Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods

In three studies (total N = 619), the authors tested an evolutionary hypothesis: Men are more bothered by sexual than emotional infidelity, whereas the reverse is true of women. More diverse samples (in age) and measures than is typical were used. In Study 1, the authors found across gender, sample, and method that sexual infidelity was associated with anger and blame, but emotional infidelity was associated with hurt feelings. The evolutionary effect was replicated with undergraduates but not with the nonstudent sample. In Study 2, narrative scenarios were used; it was found that nonstudent men and women were more hurt and upset by emotional infidelity but were made angrier by sexual infidelity. In Study 3, using Likert-type scales, scenarios, and a nonstudent sample, it was found that both genders were more upset, hurt, and angrier about sexual than emotional transgressions when rating one kind without hearing the opposite type. The implications for how emotional responses evolved are discussed.     

Sex, lies, and strategic interference: the psychology of deception between the sexes

The desires of one sex can lead to deceptive exploitation by the other sex. Strategic Interference Theory proposes that certain "negative" emotions evolved or have been co-opted by selection, in part, to defend against deception and reduce its negative consequences. In Study 1 (N = 217) Americans reported emotional distress in response to specific forms of deception. Study 2 (N = 200) replicated the results in a German sample. Study 3 (N = 479) assessed Americans' past experiences with deception and conducted additional hypothesis tests using a procedure to control for overall sex differences in upset. Each study supported the hypothesis that emotions track sex-linked forms of strategic interference. Three clusters of sex differences proved robust across studies-emotional upset about resource deception, commitment deception, and sexual deception. We discuss implications for theories of mating and emotion and directions for research based on models of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes.     

A Test of Evolutionary and Sociocultural Explanations of Reactions to Sexual Harassment

Although the field of evolutionary psychology has been perceived to generate predictions that are untestable, one potentially falsifiable prediction of the evolutionary approach is that women should be less upset by unwanted sexual advances from high than from low status men. Three experiments tested this hypothesis within a workplace and an academic setting. Across the first two experiments, women and men were actually more upset by perceived sexual harassment from higher than lower status members of the other sex. Results of Study 3 suggested that women only showed this difference when there was a power relationship involved. These results conflict with the evolutionary prediction and support a sociocultural explanation of reactions to sexual harassment; that is, that they are influenced by power differentials.     

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.     

Love and anger in romantic relationships: a discrete systems model

In a study of 124 dating couples, we tested a discrete systems model of the functions of two emotion systems in romantic relationships: love and anger/upset. This model posits that the operation of these systems reflects adaptations shaped by natural selection to solve different adaptive problems. Accordingly, we hypothesized that the love and anger/upset emotion systems would be largely independent in the classes of information they track in romantic relationships, in the psychological mechanisms that process that information, and in the resultant behavior generated. Consistent with the discrete systems model, and in contrast to a competing "crossover" model, differences across relationships in feelings of love covaried with differences in strategic facilitation but not in strategic interference by partners. Similarly, differences in feelings of anger/upset during conflict covaried with differences in strategic interference but not strategic facilitation. In turn, feelings of love predicted commitment-promoting behavior but not partner-directed aggression, whereas levels of anger/upset predicted aggression but not commitment. As also predicted by our model, the love and anger/upset emotion systems converged to predict relationship satisfaction.     

Don't leave me: the effect of dependency and emotions in relationship conflict

Two studies examined how the effect of dependency and emotions on the dynamics of relationship conflict differs between men and women. In Study 1, 96 women and 67 men were presented with conflict situations that might occur in their relationship; the probability of aggression, anger, and dependency was measured. Results showed that anger mediated the relationship between dependency and the intention to use aggression, in men, but not in women. In Study 2, 95 women and 65 men wrote about a conflict situation that they had experienced with their partner; loyalty, guilt, and dependency were measured. Results showed that dependency predicted loyalty among women, and that this effect was mediated by guilt.     

Poaching,promiscuity, and deceit: Combatting mating rivalry in same‐sex friendships

If humans faced recurrently over evolutionary history the adaptive problem of competition with same‐sex friends for mates, they may have evolved psychological mechanisms designed to prevent and combat mating rivalry with same‐sex friends. Four studies were conducted to test hypotheses about the design of these mechanisms. In Studies 1 and 2 (N= 406 and N= 342, respectively) we found that, as predicted, people experience more upset in response to imagined rivalry from a friend than from a stranger. In Study 3 (N= 455), in which a between‐subjects design was utilized, we found that women's, but not men's, willingness to become friends with a member of the same sex is lower when the person is described as sexually promiscuous. In Study 4 (N= 169) we found that people report being deceived by friends about mating rivalry more often than they themselves report engaging in deceit about rivalry, and women more than men deceive each other about how sexually experienced and promiscuous they are. Discussion addresses implications of the findings and the use of an evolutionary approach for understanding conflict in same‐sex friendship.     

