1007/s11199-011-0048-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Effects of Sample Characteristics and Experience with Infidelity on Romantic Jealousy
Colleen M. Varga & Christina B. Gee & Geoffrey Munro
Abstract 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 noncollege adults in a large mid-Atlantic urban area of the U. S. completed forced-choice or continuous-scale anonymous questionnaires regarding jealousy over a mates 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,
C. M. Varga (*) : C. B. Gee Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, 2125 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA e-mail: cvarga@gwmail.gwu.edu G. Munro Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
replicable gender difference across the lifespan may be explained by two related factors: age and actual experience with infidelity. Keywords Jealousy . Evolutionary theory . Continuous-scale methodology . Gender differences
Introduction Gender differences in jealousy have been hotly debated for two decades, since Buss et al.s (1992) seminal study with U.S. college-age students promulgated the evolutionary view that men are more jealous over a mates sexual infidelity while women are more jealous over a mates emotional infidelity. Since that time, debate has focused largely on the existence of these possible gender differences, disputing questions of theoretical soundness (e.g. Buss et al. 1996; DeSteno and Salovey 1996; Harris and Christenfeld 1996; Hupka and Bank 1996) and study methodology (e.g. DeSteno et al. 2002; Hofhansl et al. 2004). Much of the earlier work has focused on reactions to hypothetical scenarios of infidelity with college-age samples, which are of questionable validity in resolving the debate. Little research in the U.S. has focused on experience of infidelity in jealousy and sample characteristics across the lifespan or how these factors impact the question of gender differences. In response, the current study utilized both forced-choice and continuous-scale methodologies to examine the effect of age and gender, as well as actual experience of infidelity in U.S. undergraduate students and non-college age adults. Notably, all studies reviewed here are based on U.S. undergraduate samples using hypothetical scenarios unless otherwise noted. The present study builds on past research to explore methodological contributing factors
855
and individual differences in a U.S. sample, allowing a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the complex factors contributing to the relationship between gender and jealousy in response to infidelity. Hypothetical Reactions to Infidelity The vast majority of studies examining gender differences in reactions to infidelity have asked participants to respond to hypothetical scenarios of infidelity, without determination of past experience of infidelity or recall and measurement of participants response when they experienced past infidelity. These hypothetical reactions to infidelity have been widely studied from two different perspectives; that of the evolutionary model and the social role model. The evolutionary model espoused by Buss and colleagues stems from the parental investment model, which holds that females are more discriminant in mating due to the larger investment required in parenting, while males compete for access to females (Trivers 1972). As males risk investing resources in offspring without paternal certainty, Buss et al. (1992) extended the logic of parental investment to apply to jealousy in humans. In particular, Buss et al. (1992) proposed that men are more sexually jealous because they possess an innate, biological tendency to advance their reproductive success by attempting to ensure the fidelity of their female mate. Females, on the other hand, are posited to be more emotionally jealous because they need to secure the emotional interest, resources, and protection of a powerful male in order to propagate their progeny (Buss et al. 1992; Wiederman and Allgeier 1993; Wiederman and Kendall 1999). According to this theory, jealousy is an adaptive emotion which evolved as a coping device passed down by ancestral humans to help humans survive and reproduce (Buss 2000, p. 5). This gender-specific difference model has also been referred to as an evolved jealousy mechanism (EJM), sexual strategies theory, or jealousy as a specific innate module (JSIM) theory (Harris 2003b; Schutzwohl 2007). Using two hypothetical forced-choice scenarios, Buss et al. (1992) found that 60% of U.S. college-age men reported that they would have greater distress over imagined sexual infidelity than over imagined emotional infidelity, while 83% of college-age women reported that they would have greater distress over imagined emotional infidelity than over imagined sexual infidelity. These findings have been replicated extensively in the U.S. using hypothetical scenarios (Brase et al. 2004; Buunk et al. 1996; Hupka and Bank 1996; Levy and Kelly 2010; Murphy et al. 2006; Shackelford et al. 2002). In a meta-analysis based on 72 samples, including both college-age and adult samples and unpublished studies, Hofhansl et al. (2004) reported a moderate effect size of .64 for overall gender differences.
