Can manipulations of cognitive load be used to test evolutionary hypotheses?

D. DeSteno, M. Y. Bartlett, J. Braverman, and P. Salovey proposed that if sex-differentiated responses to infidelity are evolved, then they should be automatic, and therefore cognitive load should not attenuate them. DeSteno et al. found smaller sex differences in response to sexual versus emotional infidelity among participants under cognitive load, an effect interpreted as evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis. This logic is faulty. Cognitive load probably affects mechanisms involved in simulating infidelity experiences, thus seriously challenging the usefulness of cognitive load manipulations in testing hypotheses involving simulation. The method also entails the assumption that evolved jealousy mechanisms are necessarily automatic, an assumption not supported by theory or evidence. Regardless of how the jealousy debate is eventually settled, cognitive load manipulations cannot rule out the operation of evolved mechanisms.     

Sex differences in jealousy: evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement?

Two studies are presented that challenge the evidentiary basis for the existence of evolved sex differences in jealousy. In opposition to the evolutionary view, Study I demonstrated that a sex difference in jealousy resulting from sexual versus emotional infidelity is observed only when judgments are recorded using a forced-choice response format. On all other measures, no sex differences were found; both men and women reported greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity. A second study revealed that the sex difference on the forced-choice measure disappeared under conditions of cognitive constraint. These findings suggest that the sex difference used to support the evolutionary view of jealousy (e.g., D. M. Buss, R. Larsen, D. Westen, & J. Semmelroth, 1992; D. M. Buss et al., 1999) likely represents a measurement artifact resulting from a format-induced effortful decision strategy and not an automatic, sex-specific response shaped by evolution.     

Marital status as a candidate moderator variable of male-female differences in sexual jealousy: the need for representative population samples

Evolutionary psychological theories predict pronounced and universal male-female differences in sexual jealousy. Recent cross-cultural research, using the forced-choice jealousy items pioneered by Buss, et al., 1992, repeatedly found a large sex differential on these self-report measures: men significantly more often than women choose their mate's imagined sexual infidelity to be more distressing or upsetting to them than an imagined emotional infidelity. However, this body of evidence is solely based on undergraduate samples and does not take into account demographic factors. This study examined male-female differences in sexual jealousy in a community sample (N = 335, Eastern Austria). Within a logistic regression model, with other variables controlled for, marital status was a stronger predictor for sexual jealousy than respondents' sex. Contrary to previous research, the sex differential's effect size was only modest. These findings stress the pitfalls of prematurely generalizing evidence from undergraduate samples to the general population and the need for representative population samples in this research area.     

Jealousy reconsidered: A reply to DeSteno (2010)

In a recent commentary, DeSteno (2010) critiqued the work of Levy and Kelley (2010) which investigated the relationship of attachment style to the sex difference in jealousy. This commentary addresses the concerns raised by DeSteno; I briefly review some of the literature that was not addressed by DeSteno's commentary and discuss directions that future research may take.     

Sex drive, attachment style, relationship status and previous infidelity as predictors of sex differences in romantic jealousy

Recent research examining sex differences in jealousy suggests that more men than women tend to be distressed by sexual infidelity, and that more women than men tend to be distressed by emotional infidelity. The primary explanation for these findings is that evolution has shaped men’s and women’s responses to enhance their chances of reproductive success. However, within-sex differences are also found in terms of relative level of distress at sexual or emotional infidelity. This study examined the effect of alternative variables, particularly those associated with attachment and sexual motivations, on both between- and within-sex differences in relative distress at sexual and emotional infidelity. A community sample of 437 adults provided data using a self-report questionnaire. The results showed that sex drive was a significant predictor of distress at jealousy for both men and women, while attachment avoidance and previously being the victim of a sexual infidelity were significant predictors for men only, and relationship status was a significant predictor for women only. Overall, these findings support the evolutionary model of jealousy, and suggest that sex-specific evolved psychological mechanisms underpinning jealousy are influenced by attachment and sexual motivations.     

Neuroprediction,Truth-Sensitivity,and the Law

A recent argument by Nadelhoffer et al. defends a cautious optimism regarding the use of neuroprediction in relation to sentencing based, in part, on an assessment of the offender’s dangerousness. While this optimism may be warranted, Nadelhoffer et al.’s argument fails to justify it. Although neuropredictions provide individualized, non-statistical evidence they will often be problematic for the same reason that basing sentencing on statistical evidence is, to wit, that such predictions are insensitive to the offender’s dangerousness in relevant counterfactual situations and, accordingly, fail to provide the court with knowledge of the offender’s dangerousness. Admittedly, it could be replied that standard clinical assessments of dangerousness possess the same objectionable feature, but doing so undermines a different part of Nadelhoffer et al.’s argument. Finally, I criticize an incentives-based rationale for sentencing informed by neuropredictions of dangerousness.     