Can men and women be just friends?

We tested evolution‐based hypotheses about (1) sex differences in perceived benefits and costs of opposite‐sex friendship and (2) differences in perceived benefits of same‐sex friendships and opposite‐sex friendships. In the Preliminary Study (N= 400), an act nomination procedure was used to identify the benefits and costs of same‐sex friendships and opposite‐sex friendships. In Study 1, a total of 231 participants (100 men, 131 women) evaluated the frequency of occurrence of 100 benefits and costs in their closest same‐sex friendship or opposite‐sex friendship. In Study 2, a total of 229 participants (92 men, 137 women) evaluated how beneficial and how costly each would be if it were to occur in their closest same‐sex friendship or opposite‐sex friendship. Results supported several key hypotheses. Men perceived sex with their opposite‐sex friends as more beneficial than did women. Women reported receiving protection from their opposite‐sex friends more often than did men, and they perceived the protection as highly beneficial. Both men and women reported receiving information from opposite‐sex friends about how to attract mates, and they perceived this information as beneficial. The discussion focuses on whether these benefits reflect an evolved psychology of opposite‐sex friendship, or instead are incidental by‐products.     

How provoking! what makes men and women angry?

This study looked at differences in anger-provoking behaviors and in verbal insults as a function of the gender of the aggressor and the target of the provocation. Responses of 416 college students revealed that males were more likely to consider a female exhibiting physical aggression or a male hurting another person as anger-provoking, whereas females were more likely to mention condescending or insensitive behaviors from either sex, verbal aggression from a female, and physical aggression from a male. Physical aggression and hurting another provoked more anger when they came from a male, whereas dishonesty from a female evoked more anger. Females also felt that insensitive and condescending behaviors were worse when they came from a male. Most of the verbal insults were sexual in nature, with few sex of subject differences. However, it was considered worse for women to be called promiscuous; for men to be called sexually inadequate, worthless, or cowardly; for women to call men an obscene name; and for people to be called homosexual by a same sex speaker. These results are consistent both with previous research and with traditional gender role beliefs suggesting that women are more upset by condescending behaviors and that women's promiscuity, as well as men's aggression toward women, hurting another, sexual inadequacy, and cowardice, are viewed particularly negatively. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it

Do men seek more short-term mates than women? Buss and Schmitt (1993) showed a pattern of mean difference in the ideal number of sexual partners men and women desired over various time frames. We replicated these mean sex differences (e.g., ideal number over the next 30 years: Ms = 7.69 and 2.78 for men and women, respectively), but in both data sets the sampling distributions were highly skewed. In Study 1, we found few sex differences in medians across time frames (e.g., ideal number over the next 30 years: Mdn = 1 for both men and women). In Study 2, most college men (98.9%) and women (99.2%) said they wanted to settle down with one mutually exclusive sexual partner at some point in their life, ideally within the next 5 years. Neither medians in number of partners desired overall before settling down (replicating Study 1) nor medians in short-term partners desired before settling down (Mdn = 0) differed significantly by gender. Rather, men and women concurred: Short-term mating is not what humans typically seek.     

Does the horny man think women want him too? Effects of male sexual arousal on perceptions of female sexual willingness

ABSTRACT

Disputes over acquaintance rape typically center on the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to sex. Disputed sexual encounters often take place when one or both involved parties is sexually aroused, and this arousal might influence the extent to which the parties perceive sexual consent. Two studies tested the effects of men’s sexual arousal on their interpretations of the extent to which 25 hypothetical female behaviors reflected sexual willingness. Arousal was manipulated via written fantasies (Study 1) or exposure to erotic material (Study 2). Manipulated arousal and individual differences in rated arousal were each associated with greater perceptions of female sexual willingness. Manipulated arousal was significant only for single men in Study 2. Findings suggested present-state sexual arousal affects single men’s interpretations of women’s sexual willingness. Men’s sexual arousal might prominently contribute to misunderstandings in sexual communication.     

When the sexes need not differ: Emotional responses to the sexual and emotional aspects of infidelity

This study assessed whether previously reported sex differences in jealousy could be accounted for by other related emotions. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving both a sexual and an emotional infidelity, then were asked how jealous, angry, hurt, and disgusted they would be (using continuous scales). The results replicate the sex difference in response to sexual and emotional infidelity, demonstrate that it is robust when continuous measures are used, and confirm that it is unique to jealousy. Sex differences did not emerge for anger, hurt, or disgust. Instead, sexual infidelity elicited greater anger and disgust, and less hurt, than emotional infidelity, for both women and men. The results also suggest that it is the jealous response to an emotional infidelity that best discriminates women from men, and that both women and those participants in a serious, committed relationship reported significantly greater intensity in their emotional reactions, as compared to men and those not in a committed relationship.     

