A Theory of Extramarital

Affairs

Ray C. Fair

In this paper a model is deseloped that explains the allocation OFan
individual’s tirnc among work and two types of leisure activities: timespent with spouse, and time spent with paramour. Data from two recent
magazine surveys are available that can be used to test the predictions of
the model regarding
the detcrminanu
of time spent with paramour.
The results of estimating
the equation explaining
time spent with paramour, by the ‘l’obir estimator, are generally supportiveof the model, although more evidence is needed before any definitive conclusionscan be
drawn. The model can also br applied to the allocation of time among
other types of leisure activities.

I. Introduction
Relationships

withother people

arc generally

an importantpart of apcnon’s lie. The key relationship for most adults is, of course, that with
one’s spouse and children. ‘I’he fact that most adults arc married and havechildren has undoubtedly been an important reason for the emphasis in
the literature on the household as a basic decision unit. Because of thisemphasis, little consideration has been given to the question of the allocation of a person’s leisure time’ between activities with household members
and activities with nonhousehold members. Even Becker’s (1973) pioneering work on marriage, which as he points out (p, 816) does not requirethat different members of the housebold have the same preference function, concentrates on the allocation of a person’s time between time spent

45

JocnNAL OP POLl-r~CAI.ECONOMY

46

in household activities and time spent in market activities. For many
people, leisure time spent with nonhousehold members plays an importantrole in their lives, and it is unfortunate that this fact has received so little
attcnrion by economists.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the determinants of leisure timespent in one particular type of activity with non~household members:
extramarit,al affairs. ~The extent of such activity is by no means small. In
one of rhc two surveys used for thr empirical work in this study, 27.2 percent of the first-time-married working men and 22.9 percent 01”the firsttime-married working women wcrc ha\-ing an extramarital affair at thetime of the survey. In the other sunny (of women only), 32.2 percent of
the first-time-marriedworking women had had at lcast one affair during

their married liws. Given thr apparent frequency of extramarital aft&s,
it is of sumc interest to xc if economic analysis can help to predict theirincidence.
In Section II a theoretical model is presented that explains the allocation of a married pcrsnn’s time among work, spouse, and paramour. Timespent with paramour is seen to be a function of the person’s wage raw, theprice lcvcl, the person’s nonlsbor income, the time qxnt by the spouse in
the marriage, the value of goods supplied by the spouse to the marriqe,
the lime spent by the paramour in the affair, the value of goods suppliedby the paramour to the alEair. and any ot,her variables that have an effecton the utility received from the marriage or on the utility received fromthe affair.
Some data are available from two rcccnt magazine surveys, conducted
respectively by I’~~cholqq Today and Redbook, that can be used to test themodel. The variables that were constructed from these surveys for USCin
this study arc discurscd in Section III. The results ofestimating tho model,
by the Tobit

estimator(Tobin19X’!,

arc presented

and discussed in

Sccrion IV. Although the data are far from ideal for testing the model, theresults presented in Section IV are generally supportive of it. The results
clearly appear to be good enough to warrant further tests of the model inthe future if more data become available.
i\lthough the theoretical model developed in the next section is concerned with two speciiic types of leisure activities, time spent with spouseand time spent with paramour, it should bc fairly clear that the model has
wider applicability than this. Many types of leisure activities with nonhousehold members are covered by the theory. Participation in a men’s
club or a women’s auxiliary, for example, is clearly a type of leisureactivity that is covered by the theory; the theory is not limited merely tosexual activities. The model in the next section could have been formulated
in more general term3 first and then applied to the extramarital aKairs
case, but there seemed little point in doing this. The model is easier topresent by means of a particular case, and once presented in this way it
can be applied easily to other cases.

