Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity

Previous research has shown that in men jealousy is evoked more by a rival's status‐related characteristics than in women, whereas in women jealousy is evoked more by a rival's physical attractiveness than in men. The present study examined whether the occurrence of this gender difference depends upon the type of infidelity one's partner engages in, i.e., emotional or sexual infidelity, and whether these types of jealousy evoke different emotional responses. An experiment was conducted using hypothetical jealousy situations with a 2 (participant gender: male vs. female) × 2 (rival physical attractiveness: high vs. low) × 2 (rival dominance: high vs. low) × 2 (type of infidelity: sexual vs. emotional) mixed‐factor design. Jealousy evoked by emotional infidelity was primarily characterized by feelings of threat, and jealousy after sexual infidelity was primarily characterized by feelings of betrayal and anger. Following emotional infidelity, in men, a rival's dominance, and in women, a rival's physical attractiveness, evoked feelings of threat but not feelings of anger‐betrayal. In contrast, after sexual infidelity, in men, but not in women, a rival's physical attractiveness evoked feelings of betrayal‐anger but not anxiety or suspicion.     

Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: the role of sex and sexual orientation

The goal of the present study was to examine the emotional content and intensity of jealousy in response to different types of infidelity (both online and offline unfaithful partner behaviors) among Dutch heterosexuals (n = 191) and homosexuals (n = 121). Based on previous research (Dijkstra, Barelds & Groothof, 2010), participants were presented with ten jealousy‐evoking situations following which the intensity of two different emotional aspects of jealousy was assessed (betrayal/anger and threat). Results showed that scenarios describing a partner having sex with someone else or falling in love with someone else primarily evoked betrayal/anger‐related jealousy, whereas scenarios describing an emotional connection between a partner and someone else primarily evoked threat‐related jealousy. In addition, women experienced more jealousy than men in response to scenarios in which a partner engaged in potentially extra‐dyadic online (but not offline) behaviors. Finally, compared to same‐sex heterosexuals, homosexuals, both male and female, responded with less intense jealousy to scenarios describing a partner having sex with someone else. Implications for the treatment of (internet) infidelity are discussed.     

The evolved function of the oedipal conflict

Freud based his oedipal theory on three clinical observations of adult romantic relationships: (1) Adults tend to split love and lust; (2) There tend to be sex differences in the ways that men and women split love and lust; (3) Adult romantic relationships are unconsciously structured by the dynamics of love triangles in which dramas of seduction and betrayal unfold. Freud believed that these aspects of adult romantic relationships were derivative expressions of a childhood oedipal conflict that has been repressed. Recent research conducted by evolutionary psychologists supports many of Freud’s original observations and suggests that Freud’s oedipal conflict may have evolved as a sexually selected adaptation for reproductive advantage. The evolution of bi-parental care based on sexually exclusive romantic bonds made humans vulnerable to the costs of sexual infidelity, a situation of danger that seriously threatens monogamous bonds. A childhood oedipal conflict enables humans to better adapt to this longstanding evolutionary problem by providing the child with an opportunity to develop working models of love triangles. On the one hand, the oedipal conflict facilitates monogamous resolutions by creating intense anxiety about the dangers of sexual infidelity and mate poaching. On the other hand, the oedipal conflict in humans may facilitate successful cheating and mate poaching by cultivating a talent for hiding our true sexual intentions from others and even from ourselves. The oedipal conflict in humans may be disguised by evolutionary design in order to facilitate tactical deception in adult romantic relationships.     