Social role theorists have noted that a strong version of the parental investment model would always find the majority of men selecting hypothetical sexual infidelity as more upsetting and the majority of women selecting emotional infidelity as more upsetting (Harris 2003b; Hupka and Bank 1996). Such a scenario would be indicative of a consistent strategy particular to each gender. However, several hypothetical scenario studies with college-age samples (Buss et al. 1999; Buunk et al. 1996; Harris 2002; Murphy et al. 2006) and one study with an adult sample (mean age = 26 years: Sheets and Wolfe 2001) found that although more men than women reported that hypothetical sexual infidelity would be upsetting, the majority of men still felt that emotional infidelity would be more upsetting than sexual infidelity. In sum, testing of the traditional hypothetical forced-choice scenario has consistently demonstrated a gender difference whereby men report that they would be more upset by imagined sexual infidelity than women report they would be, although the degree of expected distress over sexual infidelity for men has not always been higher than distress over emotional infidelity. Research using hypothetical continuous-scale measures to test the parental investment model has produced mixed results, but overall, consistent gender differences have not been identified. An unpublished meta-analysis of romantic jealousy studies with both adult and college-age samples found that continuous-scale data did not replicate forcedchoice data across 77 studies (Hofhansl et al. 2004). For example, DeSteno et al. (2002) found with a college-age sample that both men and women reported that they would be more upset by hypothetical sexual infidelity, and no gender differences were found when using a Likert measure of agreement/disagreement and a checklist of target feeling adjectives. Several other studies have replicated this lack of consistent gender differences in college-age samples (Dantzker and Eisenman 2005; Eisenman and Dantzker 2006; Takahashi et al. 2006) and one adult sample with a mean age of 48 years (Green and Sabini 2006). The inconsistent results found when using hypothetical forced-choice versus continuous-scale methodologies have not yet been fully explained. Several researchers have suggested that the conflicting results may be due to women having a greater tendency to report any emotions in a relationship context more strongly than do men (Penke and Asendorpf 2008; Sagarin and Guadagno 2004). However, Hofhansl et al. (2004) found that gender differences in sexual jealousy typically disappeared when tested with continuous-scale methodologies, while differences in emotional jealousy remained in about half of the studies reviewed. Thus, emotional jealousy may be uniquely predicted by gender, at least in part, while the evidence for a consistent difference in sexual jealousy across
856
multiple methodologies is less substantial (Hofhansl et al. 2004; Penke and Asendorpf 2008). While considerable research has been devoted to methodological explanations for differing constructs of male and female sexual and emotional jealousy, the literature has by and large ignored the validity of examining this construct by use of hypothetical scenarios. This lacuna is problematic for several reasons. First, responses to hypothetical scenarios vary by methodology within individuals (e.g. DeSteno et al.s 2002 study with a college-age sample). Second, individuals responses to hypothetical scenarios do not correspond with actual experience. For example, the expected gender difference was found when participants were asked to imagine a hypothetical forcedchoice scenario consistent with Buss et al.s (1992) survey, but no gender difference was found when participants were asked to recall a specific incidence of experienced infidelity in either a college-age (Berman and Frazier 2005) or an adult sample with a mean age of 37 years (Harris 2002). Third, responses to hypothetical scenarios do not correspond with physiological responses; several studies have produced inconsistent results regarding physiological arousal in response to imagined infidelity in college-age samples (Buss et al. 1992; Harris 2000; Pietrzak et al. 2002). In fact, one study of college-age participants produced contradictory results; based on electrodermal activity, men showed the greatest reactance to imagined emotional infidelity, while women reacted most to imagined sexual infidelity (Grice and Seely 2000). Age as Moderator Another concern in the examination of gender differences using hypothetical scenarios is the overwhelming use of college-age samples. According to Harris (2003b) metaanalysis, of 29 attempted replications of the original Buss et al. (1992) study conducted with heterosexual populations, 24 studies used undergraduates. The overwhelming use of such a restricted sample is problematic because undergraduates relative inexperience with long-term emotional and sexual relationships may cause them to have different responses to infidelity than older, more experienced populations (Sabini and Green 2004). Perhaps as a consequence of the hook-up culture common to college campuses (Garcia and Reiber 2008), two studies with undergraduates found that both men and women in shortterm relationships were more threatened by hypothetical sexual infidelity, while men and women in long-term relationships were more threatened by emotional infidelity (Mathes 2005; Wade and Fowler 2006). Research results have been inconsistent in regard to the effects of age as a sample characteristic on sexual and emotional jealousy. Two hypothetical forced-choice scenario