THPORYOF

EXTRAMARITAL

II. The Theoretical
The primary47

AFFAIRSModel

motivation

for the model is the idea that people like variety

in t,heir lives. This idea is hardly novel in economics, since it is presumably
one of the main motivations for the inclusion of more than one type ofgood in the utility Sunction in classical demand theory. This same idea
has not: however, generally been applied to leisure activities--- in particular, for present purposes, to lcisrwc activities with different people. All
leisure activities are generally grouped together into one variable called“leisure.”
Outsideof economics it is easy to find defenses for the idea that variety

is importantin people’s lives. They range from the clichd, “variety

spice of life,” to the poetry of JohnDonne

is the(1967 ed.) :The heavens rejoyce in motion, why should I
Abjure my so much lov’d variety,
And not with many youth and love divide?
Pleasure is none, if not diversifi’d.
Since

it is clearthat variety

is importantin life, and since this idea isalready one of the main motivations for the inchGm
good in the utility firnction, there is ample justification
leisure activities.
activities.
Consirlcr

of more than one
for applying it toThis will now be done for two particulara married

individnal

types of leisurei and assume that there are three typesof activities that he or she can engage in: time spent with spouse (tl), withparamour (t,), and working (t3). Let 0; and U, denote the utility that iderives from the spouse and paramour relationships, respectively. Variety
with respect to relationships
is assumed to be important
to i, and, as
mentioned above, this is the main justification
for postulating more than
one type of relationship.
For simplicity, there is assumed to be only one
possible paramour and only one type of good in existence. This latterassumption means tha,t variety with respect to goods is ruled out of theanalysis,an omission

thatis of little

consequencefor purposesof thepresent study.
Kow, L?, is postulated to be a function of d,, of the time spent hy the
spouse in the relationship(t,), of the number of unitz of the good consumed in the relationship(*.,), and of a vector of other variablesu,= ./(t,> 4, XI, Ed.

(E,) :(1)

The wctor E, is taken to include all variables that have an effect on U;
other than tl, t,, and +. The function f is similar to what Becker (1973)
calls the household production function. Variables such as the times spentby the children in the household, which are included in Becker’s household production

function,

are assumed here to he includedin E,.

JOURM~ OF POLITICAI. ECONOMY

48
Similarly,

U, is postulated to be a function oft,,

the paramour in the affair (Q,of the time spent byof the number of units of the good con-sumed in the affair (x2). and of a vector of other variables (I?,) :u,= g(t,,

tp>x2, m.

(2)

The vector E2 is taken to include all variables that have an effect on U2other than t2, tD, and x2.
The total utility of i (U) is postulated to be the sum of TI, and U,:
u =

u,

+ 0;.

(3)

The functionsf and s are assumed to be strictly concave.
The variable x, consists of units of the good supplied by i ix, 3 and ofunits of the good supplied by the spouse (xlr) :x, = x,, + XIJ.
Similarly, x2 consists of units of the good supplied by i (xii)of the good supplied by the paramour (xzD) :x2 = x2; + XLP(4)
and of units(5)I,, t,, and t, are assumed to sum to the total available time in the periodCT):
T = t, + t, + t,.
The

(6)

decision problem for i is to choose i,, t,, xl;, and .x2i so as to max-

imize 0: subject to the budget constraint:
u(T

-

t, -

82) +

v = p&Y,, + +),(7)

where p is the price of the good, w is i’s wage rate, and V is i’s nonlabor
income. The problem is also restricted in that t,, t2, xl;, and x2; cannot be
negative. Taken as given for purposes of this problem are S,, tD, xIJ, .zz9,

p, w, V, E,, and E,. Note that the budget constraint (7) is not the household budget constraint but is rather i’s individual budget constraint. The
decision problem analyzed here is an individual decision problem, not ahousehold decision problem. Kate also that the treatment oft, and xls as
exogenous means that no consideration is given to possible effects of i’s
decisions on the spouse’s decisions.’ Likewise, the treatment of tp and xzP’ The assumption that 1, and x,,, arc enogrnous is clearly a strong 0°C in the present
context, and, as memimed below, it might be oiinteresc in futurr work to relax it. If the
spouse is una.ware oi i’s &air, rhcn the assumption is, ofcourse, less restrictive than otherwise. The assumption would also be less rcstriciive if the other leisure activity weresomething like participation in a club or auxiliary. It should aim be noted that the model
could be mijly modifird t” the CdSCin wluch the paramour is a *ros*iture. In *is case
2. would bc purchased by i at some rate my; tp would now br a decision variable for i,rather than being exogenous, and wp rr,otdd be exogenous. The budget constraint in thiscase would be: w(T - 1, - t,j + V = p(x,, + x2,) + “uatD.

