Are some MBTI types more likely to cheat? What the research says

Rankings of the “MBTI types most likely to cheat” and lists of “types that never cheat” keep circulating on social media and forums. Some rank all 16 types; others give each type a “cheating score.” If you have just started dating someone, if something your partner did keeps bothering you, or if you were hurt in a past relationship, it is natural to look for an answer in a type. But these rankings rarely say who was asked, or how.

The short answer: the MBTI does not measure infidelity, and we found no journal article that asked the same people about both. Personality research has found that people lower in agreeableness and conscientiousness are unfaithful slightly more often on average, but the links are small. A study that weighed many other factors, without personality scores, found that what predicted infidelity best lay inside the relationship, such as satisfaction and love. Any type can be faithful, and any type can cheat.

This guide looks at what the MBTI measures and what counts as infidelity, where and how we searched for studies that combine them, and what Big Five personality research and attachment research show about infidelity. It ends with how to read a type ranking critically, and what to keep in mind when a partner’s type starts to feed suspicion.

The MBTI describes what feels natural to you through four preferences. On each of four axes, Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling and Judging-Perceiving, you lean one way or the other, and the four leanings together name one of 16 types. There are no right or wrong answers, and neither side of an axis makes someone more trustworthy.

Infidelity is not a preference; it is something people do within a relationship. And studies draw the line in different places. Some count only sex outside the relationship; others also ask about emotional infidelity, a deep emotional bond with someone else, or about exchanges online. A 2024 meta-analysis of 305 studies of how common infidelity is, covering 508,241 respondents in 47 countries, found that many studies did not clearly define what they counted as infidelity. Studies that collected answers anonymously, or that used convenience samples of easy-to-reach people, reported more sexual infidelity, but not more emotional infidelity (Warach et al., 2024, from the abstract).

One is a questionnaire about how you like to do things; the other is what someone actually did in a particular relationship. So an MBTI result cannot tell you who will cheat. Whether the two are related at all can only be checked by asking the same people about both, or by studies that follow personality and infidelity together.

First, we looked for studies that asked the same people about the MBTI and about infidelity. In November 2026 we searched the medical and psychology database PubMed, the scholarly indexes OpenAlex and Crossref, the Korean database RISS, and the Japanese databases CiNii Research and J-STAGE, pairing “MBTI” or “Myers-Briggs” with words such as “infidelity,” “extramarital” and “cheating,” and with their Korean and Japanese equivalents.

We found no peer-reviewed study that put MBTI types and infidelity side by side. The search turned up studies that used the MBTI for career guidance, learning or a marriage enrichment program, and studies of infidelity that did not use the MBTI. So there is no research-based ranking of the types by infidelity either.

Where do the online rankings come from, then? Most do not say who was asked, or how. When a survey is mentioned, it is usually an online poll or app-user survey that people chose to answer, so people who love or dislike a type, or who care a lot about cheating, may have answered more often. As the meta-analysis above showed, the way infidelity is asked about changes how much of it gets reported, and these polls and surveys rarely say what they counted. This guide does not repeat any ranking’s list of types.

Since no study links the MBTI and infidelity directly, the Big Five, the model most widely used in research, can serve as a bridge. McCrae and Costa reported that the four MBTI scales partly measure four of the five Big Five dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 1989). When 900 people took both tests, Extraversion-Introversion lined up with extraversion, Sensing-Intuition with openness, Thinking-Feeling with agreeableness and Judging-Perceiving with conscientiousness (Furnham et al., 2003). Agreeableness is the tendency to be considerate and cooperative; conscientiousness is the tendency to plan and to follow through carefully.

Personality and infidelity have been studied in many countries. The International Sexuality Description Project asked 16,362 people in 52 nations about the Big Five and risky sexual behavior, and analyzed the answers across 10 world regions. Relationship infidelity went with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness in every region. Sex with many partners, which the study called sexual promiscuity, was somewhat related to these two traits as well, but more strongly related to extraversion in many, though not all, regions. Neither was generally related to neuroticism or openness (Schmitt, 2004, from the abstract). The abstract gives only the direction of these links, so we give no sizes.

Pooled results point the same way. A 2018 meta-analysis of 137 studies on personality and sexuality found that sexual infidelity was linked to agreeableness at r = −0.18 and to conscientiousness at r = −0.17 (Allen & Walter, 2018, from the abstract). The correlation coefficient r runs from −1 to 1 and shows how closely two scores move together. Links this size mean only that group averages differ a little: the scores of people who have and have not been unfaithful mostly overlap. Plenty of people low in these traits have never cheated, and some people high in them have.

Other studies weigh many factors at once to see which predicts infidelity best. A 2022 study used machine learning on data from two studies with 1,295 people in all and found that infidelity was only “somewhat” predictable; the strongest predictors lay inside the relationship, such as relationship satisfaction, love, desire and how long the relationship had lasted (Vowels et al., 2022, from the abstract). The models did not include Big Five scores, so this is not a comparison showing that relationship factors matter more than personality (per the 2020 preprint). Separately, a meta-analysis of 11 articles on the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) found correlations with infidelity of 0.132, 0.225 and 0.254 respectively (Ataman & Yalçınkaya, 2025, from the abstract). The MBTI measures none of these three traits; our guide to the Dark Triad covers them.

