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”).     

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.     

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 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.     

Former partners and new rivals as threats to a relationship: Infidelity type,gender, and commitment as factors related to distress and forgiveness

The overall aim of this study was to examine differences in responses to relationship infidelity when the infidelity involves a former romantic partner as opposed to a new rival. Participants indicated, for either sexual or emotional infidelity, whether they would be more upset if their partner were involved with a former partner or a new person, and whether they would be forgiving. Men and women saw the former partner as a greater threat when the infidelity was sexual. However, for emotional infidelity, only women selected the former partner more frequently. Ratings of the degree of distress and likelihood of forgiveness followed a similar pattern. For women, measures of relationship commitment were related to distress and forgiveness. For men, these measures were related to forgiveness only. The gender differences in distress may be related to differences between men and women in beliefs about the importance of commitment.     

Same‐sex infidelity in heterosexual romantic relationships: Investigating emotional,relational, and communicative responses

The present study explores emotional, relational, and communicative responses to different‐sex and same‐sex infidelity in heterosexual romantic relationships. Two‐hundred and eighty‐five men and women completed an online survey. Individuals were asked to read a scenario in which an imagined heterosexual partner engages in infidelity with a different‐sex or same‐sex person. Individuals were randomly assigned to one of these two conditions and then asked to complete several measures assessing their imagined emotions, communicative responses, and relational outcomes. Results revealed that both men and women experienced more negative emotional responses to different‐sex infidelity versus same‐sex infidelity. Additionally, men reported more sexual arousal in response to a woman's same‐sex infidelity versus different‐sex infidelity, while women's sexual arousal did not vary across conditions. Lastly, men's communicative responses to jealousy (CRJs) for same‐sex and different‐sex infidelity did not vary, though women reported that they were more likely to respond to same‐sex infidelity than different‐sex infidelity with denial, and more likely to respond to different‐sex than same‐sex infidelity with signs of possession. Several emotional responses to same‐sex infidelity were also found to predict various CRJs. These findings and the implications of the study are discussed.     

Exploring perceptions of online infidelity

This study examines the similarities, differences, and potential linkages between perceptions of online infidelity and traditional infidelity using a sample of 123 individuals in committed relationships. Respondents nominated both sexually and emotionally based behaviors as unfaithful and expressed greater distress in response to hypothetical emotional, as compared to sexual, online infidelity. Unlike traditional infidelity, men generally were not more upset by sexual online infidelity than were women. Both men and women believed that emotional and sexual online infidelities were likely to co‐occur. A face‐to‐face meeting was perceived to be more likely following emotional, as compared to sexual, online infidelity and men were viewed as more likely than women to engage in sexual intercourse, given a face‐to‐face meeting with the online contact.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Sexual Jealousy in Heterosexuals,Lesbians, and Gays

The present study tests various hypotheses about effects of gender and sexual orientation on jealousy. One hypothesis is derived from an evolutionary perspective and implies that the stimuli that elicit jealousy are sex-linked and independent of sexual orientation. Several others are based on a sociocultural perspective and imply that the experience of jealousy is linked to social experiences and beliefs that differ for men and women and for homosexuals and heterosexuals. To test these hypotheses, we examined the relative distress reported by heterosexual and homosexual participants while thinking about a partners' sexual vs. emotional infidelity. Participants were predominately Caucasian and included students at a Midwestern state university and attendees at a regional gay and lesbian conference. The results reveal that all groups except heterosexual men experience greater distress when confronted with a partners' emotional infidelity. This pattern contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that the experience of romantic jealousy is sex-linked. However, our multifaceted attempt to identify social experiences or beliefs that account for the greater sexual jealousy of heterosexual men relative to everyone else was only partly successful.     

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.     

Sex differences in the events that elicit jealousy among homosexuals

When individuals are asked which event would upset them more—a partner's emotional infidelity or a partner's sexual infidelity—among heterosexuals more men than women select a partner's sexual infidelity as the most distressing event, whereas more women than men select a partner's emotional infidelity as the most upsetting event. Because homosexuals’mating psychology is unlike that of heterosexuals, the present study examined which of these two events is more upsetting in a sample of 237 Dutch homosexuals. In support of our hypothesis it was found that, whereas gay men more often than lesbian women chose a mate's emotional infidelity as the most upsetting event, lesbians more often than gay men chose a mate's sexual infidelity as the most upsetting event. In addition, analyses showed that the effect of participant sex on infidelity choice was mediated by beliefs with regard to the co‐occurrence of sexual and emotional infidelity. Apparently, with respect to choosing the most upsetting type of infidelity of their partner, homosexuals resemble heterosexuals of the opposite sex. Several explanations are discussed for this finding.     