THEORYOF

EXTRAM*R,T*l.

as exogenous

APFAIRSdecisions on the paramour’s
The decision problem
up the Lagrangian,2

49

means that no consideration

is given to possible effects of i’s

decisions.

for i can be solved in the standard= u + J.rm(r

-

t, -

t2) + v - p(n,i+ XZi)],and differentiating
2 with respect to the four decision
The first-order conditions are:w(T- I, -t*) +v - p(x,‘ + .Q)

way by setting

variables(8)
and 2.

w= 0.

These conditions hold if the solution is an interior one; they do notnecessarily hold if, for example, the optimum value of t2 is zero. For purposes of the rest of the discussion
assumed to be an interior one.

in this section,

however,the solution is

The first-order conditions can be interpreted in the usual way. At the
optimum, the marginal utility of time spent in the marriage is equal to= Sg/sial,). Similarly,
the marginal utility of time spent in the affair (?ffi&,
the marginal utility of consumption of the good in the marriage is equal
to the marginal utility of consumption of the good in the affair (i?f/8.x,i =@/c?x,J.Finally, the marginal rate of substitution between time spentin the marriage (affair) and consumptionof the good in the marriage(af&rjis equal to the real wage (?J/Zl,+ ?~/ZX,~ = wip and ixj&,+

ag/dn,{ = w@).
The main concern of this paper is to trace the effects of changes in thevarious exogenous variables on f2. This can be done by taking the total
derivatives

ofequations(9a)-(9e)and then solving, using Cramer’s

Rule,

for the derivative of t2 with respect to each exogenous variable (all otherexogenous variables assumed to remain unchanged).
The results from thisexercise will now be summarized. The following discussion ofsigns is basedon the assumption that all first derivatives off and g are positive, that a11
cross partial derivatives of ,f and g are positive,
derivatives off and p are negative.

and

that

all second

,,cxRNAL OF POLrnCAL. ECcJlSOMY

50
The determinantstrict concavity

offof the bordered

Hessian is positive because of theand p, The following

derivatives

relating to t2 areunambiguous in sign:

The fiat term is the income effect on t,; it is positive as expected. An
increase in V, i’s nonlabor income, causes i to work less and to increase
both t, and t2 (dt,/dV is also positive). The next two derivatives in (10)are, respectively, the elTcct on t, of a change in units of the good suppliedby the spouse to the marriage and by the paramour to the affair. Bothderivatives are equal to the price of the good times the income effect.
Since there are no restrictions on the allocation of units of the good thati purchases between the marriage and the al&r, an increase in xlS or xLP
has the same cffcct as an equivalent increase in i’s nonlabor income, whichis in this tax merely the price of the good times the increase in xlS or xzP.
(An increase in xls or x2,, also has a positive effect on t,, the effect being
p times dt,/dV.)The second-to-last derivativein (10) is the effect on t2 of a change inthe time spent by the spouse in the marriage. The effect is negative. If the
spouse spends more time in the marriage, this increases the utility that iderives from the marriage and causes the time spent in the affair to fall.
This negative effect of the spouse on t, is to be contrasted with the effecton & of an increase in units of the good supplied by the spouse to themarriage, which, as ,just discussed, is equivalent to an income effect andis positive. The last derivative in (10) is the effect on t2 of a change in E,,
any variable that has a positive effect on the utility from the marriage.
This effect is negative as expected.
The following derivatives relating to t, are ambiguous in sign:

The ambiguity of the wage and price effects comes from the usual ambiguity due to income and substitution effects. The income effect of anincrease in UJon t2 is positive, and the substitution effect is negative. Conversely, the income effect of an increase in p on t2 is negative, and thesubstitution effect is positive.
Consider now the third term in (1 lj, the eiTcct on t, of a change in thetime spent by the paramour in the affair. An increase in t, increases theutility that i derives from the affair, which leads, other things being equal,
to an increase in t,. An increase in tP also, however, affects the division of
i’s time between work and leisure, and it is from this effect that the ambiguity in the sign of dt,/dt, arises. In particular, an increase in t, increases
the marginal utility that i derives from consuming the good in the affair.