studies yielded differing results; one study found no age attenuation within an adult sample, although this adult sample had a mean age of 26 and included both college students and non-students (Edlund et al. 2006). Sabini and Green (2004) found that an undergraduate sample demonstrated a gender difference, but within an adult sample (mean age of 41 years old), both genders reported that they would be more upset by hypothetical emotional infidelity than hypothetical sexual infidelity. In regards to hypothetical continuous-scale studies, the data are stronger for an age effect. One study completed with a representative adult sample found no gender difference (Green and Sabini 2006), while other studies with college-age samples demonstrated a gender difference in the expected direction (e.g. Becker et al. 2004; Sagarin and Guadagno 2004). Two meta-analyses also found an age effect; for example, in one meta-analysis; the average effect size was .74 for student samples and .45 for community samples (Harris 2003b; Hofhansl et al. 2004). Thus, there is insufficient evidence that U.S. adult samples reflect the same gender difference in sexual versus emotional jealousy as is typically found in hypothetical jealousy studies with undergraduate students. The current study examined both U.S. undergraduate students and adults to fill a gap in the literature by allowing direct comparison of the multiple factors affecting romantic jealousy. Experience with Infidelity Very few studies have examined how the actual experience of infidelity affects report of jealousy in response to hypothetical scenarios, and even fewer have examined individuals immediate jealousy response following an identified experience of infidelity. A scan of applicable databases (Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, JSTOR, and Google Scholar) identified four peer-reviewed studies and one unpublished dissertation, all using U.S. samples, which examined gender differences in responses to hypothetical scenarios for individuals with actual experience with infidelity. Of these, every study replicated the predicted gender difference when using the forced-choice hypothetical scenario with participants who had not experienced infidelity, whereas four out of five found no gender differences in jealousy when examining the responses of participants who had actual experience with infidelity (Berman and Frazier 2005; Edlund et al. 2006; Harris 2002, 2003a; Kimeldorf 2009). Harris (2002, 2003a) examined actual experience with infidelity in both an undergraduate and adult sample using continuous measures; both men and women reported that they focused more on the emotional aspect of imagined infidelity. However, as discussed in Edlund et al. (2006), Harriss (2002) comparison of hypothetical scenarios and actual experience may
857
have been confounded by a wording change from what distressed or upset participants more to what participants focused on more. Berman and Frazier (2005) used forcedchoice questions with an undergraduate sample, finding that both genders who had experienced actual infidelity reported a slightly greater focus on the sexual aspects of imagined infidelity; however, due to the use of a more limited definition of infidelity experience, the sample size for those who had experienced infidelity was only 64. Finally, an unpublished dissertation examined sexual and emotional distress in a sample of 68 undergraduates who reported that they had experienced infidelity (broadly defined, either emotional or sexual) during the past week (Kimeldorf 2009). No gender differences were found for how distressed individuals were by imagined sexual or emotional infidelity. In contrast with these four studies, Edlund et al. (2006) found the expected gender differences in response to actual infidelity experiences using both continuous-scale and forced-choice hypothetical measures of jealousy. Two studies, one with an undergraduate sample of 110 participants and one with an adult sample of 69 mixed students and non-students (average age: 26), found that men reported that they would be more upset by hypothetical sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, while women displayed the opposite pattern. In addition, Edlund et al. (2006) examined the effect of age on gender differences for participants who had experienced infidelity and reported no age attenuation. As Edlund et al. (2006) used methods and questions very similar to those of Harris (2002, 2003a), it is unclear why these studies produced opposite outcomes. The present study built on the questions raised here by comparing a notably larger undergraduate sample with an older, non-student adult sample within the same study. Summary and Study Goals While a large number of hypothetical, forced-choice studies conducted with undergraduate U.S. samples have found that men reported that they would be more distressed by hypothetical sexual infidelity and women reported that they would be more distressed by hypothetical emotional infidelity (e.g. Buss et al. 1992; Hupka and Bank 1996; Levy and Kelly 2010), very few studies have examined emotional and sexual jealousy responses within adult samples or individuals who have experienced infidelity. Of these studies, the majority found no gender differences, particularly when using continuous-scale measures, calling into question whether or not hypothetical forced-choice scenarios are valid measures of reactions to actual infidelity (Berman and Frazier 2005; Harris 2002, 2003a; Kimeldorf 2009). One possibility that has not yet been examined in the literature is that a lack of experience with infidelity and/or college-age sampling would drive the replication of the
