
were newsworthy, she states:
We may hem and haw about the immorality of the act in question, but often the real
affront is the deception – the fact that someone presented himself one way in public but
acted a different way in private. There’s humiliation, hurt, perhaps hypocrisy and
reputational damage. Any criminal charges usually relate to the lies about the act, not the
act, (2011).
In a few sentences, Williams’ summarizes what American society really finds repugnant
about marital infidelity. As she declared, “…the fact that someone presented himself one way in
public but acted a different way in private…” is the basis that persuades viewers to form
opinions on a public figure’s reputation and trustworthiness. Regardless of how a media source
decides to present a news story surrounding marital infidelity or adultery with the public, it is
important to note that one of the most common patterns taken by all media outlets is the
proposition, whether implicit or explicit, that asks us: “Did this person challenge our cultural

4. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 4
values, and if so, how do we react to that?” This underlying theme plays a thematic role in every
article, video clip and news segment, whether it is mentioned in a sentence or two or is published
within the headline.
In Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Survey (2013), 1,535 American adults assessed the
moral acceptability of twenty behaviors, and having an affair was found to be the very worst,
with 91% of respondents deeming it morally wrong. However, more and more studies have been
conducted to suggest that infidelity is becoming more common in the U.S. than ever before. In
the article, “Cheating Wives On the Rise,” a study suggesting the infidelity gap is closing is
presented through a poll done for The Normal Bar. It surveyed romantic relationships of more
than 100,000 people and found that 33% of men and 19% of women admitted to being unfaithful
(2013). One of the most interesting themes throughout media representation of marital infidelity
is its proclivity to suggest why infidelity is happening, how we should feel about it, and what it
suggests about the changing moral fiber of America’s most sacred institution. Media
representation of public figures participating in extramarital affairs or adultery have been
exposed countless times through different types of media. For instance, media coverage of Bill
Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky dominated the news for nearly a year, from first reports
of the scandal to Clinton’s denial of the “relationship” to his impeachment trial. And while news
coverage of these types of political affairs can severely damage the public’s approval of a public
figure, Clinton’s affair and its subsequent coverage remains “one of the great political ironies of
modern time” (Lawrence & Bennett, 2001, p. 425). Despite the “negative press” Clinton
received, he maintained some of the most impressive public approval ratings of any modern
president (Lawrence & Bennett, 2001). As some scholars have found, the media’s framing of the
Clinton/Lewinsky scandal may have actually bolstered his approval ratings rather than damaged

5. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 5
them (Kiousis, 2003; Lawrence & Bennett, 2001; Shah, Watt, Domke, & Fan, 2002; Williams &
Carpini, 2004; Yioutas & Segvic, 2003).
However, on November 14, 2012, CNN published a news article focusing on the
resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus, who was exposed for having an affair with his
biographer, Paula Broadwell. Although both Clinton and Petraeus admitted to their indiscretions,
the media framing of the scandals were completely various in scope. In “5 Things We’ve
Learned from the Petraeus Scandal,” Frida Ghitis states, “Powerful men, no matter how brilliant
and accomplished, can suffer a form of temporary insanity caused by the interaction of arrogance
and libido” as the most important take away from the Petraeus scandal. Another aspect Ghitis
found significant was the America’s reaction toward the scandal. She argued, “Americans are
deeply torn about the question of private morality and the public sphere. There is the none-of-our
business crowd pitted against those who would like to keep aiming for strict ideals of morality,
on the argument that personal dishonesty reflects a moral failing that will ultimately take a toll
on the work of a public servant; that if a man will lie to his wife, he will lie to his country,”
(2012). Through this article and Williams’ “Why the Strauss-Kahn and Schwarzenegger
Scandals Don’t Go Together,” there is a noticeable pattern of journalists’ questioning the moral
integrity and character of public figures’ who participated in acts of marital infidelity.
The differences in how the American media has treated different scandals surrounding
marital infidelity is a topic that has been studied by many scholars. In attempting to understand
the irony of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, Yioutas and Segvic state, “Polls prior to the 2000
campaign season highlighted the prominence of candidates’ character and morality” (2003).
Why, then, was there so little interest in the public’s approval ratings of the Clinton scandal?
According to Yioutas and Segvic, part of the explanation can be found in the interplay between

6. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 6
the media’s framing of issues and the public’s perception of news coverage, which has been the
focus of agenda-setting and framing research (2003). As Cappella and Jamieson (1997)
explained, strategized news framing focuses in political campaign news on politicians’
performance and motives. Iyengar (1991, 1996) distinguished episodic and thematic news
frames. His studies found there to be a strong preference for the episodic news frame in
American news coverage of social issues, prompting the conclusions that Americans are given
anecdotal and piecemeal information about important issues (p.136). Moreover, in Erving
Goffman’s book Frame Analysis, the author declares, “Not only do frames from competing
actors shape what others think of an issue, but also how they understand and discuss the world
around them. More fundamentally, frames become attached to particular issues or events,
reflecting the power of certain actors and the very basis of the culture in which we live” (p. 7).
Perhaps part of the reason America still has such conflicting views and beliefs on marital
infidelity stems from the historical precedent that symbolizes marriage in the United States.
According to Cott (2002), from the founding of the United States to the present day, assumptions
about the importance of marriage and its appropriate form have been deeply implanted in public
policy, sprouting repeatedly as the nation took over the continent and established terms for the
inclusions and exclusions of new citizens. Political and legal authorities endorsed and aimed to
perpetuate nationally a particular marriage model: lifelong, faithful monogamy, formed by the
mutual consent of a man and a woman, bearing the impress of the Christian religion and the
English common law (p. 2-3). Public preservation of marriage has had tremendous consequences
for men’s and women’s citizenship as well as their private lives. It has affected how we see
gender roles, individuals’ self-understanding, opportunities, and constraints. Marriage uniquely
and powerfully influences the way differences between the sexes are conveyed and symbolized.

7. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 7
This form of public interaction with the institution of marriage is a significant indicator of
the moral lens the American media and the American public processes instances of marital
infidelity. Although history has shown that in significant times of change, marriage ideologies
can shift through practices like divorce and re-marriage, America, overall, still associates the
sanctity of marriage with monogamous principles. Through media interaction with public
figures’ exposed for acts of marital infidelity, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique
Strauss-Kahn, David Petraeus, and Bill Clinton, it is apparent that American culture still regards
monogamy as the ideal standard for the institution of marriage.

8. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 8
Works Cited
Campbell, K. and D. W. Wright. 2010. “Marriage Today: Exploring The Incongruence Between
Americans' Beliefs and Practices.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(3):329–
45. Retrieved 2015 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/41604361).
Cott, Nancy. 2000. “An Archaeology Of American Monogamy.” Pp. 1–11 in Public Vows: A
History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press. Retrieved 2015.
D’Angelo, P. 2002. “News Framing as A Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to
Entman.” Journal of Communication, 52, 870888. Retrieved 2015.
Ghitis, Frida. 2012. “5 Things We've Learned from the Petraeus Scandal.” CNN. Retrieved 2015
(http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/ghitis-petraeus-5-things/index.html).
Kiousis, S. 2003. “Job Approval and Favorability: The Impact of Media Attention to the Monica
Lewinsky Scandal on Public Opinion of President Bill Clinton.” Mass Communication &
Society, 6, 435451. Retrieved 2015.
Lawrence, R. G., & Bennett, W. L. 2001. “Rethinking Media Politics and Public Opinion:
Reactions to the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal.” Political Science Quarterly, 116, 425447.
Retrieved 2015
(http://ehis.ebscohost.com.libproxy.lib.ilstu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9ae6ccc4-
80c44dec99534f268e8 a66af%40sessionmgr115&vid=12&hid=15).

9. MARITAL INFIDELITY: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES CHANGING THE FAMOUS INSTITUTION 9
Shah. D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. 2002. “News Framing and Cueing of Issues
Regimes: Explaining Clinton’s Public Approval in Spite of Scandal.” Public Opinion
Quarterly, 66, 339370. doi: 0033362X/2002/66030002. Retrieved 2015.
Williams, B. A., & Carpini, M. X. D. 2004. “Monica and Bill All the Time and Everywhere: The
Collapse of Gatekeeping and Agenda Setting in the New Media Environment.” American
Behavioral Scientist, 47, 12081230. doi: 10.1177/0002764203262344. Retrieved 2015.
Williams, Juliet A. 2011. “Why the Strauss-Kahn and Schwarzenegger Scandals Don’t Go
Together.” The Washington Post. Retrieved 2015
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-strauss-kahn-and-schwarzenegger-
scandals-dont-go-together/2011/05/19/AFZi2u7G_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage).
Yioutas, Julie, & Segvic, Ivana. “Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal: The Convergence of
Agenda Setting and Framing.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3). 3.
Autumn 2003. Retrieved 2015.