THEORYThis,

OF

EXTRAMARIT.41.

5’

AFFAIRSother things being equal,

induces some increase

in working

time.

If this effect of a decrease in leisure time is very large, it may swamp thesubstitution effect and cause an overall fall in t,. In most cases, this seems
unlikely, so in general it is likely that dlJdt, is positive. A similar argument
holds for dl,/dE,;
This completes

in general it is likely to be positive.
the presentation of the formal model. A summary

ofit ispresented in the first half of table 2. Before concluding this section, bowever, mention should be made of other ways that one might model
behavior concerning extramarital&airs.
One way would be to borrowfrom the literature on the economics of crime (see; c.g., Becker 1968) andconsider the decision on whether or not to have an afTair to be analogous
to the decision on whether or not to commit a~crime. The individual in
makingthe decision

would weigh the gains from the affair againsttheexpected loss, where the expected loss is the probability of being caught
times the cost if caught. In this framework one would consider the factorsthat influence the gain fromprobabilityof getting caught,

the affair, the factors that iniluence theand the factors that influence the cost if

caught.
A second way would be to set the decision problem

up as a multiperiod

optimization
problem, where each period the individual would choose
paths of the decision variables. The rang-c of the paths would be from theinitial period (the period in which the decision was made) to the end of
the person’s life. This treatment would allow one to consider in an explicit
way the effects of future

events(or expected

future events)

on current

decisions. A third approach would be to drop the assumption that i’s
decisions have no effect on the spouse’s decisions, and either set up the
problem as a game-theory
problem or else postulate explicitly how i’s
decisions affect the spouse’s decisions. Finally, one might borrow fromthe job-search

literature,and interpret

extramarital

a&in

as a form ofsearch for an alternative spouse. Many of the same types of factors thatinduce a worker to search for an alternative job could be postulated as
inducing a person to search for an alternative spo~se.~ In future work it
may be of interest

to pursue one or more

purposes of this paper the analysis is limitedof these approaches,but forto the above model.

’ Much 4 the theory in Kclleg (1976) can be inierprcted as a &3xy of search for aspout. Kcky’r theory implirr (p. 22j that, other things bring equal, length oEmarria*eshould have ii negative eikct on time spent in extramarital &lairs (search for an alt?rnative spouse:). Thk implication is consistent with the throry oijob se-arch, where scar&
fur an nkrnnticr job is a nepatiw function oflhr length of the present job. The empiricalresults rrported in .Sccrion IV of this paper arc, howevrr, conrrary Lo this conclusion:
length of marriage has a posiiivc cf%ct on time spent in extramarital a&airs. It is somewhat unclear whcthrr K.cllry’s theory can tx rrmditied to fit this resulr er not. In thispaper the resuir is interpreted to mean that utility from marriage de&mwith length
0E marriage. Kclley’s discussion (pp. 23-24) of the eFecu of incomr on time spent in
extramarital a&n
is not wry comincing brcnuse he doer not nppcar to he awmc of
the diRrrence between income and subntitution eRects.

JOUR“‘“‘. OF POLITKXL ECONOMY

5”
III.