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 Role of Power and Gender in Anger Responses to Sexual Jealousy

Despite a growing interest in intimate conflict, little research has examined the variables that influence anger within an interpersonal context. Using the conflict topic of sexual jealousy, male and female undergraduate students were randomly assigned to high- or low-power conditions prior to listening to an audiotaped conflict between intimates. Analysis of participants' affective responses to the conflict indicated that in spite of no initial differences in anger before hearing the conflict, there was a significant difference between power conditions in postconflict ratings: low-power participants reported more anger than did high-power participants. Similarly, women reported more anger than did men after hearing the conflict despite no preconflict differences. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of power and gender expectations on the anger dynamics of intimate conflict. Of special interest is the extent to which perceptions of power or powerlessness, ostensibly unrelated to the conflict, can shape affective reactions to conflict.     

The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: opposite effects for men and women

Men's and women's mate preferences impose on each a unique set of adaptive problems that must be solved when judging the desirability of prospective mates. One potentially revealing source of information about an individual's desirability as a romantic partner is contained in the decisions made by same-sex others. The present studies predicted that men's and women's desirability assessments would be affected in opposite ways when target persons were depicted with members of the target's opposite sex. Study 1 (N = 847) documented that women rated men more desirable when shown surrounded by women than when shown alone or with other men (a desirability enhancement effect). In sharp contrast, men rated women less desirable when shown surrounded by men than when shown alone or with women (a desirability diminution effect) . Study 2 (N = 627) demonstrated similar sexually divergent effects for estimates of the desirability of same-sex competitors.     

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.     

Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults

Several theorists have claimed that men are innately more upset by a mate's sexual infidelity and women are more upset by a mate's emotional infidelity because the sexes faced different adaptive problems (for men, cuckoldry; for women, losing a mate's resources). The present work examined this theory of jealousy as a specific innate module in 196 adult men and women of homosexual and heterosexual orientations. As in previous work, heterosexuals' responses to a forced-choice question about hypothetical infidelity yielded a gender difference. However, no gender differences were found when participants recalled personal experiences with a mate's actual infidelity. Men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, on average focused more on a mate's emotional infidelity than on a mate's sexual infidelity. Responses to hypothetical infidelity were uncorrelated with reactions to actual infidelity. This finding casts doubt on the validity of the hypothetical measures used in previous research.     

Differences in Parental Investment Contribute to Important Differences Between Men and Women

Parental investment theory addresses sex differences that result from the trade-off between parenting effort and mating effort. For example, relative to men, women spend more time caring for offspring, are more selective in assenting to sexual intercourse, are more upset by a partner's emotional infidelity than by a partner's sexual infidelity, and are better able to inhibit their behaviors in certain situations. These and other sex differences are attributable to evolved mechanisms that work in interaction with the physical and social environments.     

Sex, sexual orientation, and identification of positive and negative facial affect

Sex and sexual orientation related differences in processing of happy and sad facial emotions were examined using an experimental facial emotion recognition paradigm with a large sample (N = 240). Analysis of covariance (controlling for age and IQ) revealed that women (irrespective of sexual orientation) had faster reaction times than men for accurate identification of facial emotion and were more accurate in identifying male faces than female ones, whereas men performed the same regardless of the sex of the face. However, there were no overall sex differences in accuracy. These findings suggest a limited role for sex in the perception of facial affect.     

Playing Hard‐to‐Get: Manipulating One's Perceived Availability as a Mate

‘Playing hard‐to‐get’ is a mating tactic in which people give the impression that they are ostensibly uninterested to get others to desire them more. This topic has received little attention because of theoretical and methodological limitations of prior work. We present four studies drawn from four different American universities that examined playing hard‐to‐get as part of a supply‐side economics model of dating. In Studies 1a (N = 100) and 1b (N = 491), we identified the tactics that characterize playing hard‐to‐get and how often men and women enact them. In Study 2 (N = 290), we assessed reasons why men and women play hard‐to‐get along with the personality traits associated with these reasons. In Studies 3 (N = 270) and 4 (N = 425), we manipulated the rate per week prospective mates went out with people they had just met and assessed participants' willingness to engage in casual sex and serious romantic relationships with prospective mates (Study 3) and the money and time they were willing to invest in prospective mates (Study 4). We frame our results using a sexual economics model to understand the role of perceived availability in mating dynamics. Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology