By 
David Buss and his University of Michigan colleagues presented the findings of three experiments in 1992, revealing that men and women react differently to sexual and emotional infidelity.
They claimed that the disparities in reactions were due to gender variations in the obstacles of effective reproduction.
Results
Infidelity, they claim, puts men at risk of not being able to reproduce and invest resources in raising and educating the children of another man.
Sexual adultery, on the other hand, has no bearing on a woman’s ability to procreate, whereas emotional infidelity (falling in love with someone else and diverting resources to them) may threaten her ability to sustain her children.
The approach taken by Buss and his colleagues, like many other papers developed from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, was extensively attacked, notably on the basis of their methodology. The disparities between men and women, according to critics, are owing more to societal factors than to biological or evolutionary factors.
A New Investigation
By polling approximately 64,000 American adults, Frederick and Fales have broadened Buss and colleagues’ focus on assessing sexual and emotional infidelity.
In contrast to heterosexual women, homosexual men and women, and bisexual men and women, who were far more bothered by emotional adultery, straight men were much more likely to be unhappy about sexual infidelity.
Frederick and Fales not only provided a more representative sample (their participants ranged in age from 18 to 65), but they also included people of various sexual orientations.
The fact that only heterosexual men of all sexual orientation groups responded more dramatically to sexual infidelity offers substantial credence to the evolutionary perspective’s emphasis on paternal uncertainty in this circumstance.
By 