The Data and Estimation

Technique

It is possible from two recent magazine surveys to gather data that canbe used to estimate the above model. As with a lot of data. they are not
the best that one might hope for, but they do appear to be at lcast of’some
use for present purposes. The first sure-cy was conduct&in 1969 by
Psycholo~ To&~ (PT). A questionnaire on sex was published in the July
1969 issue of PT, and readers were asked to mail in rhcir answers. About
20,000 replies were received: of which about 2;OOOwere coded onto tape.
The second survey, of women only, was conducted

in 1974 by Rrdbook(RB j. A questionnaire on sex was published in the October issue of KB,
and readers were asked to mail in their answers. .4b”ut 100,000 replies
wcrr received, ofwhich about 18,000 were coded onto tape. The qrrcstionnaires included questions about extramarital affairs as well as about manyother aspects of sexual behavior and about various demographic andeconomic characteristics of the individual. The PT and KU questionnaires
included IO1 and 81 questions, respectively. The discussion ofthc answers
to the PTswvey
can be found in the July 1970 issue of PT.
It should be noted that neither of these two surveys is likely to be arandom sample of the U.S. population. For present ~IIrpoQPs>of course: arandom sample is unnecessary. What is needed here is the condition thatthe samples have not been selected on the basis of the size of the dependent
variables used in the estimation work, that is, on the basis of the amountof time spent in extramarital

affairs. Although

this requirement

is muchless strong than the requirement that the sample be random, there is no
guarantee that it is met in the present case. There may thus be some bias
in the following results due to the sampling procedure, alth”,,,qh, at least
to the author, this bias does not xeem likely to be very large.
Table

1 contains a list of the variables that were constructed from thedata on the two tapes. Only people who were married and married forthe first time were included in the sample from each tape. People who
were married but married more than once were excluded because of lackof information on some of the variables for these people. The questions
regarding the number of years married and the number or existence ofchildren, for example, pertain to all marriages, and it is not possible if aperson has been married more than once to determine the length of thecurrent marriage and thenumber or existence of children from the current
marriage. Also, only employedpe”Plewere included in the sample fromeach tape. For unemployed people, 2, in the above model is zero, and thesolutions to their maximization problems are not interior ones. The firstorder conditions, therefore, do not necessarily hold for unemployedpeople,and so these people must be excluded from the samples. Also excluded
from the samples were people who failed to answer all the relevant
questions. The size of the usable sample from the PT tape was 601 “bser-

75

How Ok” engaged
in extramarital
scxud inrercourse
during the past

0 = nOnei
1 = o*ce, 2 =twice, 3 = 3 times, 7 = d-10
times, 12 = monthly, 12 =weekly, 12 = daily

1.46

17.5 = undrr 20, 22.0 =?O-24,27x= 25-29, 32.0 =30-3*,37.0= 35-39, 42.0 =4wt4,
47.0 = 45549, 52.0 =50-5.4, 57.0 = 55 or over,125 = 3 months or less,,417 = 46 months, .75 =6 months-i year, 1.5 = 1-2
yean, 4.0 = 3-5 years,
7.0 = 6-8 years, 10.” = 9-1,
years, 15.0 = 12 or moreyears
0 = no, I = yes
5 = very, 4 = somewhat,
3 = slightly, 2 = not at ali,
1 = anti

32.5

year
42
43

47

50
56 .,..

8.18

.715
3.12

60

64....

Occupation66

How rate marriage

5 =
than
2 =
1 =

very happy, 4 = happieraverage, 3 = average,
somewhat unhappy,
very unhappy

RE Tape

49

3.93

4.11

ii.5 = under 7.0,22.” = 2”-

29.1

24, ?7.0 = 2.3-29, 32.0 = 3031. 37.0 = 33-39. 42.0 = 40
9.01

I .40

2.43
14.2

Occupation

54

EXTRAMARITAL

55

THEORYOF.4l?FAlRS

vations,

and the size of the usable sample

from the RB tape was 6,366

observations.
Table 1 is self-explanatory,

and only a few remarkspresented“Valueshere. In the columnof Variable”

about

it will be

the items to the rightof the equal signs are the answers that were allowed on the questionnaires.
The number to the left of each equal sign is the value chosen by the author
to represent that answer. A number of questions were open-ended in theupper range, and fairly arbitrary values for the largest value of the variables had to be used in these cases (see z2, z3, uz, iiS, and u,,). The 5.6
value used for the last answer pertaining to yz is the average of values ofthe otheranswers

weightedby the numberof people

who chose eachanswer.
The largest value ofrpT w’as taken to be 12, even though larger values
could have been used for people who answered that they engaged in
extramarital
sexual intercourse weekly or daily. This means that tZ wasassumed to be the same for monthly, weekly, and daily people. As dicussed below, a linear specification was used for the estimated equation,and it did not xeem reasonable
the explanatory
say, 0 to 365.