A reproductive threat-based model of evolved sex differences in jealousy

Although heterosexual women and men consistently demonstrate sex differences in jealousy, these differences disappear among lesbians and gay men as well as among heterosexual women and men contemplating same-sex infidelities (infidelities in which the partner and rival are the same sex). Synthesizing these past findings, the present paper offers a reproductive threat-based model of evolved sex differences in jealousy that predicts that the sexes will differ only when the jealous perceivers' reproductive outcomes are differentially at risk. This model is supported by data from a web-based study in which lesbians, gay men, bisexual women and men, and heterosexual women and men responded to a hypothetical infidelity scenario with the sex of the rival randomly determined. After reading the scenario, participants indicated which type of infidelity (sexual versus emotional) would cause greater distress. Consistent with predictions, heterosexual women and men showed a sex difference when contemplating opposite-sex infidelities but not when contemplating same-sex infidelities, whereas lesbians and gay men showed no sex difference regardless of whether the infidelity was opposite-sex or same-sex.     

Evidence from a homosexual sample for a sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism: Jealousy as a function of a rival's physical attractiveness and dominance

Among heterosexual women in particular, a rival's physical attractiveness evokes jealousy, whereas among heterosexual men in particular, a rival's dominance evokes feelings of jealousy. The present study conducted with gay men and lesbian women examined whether these sex‐differentiated responses reflect an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism according to which males and females pay attention to different rival characteristics or an evolved general partner‐oriented mechanism, according to which males and females pay attention to those characteristics that their actual and potential partners find important. In an experiment, using a 2 (Participant Sex) × 2 (Rival Physical Attractiveness) × 2 (Rival Dominance) mixed factor design, homosexual participants were presented with a scenario in which their partners were flirting with an individual of the same sex. Lesbian women, but not gay men, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a physically attractive rival as compared with a physically unattractive rival. Gay males, but not lesbian women, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a rival high in dominance as compared with a rival low in dominance, especially when exposed to a physically unattractive rival. In addition, among women high in dominance, a dominant rival evoked relatively less jealousy, and among women high in social comparison orientation, an unattractive rival evoked relatively more jealousy. It is concluded that males and females posses an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism through which they respond more or less automatically to those rival characteristics that have been important in sexual selection in our evolutionary past.     

Sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy

Research on sex differences in jealousy using continuous measures sometimes reveals that women report more intense jealousy than men in response to both sexual and emotional infidelity. Two studies tested whether these findings might have stemmed from sex differences in the interpretation of the upper anchor of the jealousy scales (e.g., “extremely jealous”). In Study 1, women and men offered different types of exemplars when describing situations in which they felt extremely jealous. A significantly greater proportion of women than men reported feeling extreme jealousy in the context of romantic relationships. Additional results demonstrated that women and men confuse the terms “jealousy” and “envy,” although this confusion cannot account for the sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy. Study 2 demonstrated that the sex difference in the intensity of reported jealousy disappears if the upper anchor of the scale is modified to include specific contextual information (e.g., “as jealous as you could feel in a romantic relationship”).     

The basic cognition of jealousy: an evolutionary perspective

Penke and Asendorpf (European Journal Of Personality, vol 21, this issue) argue compellingly that research on jealousy would benefit from more direct investigation of cognitive processes, and report on research providing mixed evidence for sex differences in jealousy. We identify three limitations to the empirical approach utilised by Penke and Asendorpf, and highlight novel conceptual and methodological approaches for directly examining the basic cognitive mechanisms associated with jealousy and intrasexual rivalry. Investigating the basic cognition of intrasexual rivalry will help expand the scope of jealousy‐related research. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations

Abundant evidence suggests that between sex differences exist in the degree to which cues to sexual and emotional infidelity trigger jealousy. A criticism of this research is that this commonly found sex difference is a consequence of the hypothetical scenario and forced-choice methodology that is commonly employed. This study used a novel method to explore the nature of jealousy-fueled interrogations (N = 75) in the face of actual infidelities captured on video in the syndicated reality program Cheaters. Fifty-one episodes of Cheaters were content analyzed by six coders trained to watch each episode. As predicted, men were more likely than women to inquire about the sexual aspect of their partners’ infidelities, whereas women were more likely than men to inquire about the emotional aspect of their partners’ infidelities. These results suggest that humans have sex-differentiated damage assessment strategies dedicated to investigating the nature of their mates’ extra-pair relationships. Although previous studies have found sex differences in jealousy using prospective and retrospective reports, this is the first study to demonstrate sex differences in romantic jealousy in vivo. These findings refute the criticism that sex differences in jealousy are mere methodological artifacts. Discussion focuses on the benefits and limitations of content-analyzing Cheaters.     