traditional gender difference for forced-choice scenarios, but the traditional gender difference would not be replicated when examining adult populations and those who have experienced infidelity, particularly when using continuousscale scenarios instead of forced-choice. The present study addressed a gap in the literature by examining larger samples of both undergraduate and non-college age adult participants, with and without experience with actual infidelity, who responded to both continuous-scale and forced-choice hypothetical measures of distress over emotional and sexual jealousy. Based on the existing literature, the following hypotheses were proposed regarding the intersection of gender, experience with infidelity, and age on emotional and sexual jealousy in response to infidelity. We hypothesized that among individuals who had not experienced infidelity: (1) Using a hypothetical forced-choice scenario, male and female undergraduate and adult responses would replicate the expected gender difference (i.e., males would report that they would be more upset by sexual infidelity and women would report that they would be more upset by emotional infidelity); and (2) Using continuous-scale measures, both undergraduate and adult females would be more upset by hypothetical emotional infidelity than undergraduate and adult males would be. We also hypothesized that among individuals who had experienced infidelity: (3) All groups (college-age and adult, males and females) would report more distress in response to imagined sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity on forcedchoice scenarios; (4) All groups (college-age and adult, males and females) would report more distress in response to imagined sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity on continuous-scale scenarios; (5) For both adults and undergraduates, males would report higher levels of focus on imagined sexual infidelity than would females; and (6) Male and female undergraduate and adult responses to the forcedchoice question of whether the sexual or emotional aspect of actual infidelity distressed/upset them more would replicate the expected gender difference.
Method Participants The participants in this study included 294 heterosexual English-speaking undergraduate students at a four-year mid-Atlantic state university (age: M=18.48, SD=1.23; range: 1722 years) and 325 heterosexual non-college adults in the same large urban area (age: M=38.12, SD= 12.60; range: 2376 years). The final sample was comprised of 394 women and 225 men (See Table 1 for descriptive statistics).
858 Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study variables by sample and gender Variables Age College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Had Relationship Experience College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Experience with Infidelity College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Total N M Range SD Sex distress df (3, 616) 91 203 134 191 91 203 134 191 91 203 134 191 18.63 18.35 39.66 36.55 1722 1722 2276 2364 1.27 1.11 13.41 11.82 (3, 616) 87 92 100 97 (3, 616) 39 39 55 63
p .000***
2 =24.89
.000***
2 =28.56
.000***
Sex distress = Percent of forced-choice respondent more upset by sexual infidelity ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
Procedure The survey was anonymous and took approximately 10 min to complete. Half of the participants were randomly given questionnaires including the forcedchoice scenarios, and half were given questionnaires including the continuous-scale scenarios. The college-age sample was a convenience sample collected by giving questionnaire packets to students in introductory psychology classes at a mid-Atlantic university; these questionnaires were completed either in class or on participants own time and returned anonymously to the researcher or to a sealed box in the psychology department. The comparison convenience sample of non-college age adults was recruited by handing out 1,000 surveys (half including only forced-choice scenarios and half including only continuous-scale scenarios) between 7:00 and 8:30 am at two different subway stations in a major mid-Atlantic urban area, within 50 miles of the university where surveys were collected. Nearly 400 participants mailed questionnaire packets back to the first author in self-addressed stamped envelopes. Incomplete surveys and participants who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual were removed, resulting in a final sample of 294 college-age participants and 325 adult participants. Of the 294 college-age participants, 203 were female and 91 were male. Of the 325 adult participants, 191 were female and 134 were male.
Measures Demographic Information Participants provided minimal demographic information, reporting only age, biological gender, and sexual orientation. Participants were also asked to indicate if they had ever been involved in a romantic relationship. Romantic Jealousy: Forced-Choice Scenarios Half of the participants in each sample (undergraduate and adult) received Buss et al.s (1992) original two item Buss Infidelity Questionnaire. Using the same wording as Buss et al. (1992), the participant was asked to think of a serious committed romantic relationship that he or she has had in the past, currently had, or would like to have. The participant was then asked to imagine that this person has become interested in someone else and answer the question, what would distress or upset you more? The first item allowed one of two responses: (A) imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to that person, or (B) imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person (Buss et al. 1992, p. 252). In the second item, the participant was presented with the same scenario and asked to select if: (A) imagining your partner trying different sexual positions with that other person, or (B) imagining your partner falling in love with that other person, would be more upsetting.