variables,in this case, given the range of values ofto have a dependent

variablethat ranged from,The RB questionnaire
did not ask if the person was currently having
an affair, andyR, as defined in table 1 was the best that could be done
regarding a measure of tl, The implicit assumption here in the use ofyRB
as a measure of t2 is that the current value of t2 is highly correlated withpast values of tl. The

occupation

variableI,

was coded onto the tapeaccording to the Hollingshead(1957) classification,a classificationis meant to correspond in at least some rough way to social position.
Table
relevantthat

1 includes all variables from the two tapes that appeared to be
for purposes of this study.4 Table 2 contains a matching of thesevariables with the variables from the theoretical
table 2 contains a list of the explanatory variables

model. The first half ofin the theoretical modeland their expected effects on t,. The second half of the table contains alist of the observed explanatory variables, their likely correlation with the
explanatory variables in the theoreticalthe dependent variable. The following

model: and their likely effects on
is a brief discussion of the second

half of table 2.
The occupation variables (0, and L,) are likely to be positively correlated with the wage rate (wj. The correlation may not, however, be verylarge for z,, since the Hollingshead classification used in the coding of thevariable is more a classification by social position than it is by wage rate.
4 Both surveys included a question about the size of family income, but this variable
is unfortunatelyof no use here. Family income is, among other things, a function off,,
which is itself a decision variable (/, = T - II - t,). It would be inappropriate
to useas an explanatory
variabk
ior f, a variable that is directly related to f, in this way.

*$ =
x1.

=

XII. =
V=
E, =
p =
m =
tp =

_
time spent by spouse in marriage..
no. unirs of the good supplied by the spouse to themarriage..........................................
+
no. units of the good supplied by the paramour to theaffair.
. .._.._........._....._........._...
+
nanlaborincome...................................
+
any variable that has a positive ellect an the utility fmm_
themarriagr
Ambiguous
price c&the good..
Ambiguous
wage Iate......................................
time spent by paramour in affair
Ambigyt
lyt likely

E2 = any variable that ban a positive effect on the utility fromthe affair
Ambiguous, but likely
to be +

Occupation
Education
Husband’s occupatio”
Marital happirm

Agr:E, (-)

No. years marriedChildren
Degree of religiosity

E, (-) (or none)
E, (i) (or none)
J% (-)

Even if z, and u, are positively correlated
pendent

variables

is ambiguous

Ambiguous
Ambiguous
+

-J(C)
w (+)
XI. (+)
E, (+)(or none)with w, their effect on the de-because the effect of w on t, is ambiguous.

The effect of the education variables (z6 and u6) on the dependent
variables is likewise ambiguous, even though z6 and us are likely to bepositively correlated with w.
With respect to the husband’s

occupation

variable(us), to the extent

that it is positively correlated with the husband’s wage rate, it is likely to
be positively correlated with xls, the value of goods supplied by the husband to the marriage.

The effect of u8 on the dependent

variableis thusexpected to be positive.
The variables z8 and u1 measure marital happiness, which in the present
context means that they are positively correlated with E,. They are thus

THIKKY

OF

expected
variables

EXTRAbL4RITAJ_

57

AFFAlRSto have a negative effect on the dependent variables. These two
are quite unusual and useful variables to have in a study of thiskind. There are clearly many factors that have an effect on the utility
from a marriage that are not observed, and variables like z8 and u1 arelikely to capture the effects of a number of these factors.
If age has a negative effect on the enjoyment of sexual activity,some-thing which may or may not be true, and if affairs are primarily sexual,
then age will have a negative effect on the utility from an affair. The age
variables(z2 and a*) may thus be negatively

correlatedwith E,, in whichcase they are likely to have a negative effect on the dependent variables.
If the number ofyears married has a negative effect on the utility from themarriage because of boredom, something which again may or may not be
true, then the variables z3 and u3 will be negatively correlated with E,
and will thus have a positiveeffecton the dependent

variables.

