That infidelity-and-income study? Don't believe it.

A recent study, presented at an American Sociological Association conference to a fawning media reception (NPR / Salon), tells us that men who make less than their wives or live-in girlfriends are five times more likely to cheat. It's bogus. Here's why.

While commentators have been stumbling over themselves to determine what the study's findings mean about gender, marriage, and society, no one seems to be bothering to notice that the study itself appears pretty useless. The major conclusion, linking income and infidelity, has a number of problems, not the least of which is that everyone -- myself included -- who wasn't at the conference is relying on a press release and subsequent media reports about it. Such reports are notoriously unreliable, often drawing ideas from generous and/or speculative interpretations of the results rather than the study itself. That said, here are three of the reasons I'm particularly skeptical:

1. Do the math. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, upon which the study is based, followed about 9,000 individuals -- surely a healthy sample size. But the infidelity study examined only those who were married or with a live-in partner for more than a year, which is a much smaller subset. And of those, only seven percent of men and three percent of women actually fessed up to cheating during the study's six-year period. So, let's be generous and say that two-thirds of the NLSY group met the relationship-status criteria (n=6,000). And we'll presume that roughly half are of each gender (3,000 men and 3,000 women). That leaves us with about 210 men who have fessed up to infidelity in this survey. Of those, it is not clear from the media reports how many were in situations where the male earned less than his partner; other recent research suggests about a third, or fewer than 80 of those reporting infidelity, were in such a relationship. And remember, we're being generous because we do not have the actual numbers. To be sure, 210 male cheaters is still a decent sample, and it could be enough to draw meaningful conclusions about links between infidelity and income (among other factors). But it still is not a lot. In fact, it probably is a lot less than the number of participants in the survey who actually cheated. Remember...

Updated 2010-08-20: LiveScience.com (which has more details on the methodology, and as an added bonus, commentary from Stephanie Coontz) is reporting that only 3.8 percent of men, and 1.4 percent of women, admitted to cheating in the study. That's not exactly true; on average, 3.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women admitted to cheating in any given year of the six-year study, at least according to the press release.

2. People lie. A major income discrepancy in the relationship may be a good reason for men to simply be more honest about their cheating. Sure, you could argue, if the wife/girlfriend finds out then the gravy train ends. But if the man is in a relationship for the money, and not emotionally committed, why on earth would he lie to an anonymous survey about his cheating? There is little incentive to, and there is no cognitive dissonance to resolve over telling the truth. On the other hand, if he is emotionally engaged, and is in the relationship for reasons other than money, he may find it safer (and more palatable) to hide any previous infidelity. If all that sounds awfully speculative, well, that's the point. People lie on studies like this, and we do not always know who will be most likely to lie or why. Yet commenters (and, too often, the researchers themselves, as seems to be the case here) treat the findings as truth in spite of their huge flaws, and then seek to divine an explanation.

3. Account for other factors, like age, education, and religion, and the income-infidelity link vanishes. That inconvenient fact is actually in the press release, but of course, no one is paying attention to it. Does earning more than your man make him more likely to cheat? the chatterers are asking. In a word, no -- the income issue appears to (at best, and even this has big holes) correlate with, but not be a cause for, cheating.

The trouble with any study of undesirable behavior that relies on self-reports is that it is impossible to know what we're really studying -- the behavior itself, or the act of reporting it. Only a more carefully (and expensively) constructed study could parse that out. In the meantime, move on. Nothing new to see here.

Making sense of the 2010 CAMFT "Typical MFT" survey

CAMFT came out last month with their biannual “Who Is the Typical California MFT?” article, summarizing a survey of hundreds of members about themselves and their careers. The article is presented largely as narrative, without much in the way of interpretation – the way a good summary of results should be. To me, three things stood out in this year’s numbers. Bear in mind with all of these that, because it is just a survey of California folks, when I say “MFTs” I am really referring to “California MFTs.”

1. The economic news is not great, but it is not as bad as it sometimes seems. The average income among survey participants[*] is down almost 6% from the 2008 survey, to $52,886 from $55,890. But the news could be a lot worse. For one thing, CAMFT does not explain what they mean by “average” – that is, whether are reporting the mean or the median. If they are using the mean, it is entirely possible that some of this downturn is explained by the highest outliers making a bit less money. They do note that both “tails” of the frequency distribution – those making above $80,000 and those making below $20,000 – have increased in frequency over 2008.

2. The increase in MFT incomes over the last eight years is almost fully accounted for by those with doctoral degrees. The incomes of MFTs at the masters level have been effectively flat since 2002, rising only from $47,851 to $50,689. This increase is less than what would be expected from inflation alone. Doctoral-level MFTs, however, have seen their incomes grow significantly – including in the current economic downturn. I’ve turned CAMFT’s data since 2004 into a graphic to show the difference:

Since 2004, while masters-level MFTs have seen little to no increase in income from the profession, those with doctoral degrees have seen their incomes rise by almost $10,000 a year, from $62,885 in 2004 to $72,165 in 2010. Still wondering whether to get that doctorate? I’m speculating here, but there are a couple of reasons why the doctoral-level MFTs are continuing to see rising incomes: 1, those with doctoral degrees are able to teach in academic institutions, where they may have more job and income stability than those in private practice; 2, many of those licensed MFTs who have doctoral degrees may also be licensed as Psychologists, who are reimbursed at higher rates than MFTs when paid by most insurance plans.

3. Your web presence is not as important as your physical presence. For all of the excitement surrounding clients’ abilities to find therapists through internet searches, most clients still are not coming to therapy that way. Respondents noted that referrals came most often from other clients and from colleagues. Managed care companies were third on the list, followed by physicians, and (in a single choice) family/friends/neighbors. Internet searches were eighth on the list. So rather than spending your next Friday tinkering with your web site, you may be better off attending a local meeting of your CAMFT Chapter or AAMFT district. There’s no apparent substitute for real-world networking.

* A number of cautionary notes seem important here. For one thing, we’re talking about a survey with a 16% response rate – that, in and of itself, makes the numbers a bit dubious. That said, they’re pretty consistent with past surveys, both demographically and in the other data. So, there may be some response bias (and it seems especially likely that those at the low end of the income spectrum would be less willing to talk about it), but it’s difficult to know how that plays out. As mentioned above, CAMFT does not specify whether they are talking about a mean or a median in their income numbers; the median would probably be a better metric, but it seems more likely that the mean is what’s being reported. Finally, with all of the income numbers, CAMFT asked participants to state their pre-tax income specifically from the practice of the profession. That may or may not include supplemental activities like teaching courses as an adjunct faculty member, selling workbooks or other study materials, and so forth. Other surveys ask for total income, which has its own pitfalls. The difference in how the question is asked may account for differences from other surveys of the profession.

Reference:
Riemersma, M. (2010). The typical California MFT: 2010 CAMFT member practice and demographic survey. The Therapist, 22(4), 28-36.