Carried across the bridge into MBTI letters, the picture looks like this. It is our translation, not something the studies measured. Low agreeableness lines up with Thinking (T) and low conscientiousness with Perceiving (P), so infidelity may be slightly linked to the T side and slightly linked to the P side. But chaining two small links leaves an even smaller difference, and no study has checked this guess by asking the same people about both. People on the Feeling (F) or Judging (J) side can be unfaithful too, and most people on the T or P side are not described by this guess, because the scores of people on either side mostly overlap. Neuroticism and openness were largely unrelated to infidelity (Schmitt, 2004), so through this bridge, Sensing-Intuition is not linked to it. Extraversion went more with sex with many partners, which is not the same thing as cheating on a partner. Its link with infidelity itself is unclear (in the pooled newlywed studies it appeared for wives only; Altgelt et al., 2018, from the abstract), so this bridge does not link Extraversion-Introversion to infidelity either.

Attachment research has looked at infidelity too. Adult attachment is measured on two dimensions: anxiety, the worry of being abandoned by someone close, and avoidance, discomfort with getting close. In eight studies published in 2011, people higher in avoidance had more permissive attitudes toward infidelity, paid more attention to attractive alternatives, and were unfaithful more often over time (Studies 3, 4, 7 and 8). Lower commitment to the relationship explained the link (Studies 5–8). Most participants, though, were college students in dating relationships (DeWall et al., 2011).

In married couples, the picture was different. Two longitudinal studies followed 207 couples who had been married for less than six months, for 3.5 to 4.5 years. There, anxiety, not avoidance, went with infidelity: the two spouses’ attachment anxiety interacted, so that spouses were more likely to be unfaithful when either of them was high in anxiety. Spouses’ own avoidance was unrelated to their infidelity, and higher avoidance in the other spouse went with less infidelity, but in only one of the two studies. These results held with marital satisfaction, how often the couple had sex, and Big Five personality taken into account (Russell et al., 2013).

A meta-analysis of 17 studies on attachment and infidelity found that, pooling the studies that scored anxiety and avoidance, higher attachment anxiety and avoidance went with more infidelity, at r = 0.18 (95% confidence interval 0.14–0.22). In the few studies that sorted people into four attachment styles, the dismissing and fearful styles also showed small links with infidelity, while the preoccupied style showed no statistically clear link. Although its title is about marital infidelity, many of its samples were college students or adults from the general population, some studies asked about intentions or attitudes rather than infidelity itself, and 12 of the 17 studies came from the United States (Ghiasi et al., 2024).

In short, insecure attachment shows up alongside infidelity in many studies, but whether anxiety or avoidance mattered depended on whether the sample was dating students or married couples, and the links were small. The MBTI does not measure attachment at all; our guide to MBTI types and attachment styles covers how the two relate. Attachment can also change with experience in relationships, and our guide to becoming more securely attached looks at how.

Some people wonder about the reverse: whose partner is more likely to cheat. In the newlywed studies above, infidelity was also more likely when the spouse was high in attachment anxiety, and an analysis that pooled two 3-year studies of newlywed couples found that people whose partners were high in neuroticism or extraversion were more likely to be unfaithful (Altgelt et al., 2018, from the abstract). This does not mean that the person who was cheated on is to blame. These studies show associations, not causes, and the authors of the newlywed studies wrote that causal conclusions should be drawn with caution (Russell et al., 2013). We also found no study that used MBTI types to pick out people more likely to be cheated on.

First, most rankings give no source. Since no study has measured the MBTI and infidelity together, such a table cannot be a research finding. If it comes from an online poll, the skew may start with who chose to answer.

Second, letters are not traits. Agreeableness and conscientiousness, the traits linked to infidelity, only partly overlap with Thinking-Feeling and Judging-Perceiving, and the MBTI does not measure traits such as the Dark Triad at all. On top of that, the MBTI measures four fairly independent dimensions rather than truly distinct types (McCrae & Costa, 1989), so an axis near 50:50 can flip when you retest. Our guide to MBTI accuracy explains why.

Third, an average does not describe a person. In the meta-analysis, the correlations for agreeableness and conscientiousness were −0.18 and −0.17. That only means group averages differ a little; it cannot tell you whether any one person will cheat. In the machine-learning study, which had no personality scores, the strongest predictors of infidelity lay inside the relationship.

Fourth, type descriptions fit almost everyone a little. A line like “values freedom and hates being tied down” sounds right to nearly anyone. The tendency to accept descriptions that would fit almost anyone is called the Barnum effect. If a ranking’s description seems to fit your partner perfectly, that may have little to do with their type.