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.     

Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample

The goal of the present study was to compare the relative distress of homosexual and heterosexual Brazilian men and women on scenarios in which they imagined their partners sexually or emotionally involved with another person, using a forced-choice paradigm and continuous measures. Participants were 68 heterosexual men, 72 heterosexual women, 42 homosexual men, and 35 homosexual women. On the forced-choice questions heterosexual men (39 on one question and 37 on the other) were more upset than their female counterparts (21 on one question and 15 on the other) by scenarios of sexual infidelity than those of emotional infidelity. On questions using continuous measures no significant difference was found between pleasurable sex and attachment scenarios for heterosexual women or heterosexual men. On the highly upsetting scenarios heterosexual men discriminated between flirting and both pleasurable sex and attachment scenarios, being less disturbed by the former. In contrast, heterosexual women were equally distressed by the three scenarios. Scores for the homosexual men and homosexual women fell in between those of the heterosexual men and heterosexual women and did not show a clear cut preference for the sexual infidelity or the emotional alternative on the forced-choice paradigm. However, on the continuous measures of jealousy homosexuals resembled heterosexuals of the opposite sex. There was no evidence that jealousy would be less intense among homosexuals although reproductive outcomes were not at risk.     

Emotional reactions to infidelity

We sought to identify emotional reactions to a partner's sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In a preliminary study, 53 participants nominated emotional reactions to a partner's sexual and emotional infidelity. In a second study, 655 participants rated each emotion for how likely it was to occur following sexual and emotional infidelity. Principal components analysis revealed 15 emotion components, including Hostile/Vengeful, Depressed, and Sexually aroused. We conducted repeated measures analyses of variance on the 15 components, with participant sex as the between-subjects factor and infidelity type as the within-subjects factor. A main effect for sex obtained for 9 components. For example, men scored higher on Homicidal/Suicidal, whereas women scored higher on Undesirable/Insecure. A main effect for infidelity type obtained for 12 components. For example, participants endorsed Nauseated/Repulsed as more likely to follow sexual infidelity and Undesirable/Insecure as more likely to follow emotional infidelity. Discussion addresses limitations of this research, and highlights the need for an integrative theory of emotional reactions to infidelity.     

Distress in response to emotional and sexual infidelity: evidence of evolved gender differences in Spanish students

The authors studied gender differences in response to hypothetical infidelity in Spanish students. Using a forced-choice methodology, the authors asked a sample of 266 participants to indicate which kind of infidelity would be more distressing: emotional or sexual. Men were significantly more distressed by sexual infidelity than were women, and women were significantly more distressed by emotional infidelity than were men. Results supported the hypothesis that particular infidelity types, which resemble adaptive problems that human beings faced in the past, contribute to the psychology of jealousy. The results are consistent with previous cross-cultural research.     

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.     

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.     

Defining and Distinguishing Sexual and Emotional Infidelity

Researchers studying interpersonal relationships often distinguish between “sexual infidelity” and “emotional infidelity.” Yet, it remains largely unclear whether and how individuals actually conceptualize these constructs in their own lives, and how men and women vary, if at all, in their definitions and understanding of different types of infidelity. The current research used a mixed-methodology approach to explore the epistemological nature of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 1, 379 participants provided open-ended definitions of what they believe constitutes sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. In Study 2, responses were then coded by a different group of outside raters to examine overall themes in the definitions provided and how prototypical these definitions were for each type of infidelity. Results identified and examined the definitions with the highest mean ratings in terms of how well they represented emotional infidelity or sexual infidelity. Overall, both men and women had more consistency in their definitions of what constituted sexual infidelity than on what constituted emotional infidelity, suggesting that emotional infidelity is a more vague and complex concept than sexual infidelity. Additionally, when asked to define sexual and emotional infidelity, many participants focused on specific behaviors (including deception), but when asked to consider the types of infidelity as distinct from each other, participants focused on feelings. By exploring how individuals actually define these constructs, these data provide a more accurate and rich depiction of how individuals define acts of infidelity than currently exists in the relationship literature.