859
Romantic Jealousy: Continuous-Scale Scenarios Half of the participants in each sample (undergraduate and adult) responded to the same two questions as above, but instead of a forced-choice scenario, participants responded using a 7-point likert-type scale indicating their degree of upset (1 = not at all upset to 7 = very upset) if their partner told them of this infidelity. As described above, the first item asked about their partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse and trying different sexual positions with that person and the second item asked about forming a deep emotional attachment, or falling in love with that person. Experience of Infidelity
(A) I focused more on the emotional aspects of my partners infidelity, or (B) I focused more on the sexual aspects of my partners infidelity. In addition, participants were asked, Which aspect of your partners infidelity distressed or upset you more? and responded either: (A) I was more distressed or upset by the emotional aspects of my partners infidelity, or (B) I was more distressed or upset by the sexual aspects of my partners infidelity. As with actual experience of infidelity, analysis of degree of upset versus focus was restricted to 109 males (36 college-age males and 73 adult males) and 199 females (79 college-age females and 120 adult females). All Ns are presented in Table 4.
Results A question was included from Harris (2002) to find out if participants had ever experienced infidelity. Using the same wording as Harris (2002), participants were asked, Have you ever had any experiences in which someone you were romantically involved with cheated on you? This question was included on both the continuous-scale and forced-choice surveys, after the initial set of forced-choice or continuousscale hypothetical scenarios. Consequently, all forced-choice and continuous-scale questions were administered in a hypothetical format, but in analysis, continuous-scale and forced-choice responses were grouped according to whether or not each participant reported actual experience with infidelity. Of the final sample, 60% of adults (55% of male adults and 63% of female adults) and 39% of undergraduates (39% of both undergraduate males and females) reported that they had experienced a partners infidelity (See Table 1). Thus, analysis of participants who reported previous experience of infidelity was restricted to 109 males (36 college-age males and 73 adult males) and 199 females (79 college-age females and 120 adult females). These numbers were further subdivided by type of survey received, forced-choice or continuous-scale. For example, of the 73 adult males who reported previous experience of infidelity, 33 completed the forced-choice questions and 40 completed the continuousscale questions. All Ns are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Upset Versus Focus Regarding Actual Infidelity A second group of questions suggested by Sagarin (2005) and Edlund et al. (2006) were answered only by individuals who reported that they had experienced infidelity. These questions were designed to see if participants were responding to the choice between sexual and emotional infidelity based on a differing understanding of the words upset or distressed versus which aspect was focused on more. Using the same wording as Sagarin (2005) participants were asked, Which aspect of your partners infidelity did you focus on more? and responded either: Demographic information indicated that males and females evidenced similar age ranges and means for undergraduate males and females as well as for adult males and females, with a significant difference between the two groups (see Table 1). Age was normally distributed for both sample groups; both skew and kurtosis fell within acceptable bounds (+/ 1.0). Differences existed in relationship experience such that more adults than undergraduates reported having been involved in a romantic relationship. Significant differences were also present for experience of actual infidelity; adult males and females reported higher levels of experienced infidelity than college-age males and females, with adult females reporting the highest rate of experience with infidelity at 63% (See Table 1 for descriptive statistics on all demographic variables). No Experience of Infidelity: Responses to Hypothetical Infidelity Scenarios Forced-Choice Hypothetical Scenarios Hypothesis 1 predicted that male and female undergraduates and adults who had never experienced infidelity would replicate the expected gender differences in response to the hypothetical forced-choice scenario. This hypothesis was fully supported for undergraduates and partially supported for adults. Chi-square analyses found that for scenario one, 48% of college-age males compared to 38% of adult males, 20% of college-age females, and 13% of adult females reported that the sexual infidelity would distress them more, 2(3, N=146)= 11.22, p=.011 (See Table 2). Main effects were also found such that college-age males were more distressed by sexual infidelity than were college-age females, 2(1, N= 86)=5.67, p=.017, and adult males were more distressed by sexual infidelity than were adult females, 2(1, N=60)= 5.40, p=.020. For scenario two, 38% of college-age males compared to 24% of adult males, 14% of college-age females,
860
Table 2 Participants who have not experienced infidelity: responses to hypothetical infidelity scenarios by sample and gender Variables Forced-choice Item 1 College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Forced-choice Item 2 College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Continuous-scale Sexual Distressa College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender Gender*Sample Interaction Continuous-scale Emotional Distressa College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender Gender*Sample Interaction Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress M SD df Test p
21 65 30 31
10 13 11 4
47.6 20.0 36.7 12.9 (1, 86) (1, 61) (3, 147) 2 =5.67 2 =5.40 2 =11.22 .017* .020* .011*
21 65 30 31
8 9 7 3
38.1 13.8 23.3 9.7 (1, 85) (1, 60) (3, 145) 2 =7.34 2 =1.57 2 =8.35 .007** .210 .039*
34 59 31 40
.68 .74 .90 .64 (1, 164) (1, 164) F=2.73 F=3.22 .100 .074
34 59 31 40
1.10 .80 .88 .60 (1, 164) (1, 164) F=12.99 F=.67 .000*** .411
and 10% of adult females reported that the sexual infidelity would distress them more, 2(3, N=145)=8.35, p=.039. A main effect was found such that college-age males were more distressed by sexual infidelity than were college-age females, 2(1, N=85)=7.34, p=.007, but no main effect for gender differences emerged in adults. Continuous-Scale Hypothetical Scenarios Hypothesis 2 predicted that on continuous-scale measures of hypothetical jealousy, both undergraduate and adult females would be more upset by emotional infidelity than males would be. Results of a multivariate ANOVA suggested that this hypothesis was fully supported. No gender differences
were found for either adults or undergraduates regarding sexual jealousy, and neither interaction term was significant for differences among sample and gender. However, a main effect for gender was found in which females reported greater levels of distress over emotional infidelity than did men F (1,164)=12.99, p=.000 (see Table 2). Experience of Infidelity: Responses to Hypothetical Infidelity Scenarios Forced-Choice Hypothetical Scenarios Hypothesis 3 predicted that among individuals who had experienced infidelity, all groups (college-age and adult,
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854866 Table 3 Participants who have experienced infidelity: responses to hypothetical infidelity scenarios by sample and gender Variables Forced-choice Item 1 College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Forced-choice Item 2 College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Continuous-scale Sexual Distressa College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender Gender*Sample Interaction Continuous-scale Emotional Distressa College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender Gender*Sample Interaction Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress M SD df Test p
861
20 40 33 66
9 8 9 8
45.0 20.0 27.3 12.1 (1, 60) (1, 99) (3, 159) 2 =6.37 2 =3.42 2 =12.28 .012* .064 .006**
20 40 33 66
9 3 13 5
45.0 7.5 39.4 7.6 (1, 60) (1, 90) (3, 159) 2 =11.72 2 =14.97 2 =26.88 .001*** .000*** .000***
16 39 40 54
.50 .55 .99 .67 (1, 149) (1,149) F=.31 F=1.47 .860 .228
16 39 40 54
.87 .96 1.08 .82 (1, 149) (1, 149) F=.36 F=.54 .551 .465
males and females) would report more distress in response to sexual infidelity on forced-choice scenarios. This hypothesis was not supported by chi-square analyses. For scenario one, 47% of college-age males compared to 27% of adult males, 17% of college-age females, and 12% of adult females reported that the sexual infidelity would distress them more, 2(3, N=159)=12.28, p=.006 (See Table 3). A main effect was found such that college-age males reported that they would have more distress in response to sexual infidelity compared to college-age females, 2(1, N=61)=6.37, p=.012, but no main effect for gender differences emerged in adults. For scenario two, 45% of college-age males compared to 39% of adult males, 8% of college-age females, and 18% of adult females
reported that the sexual infidelity would distress them more, 2(3, N=159)=26.88, p=.000. Main effects were also found such that college-age males were more distressed by sexual infidelity than were college-age females, 2(1, N= 61)=11.72, p=.001, and adult males were more distressed by sexual infidelity than were adult females, 2(1, N=98)= 14.97, p=.000. Continuous-Scale Hypothetical Scenarios Hypothesis 4 predicted that on continuous-scale measures, all groups (college-age and adult, males and females) would report more distress in response to sexual infidelity than in response to emotional infidelity. Results of a multivariate
862 Table 4 Participants who have experienced infidelity: responses to real infidelity by sample and gender Variables Forced-choice: Focused More College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Forced-choice: Distressed/Upset More College Males College Females Adult Males Adult Females Main Effect for Gender: College Main Effect for Gender: Adult Gender*Sample Interaction Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress df
Test
36 79 73 120
18 31 31 28
50.0 39.2 42.5 23.3 (1, 115) (1, 193) (3, 308) 2 =1.23 2 =7.56 2 =12.35 .237 .006** .006**
36 79 73 120
16 33 23 28
44.4 41.8 31.5 23.3 (1, 115) (1, 193) (3, 308) 2 =.30 2 =1.51 2 =9.65 .583 .219 .022*
Sex distress = Percent of forced-choice respondent more upset by sexual infidelity ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
ANOVA suggested that this hypothesis was fully supported (see Table 3). All sample groups reported greater distress in response to sexual infidelity. No gender differences were found for either adults or undergraduates regarding sexual or emotional jealousy, and neither interaction term was significant for differences among sample and gender. Responses to Real Infidelity The next sections focus on reactions to real infidelity as opposed to hypothetical infidelity, which was the focus of all previous analyses, after being questioned about past infidelity experience. Upset More Versus Focus More