Gender Differences,Infidelity, Dyadic Trust,and Jealousy among Married Turkish Individuals

In the present study, relationships among gender, emotional response to partner’s imagined infidelity (emotional and sexual infidelity), and dyadic trust (low and high levels of trust) were investigated as functions of married Turkish individuals’ jealousy types (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral). Five hundred thirty seven (276 women and 261 men) married individuals living in urban areas in Turkey participated in the study. Results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed significant main effects for gender, infidelity types, and dyadic trust. Particularly, married Turkish men in this study were found to be more emotionally jealous than women. Participants who responded to sexual infidelity as more upsetting had higher levels of emotional jealousy when compared to the participants who found emotional infidelity more upsetting. Moreover, participants with low dyadic trust for their partners were found to be high in their cognitive jealousy and behavioral jealousy reactions. Results are discussed in details with implications for future research and suggestions for mental health practitioners.     

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.     

Mate retention tactics in Spain: personality, sex differences, and relationship status

Mate retention is an important problem in romantic relationships because of mate poachers, infidelity, and the risk of outright defection. The current study (N=892) represents the first study of mate retention tactics conducted in Spain. We tested hypotheses about the effects of gender, relationship commitment status, and personality on mate retention tactics. Women and men differed in the use of resource display, appearance enhancement, intrasexual violence, and submission/self-abasement as mate retention tactics. Those in more committed relationships reported higher levels of resource display, appearance enhancement, love, and verbal signals of possession. Those in less committed relationships more often reported intentionally evoking jealousy in their partner as a mate retention tactic. Personality characteristics, particularly Neuroticism and Agreeableness, correlated in coherent ways with mate retention tactics, supporting two evolution-based hypotheses. Discussion focuses on the implications, future research directions, and interdisciplinary syntheses emerging between personality and social psychology and evolutionary psychology.     

The Effects of Sample Characteristics and Experience with Infidelity on Romantic Jealousy

Past research has suggested that men are more upset by imagined sexual than emotional infidelity, and women are more upset by imagined emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity. However, experience with infidelity, methodology, and age and gender of the sample may help to explain inconsistent results. Two hundred ninety-four English-speaking undergraduate students and 325 non-college adults in a large mid-Atlantic urban area of the U.S. completed forced-choice or continuous-scale anonymous questionnaires regarding jealousy over a mate??s hypothetical infidelity. Chi-square and MANOVA analyses replicated previous findings of the expected gender difference in all hypothetical forced-choice scenarios. However, results for those participants who reported experience with actual infidelity demonstrated little support for the traditional evolutionary model, as there were no gender differences in which aspect of hypothetical infidelity was reported to be more distressing, and no gender differences at the college level in terms of which aspect of infidelity received the greatest focus. These findings, extrapolated from both undergraduates and adults and accounting for the impact of actual, primed memory of experience of infidelity on hypothetical jealousy scenarios, raise important questions about the validity of hypothetical scenarios of jealousy as proxies for real reactions to actual infidelity. The results of the present study suggest that the lack of a consistent, replicable gender difference across the lifespan may be explained by two related factors: age and actual experience with infidelity.     

Solving the problem of partner infidelity: Individual mate retention,coalitional mate retention,and in-pair copulation frequency

Humans deploy various strategies to solve adaptive problems associated with a long-term partner’s infidelity. We investigated the relationships among three such strategies: individual mate retention, coalitional mate retention (i.e., mate retention with assistance from allies), and in-pair copulation frequency. Participants (n = 387; 176 women) in a committed, heterosexual relationship reported how often they (1) perform individual mate retention, (2) request coalitional mate retention, and (3) had sexual intercourse with their partner. The results indicate that women’s individual mate retention and men’s coalitional mate retention are positively associated with in-pair copulation frequency. The discussion notes limitations of this research and highlights the diversity of strategies humans deploy to address the adaptive problems of partner infidelity.     

人类“性交往”的进化

性交往是人类繁衍出现差异的进化“引擎”。现代人继承了祖先成功繁衍后代的性交往策略。这些策略涵盖长期守诺的性交往（如婚姻）、短期性交往（如短暂的外遇）、婚姻外的性交往（如不忠）、私通他人配偶（引诱别人的配偶）以及配偶维持（与单一配偶性交往）等。两性在性交往过程中面临不同的适应问题,性交往问题的进化机制存在极大的性别差异。配偶偏好不同、短期性交往的愿望不同以及性嫉妒的诱因不同等都是性交往具有性别差异的表现。很多实证研究都证实了性交往策略的存在,人类性交往研究是进化心理学研究中较为成熟的一个研究领域     

Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner's infidelity

Infidelities--sexual, emotional, or both--afflict many long-term romantic relationships. When a person discovers a partner's betrayal, a major decision faced is to forgive the partner and remain together or to terminate the relationship. Because men and women have confronted different adaptive problems over evolutionary history associated with different forms of infidelity, we hypothesised the existence of sex differences in which aspects of infidelity would affect the likelihood of forgiveness or breakup. We tested this hypothesis using forced-choice dilemmas in which participants (N = 256) indicated how difficult it would be to forgive the partner and how likely they would be to break up with the partner, depending on the nature of the infidelity. Results support the hypothesis that men, relative to women: (a) find it more difficult to forgive a sexual infidelity than an emotional infidelity; and (b) are more likely to terminate a current relationship following a partner's sexual infidelity than an emotional infidelity. The Discussion provides directions for future work on the determinants of breakup and the psychology of forgiveness.     

Factors Associated with Jealousy Over Real and Imagined Infidelity: an Examination of the Social-Cognitive and Evolutionary Psychology Perspectives

Three hundred fifty-eight undergraduates completed anonymous questionnaires regarding jealousy over a mate's infidelity. More men than women predicted that sexual infidelity would be worse than emotional infidelity when given the forced-choice hypothetical measures used in previous work. When some of the implications of hypothetical infidelity were controlled, the gender difference disappeared. One hundred twenty-seven participants reported having actual experience with a mate's infidelity. The two genders did not differ in degree of focus on the sexual versus emotional aspects of a mate's real betrayal. Sexual jealousy was correlated with having a greater number of sexual relationships and, for men but not women, with placing higher importance on sex in dating relationships. The results are discussed from a social-cognitive perspective.     

Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity

Explanations for sexual infidelity have been dominated by an evolutionary psychological theory of jealousy that finds its strongest support in research that employs a forced-choice hypothetical infidelity paradigm wherein participants imagine experiencing infidelity and choose whether sexual or emotional infidelity would be more distressing. Robust gender differences that support evolutionary psychological perspectives are consistently found using this paradigm, but recent work suggests that gender differences may be attenuated among actual infidelity victims. However, no research has used the forced-choice paradigm to compare real and hypothetical infidelity. This study uses this paradigm to compare reactions to imagined dating infidelity to those of infidelity victims. No gender differences are observed in response to the forced-choice question among victims of infidelity. Gender differences among participants who imagined infidelity are partially mediated by level of relationship power. Difficulties with the hypothetical forced-choice paradigm and implications for the evolutionary psychological theory of jealousy are discussed.     

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.     

Gender, socioeconomic status, age, and jealousy: emotional responses to infidelity in a national sample

The authors used a representative national sample (N = 777) to test the evolutionary hypothesis that men would be more bothered by sexual infidelity and women by emotional infidelity, the Jealousy as a Specific Innate Module (JSIM) effect. Our alternative conceptualization of jealousy suggests that there are distinct emotional components of jealousy that did not evolve differently by gender. The authors looked for effects of age, socioeconomic status (SES), and type of measure (continuous or dichotomous) on jealousy. The authors did not find age or SES effects. Forced-choice items provided support for our alternative view; both genders showed more anger and blame over sexual infidelity but more hurt feelings over emotional infidelity. Continuous measures indicated more emotional response to sexual than emotional infidelity among both genders.     

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.     

Gender differences in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation?