If theexistence or number of children has a positive effect on the utility fromthe marriage because of time spent by the children in the household, thenthe variables zq and u4 will be positively correlated
have a negative effect on the dependent variables.

with E, and will thus

The degree of religiosity of a person may have a negative effect on theutility from an affair to the extent that it is related to concerns about divine
or moral disapprobations
from engaging in an affair. The religious variables z5 and a5 may thus be negatively correlated with E,,and ifthey are
they are then likely to have a negative effect on the dependent variables.’The last variable in table 2, the sex of the person (cl), is not expectedfrom

the theoreticalmodel

to haveanyeffecton tz. No behavioral

differences between men and women were postulated
Section II can be either a man or a woman.
This completes

the discussionof table 2. Whilein the model;

i in

it would be useful tohave access to more data, the data from the two tapes do allow enoughvariables to be constructed to provide at least a rudimentary
test of themodel. The last item
technique used.

to be discussed

in this sectionis the estimation

When the dependent variable t, is zero, the first-order conditions do
not necessarily hold. Because of this and because many values ofy,,
andyR,, are zero, it would clearly be incorrect to use ordinary least squares
to estimate the equations. The obvious technique to use in this case is the
Tobit

estimator(Tobintions on the explanatory

1958). Let ii and Ci denote row vectors of observavariables

for individual

i from the PT and

RB

SIf,
asdiscussed
attheendofSectionII,rhepcraon's
decision
problem
were
SCtup
asa multiperiod optimization problrm, the effects of c~ncem about divine or moral
disapprobations could be handled in a more explicit way. In this framework, the person
could be considered as w-cigbing the current utility Cram the affair against possible leaof utility in the future (perhaps in a future life) from divine or moral disapprobations.

J0”nN.a58

OF POI.rrICAL I?CONOMY

tapes, respectively. Let a and fl denote the corresponding

column vectorsof unknown coellicients. The stochastic specification of the model is then:+ upri

ifRHS
ifRHS

> 0
5 0’

i=

1,2 ,...,YRRi = &P + %Bi
= 0

ifRHS
ifRHS

> 0
< 0’

i =

1, 2,

ypri

where

= ip
0

uPl.i and uRBi are independently

distributed

601,

(12a)

, 6,366,

(12b;

error

terms with

distributions X(0, &)and X(0, &,respectively (RHS = right-handside). This specification is consistent with the theoretical model in the sensethat the variables in ii and ii have an effect on~,~~; andy,,;
two are nonzero (no corner solutions): but not otherwise.
?obitestimates are generally computed

if the latterby some version of IGewton’s

method, but with 6,366 observations this can be expensive. Tobit estimatescan, however, as discussed in Fair (19771, be computed by a much simpler
procedure, and this is the procedure that was used for the work in thisstudy. Some initial experimentation indicated that considerable computer
time could be saved by the use of this procedure over Newton’s

method.

IV. The Results
The results of estimating equations (12a) and (12b) by the Tobit estimator
are presented in table 3. Two sets of coefficient estimates are presented Coreach equation. For the first set all of the zj or uj variables in table 1 wereused as explanatory
were excluded.

variables;

for the second set some of these variables

The PT and KR results are in fairly close agreement. Variables that areclearly significant6 are marital happiness (-),
age ( -), number of years
married (+), and degree of religiosity (-).
The signs of the coeffZent
estimates are as expected from table 2. The sex dummy variable, z,, isnot significant; which is also as expected from the discussion in the previous section. The fact that the coefficient estimates of age and length ofmarriageare significantly

negativeand positive,

respectively,

is inter-preted from the theory to mean that utility from affairs declines with age
and that utility from marriage declines with length of marriage. The
negative significance of the religiosity variable means from the theory thatutility from affain declines with the de~gree of religiosity of the person.
Finally, the high negative significance of the marital happiness variableindicates that it is a good proxy for a number of unobserved factors thathave an et&t on the utility from marriage.

co&
Est.