In response to which aspect of actual infidelity distressed/upset them more, hypothesis 6 suggested that both male and female undergraduate and adult responses to the forced-choice question of whether the sexual or emotional aspect of actual infidelity distressed/upset them more would replicate the expected gender difference. This hypothesis was not supported. While an interaction between gender and age group was identified such that 46% of college-age males compared to 32% of adult males, 41% of college-age females, and 23% of adult females reported that they were more distressed or upset by the sexual aspect of the experienced infidelity, 2(3, N=302)=9.65, p=.022, no main effects were found for gender differences either in adults or undergraduates (See Table 4).
Discussion Hypothesis 5, which stated that both adult and undergraduate males who had experienced infidelity would report higher levels of focus on sexual infidelity than would females, was partially supported. An interaction was found such that 50% of college-age males compared to 44% of adult males, 39% of college-age females, and 24% of adult females reported that they focused more on the sexual aspect of the experienced infidelity, 2(3, N=302)=12.35, p=.006 (See Table 4). Adult males reported focusing more on sexual infidelity than adult women, 2(1, N=187)=7.56, p=.006, but no difference was found for college-age males and females. The present research makes several important contributions to the burgeoning literature on gender differences in hypothetical jealousy, suggesting ways in which experience of infidelity, age of the respondent, and biological gender may influence participants report of romantic jealousy in response to hypothetical sexual or emotional infidelity. First, the current work replicated Buss et al.s (1992) results very closely, adding to a considerable body of literature finding gender differences in sexual and emotional jealousy when using hypothetical, forced-choice scenarios; the data were especially strong in regards to forced-choice scenarios
863
with college-age participants. However, the results of the present study obtained by using the alternative method of continuous-scale measures and by examining both collegeage and adult populations do not fit well with Buss et al.s (1992) theory suggesting that the parental investment model can explain proposed gender differences in human jealousy. Results for those participants who reported experience with infidelity demonstrated little support for the traditional evolutionary model, as there were no gender differences in which aspect of hypothetical infidelity was more distressing, and no gender difference 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 questions about jealousy as a proxy for real reactions to actual infidelity. Additional inconsistencies emerged when examining the breadth of forced-choice and continuousscale responses across populations that have and have not had experience with infidelity. For participants who had no experience with infidelity, a strong interaction effect emerged for forced-choice questions, along with consistent gender differences for college students and inconsistent gender differences for adults. A gender difference also emerged for continuous-scale questions, but only as a main effect for hypothetical emotional infidelity. In contrast, when participants who reported actual experience with infidelity responded to these same hypothetical measures, continuous-scale hypothetical questions revealed no gender differences at all. For forced-choice questions among participants who reported experience of infidelity, the expected gender difference was replicated among collegeage males and females, but among adult males and females, there was no gender difference found in one of the two forced-choice hypothetical scenarios. These results 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. Across scenarios, younger males were the group that reported the least experience with relationships and infidelity, while simultaneously demonstrating the most consistent pattern of greater distress over hypothetical sexual infidelity. In contrast, older males reported more actual experience with relationships and infidelity. These results reflect the conclusions of two previous metaanalyses, providing support for the suggestion that younger individuals predict that they will be more upset by hypothetical sexual infidelity (Harris 2003b; Hofhansl et al. 2004). Thus, while previous research has suggested that relationship experience activates sexual jealousy in men (Becker et al. 2004; Buss et al. 1992; Murphy et al. 2006;