Men and women were asked to imagine a romantic partner being sexually unfaithful and/or emotionally unfaithful. Three hypotheses regarding gender differences in subjective distress to sexual and emotional infidelity, and in the inferences linking the infidelities were tested. The results indicated that more men than women were distressed by imagining a partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person, and more women than men were distressed by imagining a partner forming a deep emotional attachment to another person. Asking another group of women and men to imagine a partner committing both infidelities at the same time, and then to indicate which component of the combined infidelity was the most distressing, produced the same sexual asymmetries. The prediction that men will infer from a partner's sexual infidelity the co-occurrence of emotional infidelity and that women will infer from a partner’s emotional infidelity the co-occurrence of sexual infidelity was not supported. An evolutionary perspective, rather than an alternative analysis emphasizing the different inferences men and women draw from sex and love, provided a satisfactory explanation of the sexual asymmetries in the cues to jealousy.     

Distress Over the Infidelity of a Child’s Spouse: A Crucial Test of Evolutionary and Socialization Hypotheses

Parents of undergraduates were asked whether they would be more distressed by the sexual or the emotional infidelity of their child’s partner. Comparing the responses of mothers and fathers may offer a rare, “crucial” instance in which evolutionary and socialization perspectives offer different predictions. Socialization theory, broadly conceived, predicts an effect for the gender of the parent: Consistent with their differing gender socialization histories, mothers should be more distressed by the emotional infidelity of their child’s partner, and fathers by the sexual infidelity of their child’s partner. In contrast, an evolutionary psychology approach predicts little or no effect for the sex of the parents: Both mothers and fathers should be more distressed by infidelities that pose a greater threat to their genetic interests. Results were largely consistent with the predictions derived from evolutionary psychology: Both mothers and fathers regarded sexual infidelity as more distressing when committed by a daughter–in–law than by a son–in–law, and emotional infidelity as more distressing when it involved a son–in–law rather than a daughter–in–law. Discussion centered on the theoretical implications of research that examines the behavior of those who are, genetically, one step removed from the sexual behavior of others, but still affected by the reproductive consequences of that behavior.     

Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States,Korea, and Japan

The different adaptive problems faced by men and women over evolutionary history led evolutionary psychologists to hypothesize and discover sex differences in jealousy as a function of infidelity type. An alternative hypothesis proposes that beliefs about the conditional probabilities of sexual and emotional infidelity account for these sex differences. Four studies tested these hypotheses. Study 1 tested the hypotheses in an American sample (N = 1,122) by rendering the types of infidelity mutually exclusive. Study 2 tested the hypotheses in an American sample (N = 234) by asking participants to identify which aspect of infidelity was more upsetting when both forms occurred, and by using regression to identify the unique contributions of sex and beliefs. Study 3 replicated Study 2 in a Korean sample (N = 190). Study 4 replicated Study 2 in a Japanese sample (N = 316). Across the studies, the evolutionary hypothesis, but not the belief hypothesis, accounted for sex differences in jealousy when the types of infidelity are rendered mutually exclusive; sex differences in which aspect of infidelity is more upsetting when both occur; significant variance attributable to sex, after controlling for beliefs; sex-differentiated patterns of beliefs; and the cross-cultural prevalence of all these sex differences.     

Gender differences in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation?

Men and women were asked to imagine a romantic partner being sexually unfaithful and/or emotionally unfaithful. Three hypotheses regarding gender differences in subjective distress to sexual and emotional infidelity, and in the inferences linking the infidelities were tested. The results indicated that more men than women were distressed by imagining a partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person, and more women than men were distressed by imagining a partner forming a deep emotional attachment to another person. Asking another group of women and men to imagine a partner committing both infidelities at the same time, and then to indicate which component of the combined infidelity was the most distressing, produced the same sexual asymmetries. The prediction that men will infer from a partner's sexual infidelity the co-occurrence of emotional infidelity and that women will infer from a partner’s emotional infidelity the co-occurrence of sexual infidelity was not supported. An evolutionary perspective, rather than an alternative analysis emphasizing the different inferences men and women draw from sex and love, provided a satisfactory explanation of the sexual asymmetries in the cues to jealousy.     

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.