Fifth, labels can mislead both ways. Believing “this type never cheats” can be false reassurance that keeps you from seeing what is actually happening in the relationship. Believing “this type cheats” can make you suspect a partner who has done nothing. Either way, what someone actually does, and what the two of you say to each other, tells you more than a type.

Suspicion that grows out of a type has even less behind it, and acting on it can turn into control. Restricting or checking a partner’s phone use, saying you need to know their account passwords, and tracking their location through their devices are among the examples UK government guidance gives of coercive control (Home Office, 2023). If a partner is making demands like these and you are afraid to say no, your safety comes first. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. Signs that jealousy is turning into control are covered under “When jealousy becomes control or violence” in our guide to jealousy.

mind.io has no “cheating test” or “infidelity test,” and we do not plan to build one. There is no evidence that a test can tell who will cheat, and having a partner take a test so you can judge them by the result does not help. What mind.io does have are tests that can help you understand yourself.

The attachment style test (28 statements, about 6 minutes) shows your anxiety and avoidance in close relationships, each from 0 to 100. It does not predict infidelity: as the studies above show, the links between these scores and infidelity were small and differed between samples. Use it to understand what makes you anxious in a relationship and when you tend to pull away.

The Big Five test (30 statements, about 6 minutes) scores agreeableness and conscientiousness separately, each from 0 to 100, along with the other three traits. The result page describes people low in agreeableness as looking at facts and principles before the mood, and people low in conscientiousness as trusting the flow of the moment more than a schedule. A low score does not mean you will cheat.

The MBTI test (32 statements, about 4 minutes) shows how far you lean on each of the four axes, in percent; it does not measure trust or faithfulness. Whatever letters you get, they cannot tell anyone who will cheat.

All the tests in this guide are tools for self-reflection, not diagnoses or predictions. The mind.io MBTI test is not the official MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator); it is a free MBTI-style test built around the same four preference axes. The attachment style test and the Big Five test are self-report questionnaires built from mind.io’s own statements.

Please do not suspect anyone because of their type. Remarks like “that type is a born cheater” or “that type would never cheat, you’re safe” get in the way of seeing how someone actually behaves and talking with them directly. If something is bothering you, say concretely what worries you instead of naming a type.

If trust has been shaken, start by talking. You can begin by calmly saying what worries you and what you need from the relationship. If that is hard to do just between the two of you, and there is no fear or violence in the relationship, couples counseling is one option. If your partner frightens you or there are threats or violence, though, safety comes before talking or couples counseling. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. The US National Domestic Violence Hotline does not encourage anyone in an abusive relationship to seek counseling with their partner: abuse is not a relationship problem, couples counseling cannot fix the unequal power structure of an abusive relationship, and an abuser may later use what is said in therapy against their partner (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2022). In a relationship like that, get help separately.

References: Warach, Bornstein, Gorman & Moyer (2024), The current state of affairs in infidelity research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of romantic infidelity prevalence and its moderators, Personal Relationships 31(4), 1001-1026, https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12571 (from the abstract); McCrae & Costa (1989), Journal of Personality 57(1); Furnham, Moutafi & Crump (2003), Social Behavior and Personality 31(6); Schmitt (2004), The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity, European Journal of Personality 18(4), 301-319, https://doi.org/10.1002/per.520 (from the abstract); Allen & Walter (2018), Linking big five personality traits to sexuality and sexual health: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin 144(10), 1081-1110, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000157 (from the abstract); Vowels, Vowels & Mark (2022), Is infidelity predictable? Using explainable machine learning to identify the most important predictors of infidelity, The Journal of Sex Research 59(2), 224-237, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1967846 (from the abstract); Vowels, Vowels & Mark (2020), Is infidelity predictable? Using interpretable machine learning to identify the most important predictors of infidelity [preprint], PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4crxu; Ataman & Yalçınkaya (2025), How “dark” is the Dark Triad in romantic relationships: A meta-analytic review of the relationship between the Dark Triad and infidelity, Psihologija 58(4), 385-405, https://doi.org/10.2298/psi230920015a (from the abstract); DeWall, Lambert, Slotter, Pond, Deckman, Finkel, Luchies & Fincham (2011), So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(6), 1302-1316, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025497; Russell, Baker & McNulty (2013), Attachment insecurity and infidelity in marriage: Do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage?, Journal of Family Psychology 27(2), 242-251, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032118; Ghiasi, Rasoal, Haseli & Feli (2024), The interplay of attachment styles and marital infidelity: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Heliyon 10(1), e23261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23261; Altgelt, Reyes, French, Meltzer & McNulty (2018), Who is sexually faithful? Own and partner personality traits as predictors of infidelity, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(4), 600-614, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743085 (from the abstract); Home Office (2023), Controlling or coercive behaviour: statutory guidance framework (England and Wales), updated 27 July 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework-accessible; National Domestic Violence Hotline (2022), Should I go to couples therapy with my abusive partner?, updated 14 April 2022, https://www.thehotline.org/resources/should-i-go-to-couples-therapy-with-my-abusive-partner/.