America

T. S. Braver and colleagues (e.g., T. S. Braver, J. D. Cohen, &; D. M. Barch, 2002) have provided a theory of cognitive control that focuses on the role of context processing. According to their theory, an underlying context-processing mechanism is responsible for the cognitive control functions of attention, inhibition, and working memory. In the present study, the authors examined whether T. S. Braver et al.'s theory can account for developmental differences in cognitive control. The authors compared the performance of children (M age = 11.9 years, SD = 0.43 years) with that of young adults (M age = 21.7 years, SD = 3.61 years) on a continuous performance task (AX-CPT) that placed demands on context processing. The results suggest that developmental differences in the cognitive control functions of attention, inhibition, and working memory may be based on age-related changes in an underlying context-processing mechanism.     

Context processing and cognitive control in children and young adults

T. S. Braver and colleagues (e.g., T. S. Braver, J. D. Cohen, & D. M. Barch, 2002) have provided a theory of cognitive control that focuses on the role of context processing. According to their theory, an underlying context-processing mechanism is responsible for the cognitive control functions of attention, inhibition, and working memory. In the present study, the authors examined whether T. S. Braver et al.'s theory can account for developmental differences in cognitive control. The authors compared the performance of children (M age = 11.9 years, SD = 0.43 years) with that of young adults (M age = 21.7 years, SD = 3.61 years) on a continuous performance task (AX-CPT) that placed demands on context processing. The results suggest that developmental differences in the cognitive control functions of attention, inhibition, and working memory may be based on age-related changes in an underlying context-processing mechanism.     

Jealousy,Infidelity, and the Difficulty of Diagnosing Pathology: A CBT Approach to Coping with Sexual Betrayal and the Green-Eyed Monster

Humans have evolved adaptations for infidelity, as well defenses against a partner’s betrayal—centrally the emotion of jealousy. Both create problems that bring couples to therapy. Diagnosing jealousy as pathological versus normal turns out to be difficult, in part because infidelity has evolved to be concealed from the betrayed mate, which creates a signal detection problem. Because missing an infidelity committed by a mate has been more costly in evolutionary currencies than falsely suspecting a partner of cheating, selection has created an error management cognitive bias to over-infer a partner’s betrayal. Moreover, adaptations for jealousy become activated by predictors of infidelity, such as mate value discrepancies, when no actual infidelities have occurred. Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) offers several ways to deal with these complexities. One way is to highlight potential mismatches, distinguishing between jealous emotions that were functional in ancestral environments but are less so in modern environments. A second is to distinguish between the goal of personal well-being and reproductive outcomes. Understanding the evolutionary logic of jealousy, in short, provides patients with conceptual tools for cognitively reframing jealousy and infidelity.     

Strategies and problem representations: Implications for models of changing cognitive structure. Commentary on “Learning new problem-solving strategies leads to changes in problem representation” by M.W. Alibali,K.M. Ockuly and A.D. Fischer

In an accompanying study, Alibali et al. [Alibali, M. W., Ockuly, K. M., Fischer, A. D. (2009) Learning new problem-solving strategies leads to changes in problem representation. Cognitive Development, 24, 89–101.] present an important experimental result: introducing a new strategy can affect conceptual aspects of children's problem representation. In this commentary, we briefly explore implications of this finding for theories of the development of mathematical cognition and of the development of cognitive structures, more generally. We argue that Alibali et al.’s results, taken in the context of previous findings, imply that children's actions during mathematical problem solving affect their subsequent understanding of the problem. We further suggest that results such as these may be best accommodated by reconceptualizing how cognitive structures achieve both stability and flexibility.     

Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: a computational model

M. M. Botvinick, T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, C. S. Carter, and J. D. Cohen (2001) implemented their conflict-monitoring hypothesis of cognitive control in a series of computational models. The authors of the current article first demonstrate that M. M. Botvinick et al.'s (2001) conflict-monitoring Stroop model fails to simulate L. L. Jacoby, D. S. Lindsay, and S. Hessels's (2003) report of an item-specific proportion-congruent (ISPC) effect in the Stroop task. The authors then implement a variant of M. M. Botvinick et al.'s model based on the assumption that control must be able to operate at the item level. This model successfully simulates the ISPC effect. In addition, the model provides an alternative to M. M. Botvinick et al.'s explanation of the list-level proportion-congruent effect in terms of an ISPC effect. Implications of the present modeling effort are discussed.     

Gender and ethnic differences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university

The authors studied sexual attitudes in 328 university students from 10 undergraduate classes at a Hispanic-serving university near the Texas-Mexico border. Men (n = 128) and women (n = 199) rated their level of agreement with 38 items on a revised sexuality questionnaire. There were 283 self-identified Hispanic students and 44 self-identified non-Hispanic students in the sample. For the most part, these students agreed with one another, although there were statistically significant differences, with women being less permissive or more sex negative than men were on items relating to oral sex, premarital intercourse, love and sex, masturbation, Playboy magazine, and pornography. For the entire sample, 26 of the 38 items showed statistically significant gender differences. For Hispanics only, 23 of the 38 items showed statistically significant differences, with gender differences those of the sample as whole. There were 8 statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students, with Hispanic students tending to be more conservative. The authors discuss findings that are contradictory to D. M. Buss's (1999, 2000) evolutionary psychology jealousy theory, namely that women in the present study were more jealous than men were on the sexual intercourse item.     

SEX DIFFERENCES IN JEALOUSY IN EVOLUTIONARY AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE:

Abstract— As predicted by models derived from evolutionary psychology, men within the United States have been shown to exhibit greater psychological and physiological distress to sexual than to emotional infidelity of their partner, and women have been shown to exhibit more distress to emotional than to sexual infidelity. Because cross-cultural tests are critical for evolutionary hypotheses, we examined these sex differences in three parallel studies conducted in the Netherlands ( N = 207), Germany ( N = 200), and the United Slates ( N = 224) Two key findings emerged First, the sex differences in sexual jealousy are robust across these cultures, providing support for the evolutionary psychological model Second, the magnitude of the sex differences varies somewhat across cultures—large for the United States, medium for Germany and the Netherlands Discussion focuses on the evolutionary psychology of jealousy and on the sensitivity of sex differences m the sexual sphere to cultural input.     

Why do older adults have difficulty following conversations?

Age-related declines in understanding conversation may be largely a consequence of perceptual rather than cognitive declines. B. A. Schneider, M. Daneman, D. R. Murphy, and S. Kwong-See (2000) showed that age-related declines in comprehending single-talker discourse could be eliminated when adjustments were made to compensate for the poorer hearing of older adults. The authors used B. A. Schneider et al.'s methodology to investigate age-related differences in comprehending 2-person conversations. Compensating for hearing difficulties did not eliminate age-related differences when the 2 talkers were spatially separated by 9 degrees or 45 degrees azimuth, but it did when the talkers' contributions came from one central location. These findings suggest that dialogue poses more of a problem for older than for younger adults, not because of the additional cognitive requirements of having to follow 2 talkers rather than 1, but because older adults are not as good as younger adults at making use of the auditory cues that are available for helping listeners perceptually segregate the contributions of 2 spatially separated talkers.     

Between-sex differences in romantic jealousy: Substance or spin? A qualitative analysis

An influential evolutionary account of romantic jealousy proposes that natural selection shaped a specific sexually-dimorphic psychological mechanism in response to relationship threat. However, this account has faced considerable theoretical and methodological criticism and it remains unclear whether putative sex differences in romantic jealousy actually exist and, if they do, whether they are consistent with its predictions. Given the multidimensional nature of romantic jealousy, the current study employed a qualitative design to examine these issues. We report the results of sixteen semi-structured interviews that were conducted with heterosexual men and women with the purpose of exploring the emotions, cognitions and behaviors that formed their subjective, lived experience in response to relationship threat. Interpretative phenomenological analysis revealed four super-ordinate themes ("threat appraisal", "emotional episodes", "sex-specific threat" and "forgive and forget") and unequivocal sex differences in romantic jealousy consistent with the evolutionary account. Self-esteem, particularly when conceptualized as an index of mate value, emerged as an important proximal mediator for both sexes. However, specific outcomes were dependent upon domains central to the individual's self concept that were primarily sex-specific. The findings are integrated within the context of existing self-esteem and evolutionary theory and future directions for romantic jealousy research are suggested.