$

Constant
Occupation..
Education.
Hurhand’s
occupation..
Marital happincis
Age
No. yenrs ma&d
Children
Degree of rrligioshy

Ser.....................
No.

observations

2,

:6.
zg

::
Z~

zs
t,
ii:,

7.60
,213
.02x

1.92
,657
.I,

8.17
321;

2.96
1.29

-2.2,
-.193
,533
I.02

-i:‘k
-2.37
3.63
.79

“’
-2.28
m.179
.554

--5.F,-2.x
4.13- 1.70-4.15--1.69

-i:i4

,945
8.E
601f

.a8
8.25
GOIf

7.6.5
,314
- .0853
,015,
1.53
-.I”7
,130
- .U285- ,9444,.5O
fi,%iG$

60
The

JounN*L

results regarding

the occupation

OF

PoLrrIc*r.

and education

ECOKOMYvariablesaremixed. For the PTresults neither variable is significant. For the RB results
the estimates of the coefficients of the two variables are significant but of
opposite signs, which is not as expected

if both variables arc positively

correlated with the wage rate. The occupation variable had a higher
t-statistic associated with it than did the education variable in each cakein table 3, and so for the second set of estimates in each case the education
variable was excluded from the equation. In both cases the sign of theestimate of the coefficient of the occupation variable is positive, which if
the variable is a proxy for the wage rate implies from the analysis in
Section II that the income effect of a change in the wage rate on the timespent in the affair is larger than the substitution effect. It is not clear,
however, that much confidence should be placed on this result because of
the overall mixed results regarding the occupation and education variables. It may be that neither variable is a good proxy for the wage rate.
For the RB results, the estimate of the coefficient of the husband’s
occupation variable is ofthe expected positive sign, but it is not significant.
It may also be that this variable is not a good proxy for the husband’s
wage rate (and thus for the value of goods supplied by the husband tothe marriage), which would explain its lack of significance. For both the
PT and RE results the children variable is insignificant. This means fromthe theory that children have no independent effect on the utility fromthe marriage. Any positive effects of children must be offset by a sufficientnumber of negative ones. This is not necessarily as expected, but it does
seem to be what both the PT and RB data indicate.

V. Conclusion
The primary purpose of this paper has been to develop a model to explain
the allocation of an individual’s time among spouse, paramour, and work.
The model can, however, be fairly easily applied to other types of leisureactivities. The main motivation in this paper for considering leisureactivities with more than one penon is the same motivation that lies
behind the postulation of more than one good in the utility function inclassical demand theory, namely, that variety is important in life. Given
this, it is of some interest to see if economic analysis can help explain the
allocation of an individual’s

leisure time among various activities.

Although the data used in this study are far from ideal for testing themodel as applied to extramarital affairs, the results in table 3 do lend some
support to it. At the least, the results suggest that further tests of the model
would be of interest. It is clear for any future tests of the model that betterdata on wage rates are needed. A better test of the model could also be
performed if data on nonlabor income were available.

THEORYOF

EXTRAM.4RIT.4L.4PPAIRS

61

References
Becker, Gary S. “Crime and Punishment:
An Economic Approach.”
J.P.E. 76,
no. 2 (March/April
1968): 169-217.
1973) :-.
“A Theory ofMarriage:
Part I.” J.P.E.81, no. 4 (July/August813-46.
Donne, John. “El&XVII, Variety.” In John Dome: Poetry and Prore, edited byFrank J. Warnke. New York: Random House, 1967.
Fair, Ray C. “A Note on ,the Computationof the Tobit Estimator.” Econometrica
45 (1977): 1723-27.
Hollingshead, August B. “Two-Factor
Index of Social Position.” Mimeographed.
Yale Univ., 1957.
Kelley, Jonathan.
“Sex and Social Bonds: A Theory.”
Mimeographed.
Yale
Univ., 1976.
Tobin, James. “Estimationof Relationships
for Limited Dependent
Variables.”Economefri~a 26 (January 1958) : 24-36.