Sagarin et al. 2003), the actual experience of infidelity did not appear to activate hypothetical sexual jealousy in adult men in the present study. This change across time and experience may interact with a separate pattern for women. All data indicating a gender difference across hypothetical forced-choice and continuous-scale scenarios for participants who had not experienced infidelity suggested that women were more upset by emotional infidelity than men were. However, for participants in the current study who had experienced infidelity, no gender difference emerged for distress over hypothetical emotional infidelity when continuous-scale data were examined. Perhaps for women, the idea of emotional infidelity may be more upsetting than hypothetical sexual infidelity before they have actually experienced infidelity, but once that experience occurs, they are equally as distressed as men by both scenarios. Further, based on differing patterns of results among college-age and older adult samples, these results support the assertion that the overwhelming use of college-age student samples may have skewed the current research literature toward demonstrating more of a gender difference than exists in the general population. Some might argue that the college-age or adolescent group is the best indicator of the true nature of men and women in regards to jealousy because they are in their prime child-bearing years; women in particular are most fertile during what are now the high school and college years. However, two points bear notice regarding college-age groups. First, women in modern western industrialized societies experience first birth nearly 10 years later than women in preindustrial environments and possibly in ancestral environments as well (Mathews and Hamilton 2002). Paired with the hook-up culture of college campuses and the phenomenon of extended adolescence, cultural norms may be a factor in that the combination of delayed adulthood and the salience of sex for men and emotion for women may contribute to an agebased gender difference in Western countries (Green and Sabini 2006). The frequency of short-term relationships and relative inexperience with infidelity may lead to men expressing more distress over sexual infidelity than do women in college-age samples, but in the larger framework, it is evident that both men and women seek both intimacy and sexual relations (Garcia and Reiber 2008). It would be theoretically valuable to replicate this study in developing countries where 18-year-olds function as adult, procreating members of the community and are exposed to different cultural norms. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study It should be acknowledged that there are limits to the generalizability of this study. The sample was not completely random, as the adult sample was recruited during
864
morning rush hour in a business district of a major metropolitan area. As a result, the men and women in the adult population who responded to the survey were likely to be in a higher income bracket and steadily employed, which may have unanticipated effects on the data. However, at the same time, this study extended the sample beyond the typical undergraduate students and created a direct comparison to an adult sample. In addition, the hypothetical, forced-choice results are in accordance with a number of studies from countries including Australia (Ward and Voracek 2004, college-age), Spain (Fernandez et al. 2007, college-age), Brazil (de Souza et al. 2006), and Germany (Penke and Asendorpf 2008). The limitations of the forcedchoice methodology may also be generalized to other countries, as studies in Germany, the Netherlands, China, Japan and Austria found that between 60% and 82% of men chose emotional infidelity as most upsetting (Buss et al. 1999; Buunk et al. 1996; Geary et al. 2001; Voracek 2001). Second, the adult sample was limited to individuals motivated enough to complete the survey and return it in the mail; while a return rate of 40% is fairly high, participants who did respond may differ in important ways from those participants who did not respond. For example, it is possible that a bias exists in using data only from highly motivated individuals with a certain degree of literacy. This study also did not collect data on marital status, though it is quite likely that reactions to sexual or emotional infidelity could be different in the context of a marital relationship. Future research should collect such data so as to determine whether married individuals are more upset by infidelity in general than non-married individuals and if one aspect of infidelity is more upsetting than the other. One additional concern with the set-up of the questionnaire is that participants completed the hypothetical scenarios, responded to a question regarding their experience of infidelity, then answered two additional questions about what was more distressing about the infidelity and what aspect they focused on more. In response to this question order, some participants might have changed one set of answers to correspond with the other. Future research should focus on first priming individuals with a memory of infidelity and then asking questions about degree of distress over different aspects of that actual infidelity. Another limitation may lie in the design of the continuous-scale data. Similar to previous studies, the vast majority of respondents scored degree of distress over both emotional and sexual infidelity as a six or a seven on a 7point scale, which may suggest that respondents cannot differentiate effectively between their degree of upset over emotional and sexual infidelity. Edlund et al. (2006) suggest that failures to find gender differences with continuous rating scales may be attributable to a ceiling effect in the data. However, DeSteno et al. (2002) have previously
utilized a number of different methods as well as a latent variable approach to suggest that the ceiling effect on this scale does not obscure any reliable differences between men and women. Conclusion In summary, the present research offers a small but notable contribution to our understanding of male and female jealousy and the relevance of sample characteristics such as age and actual experience of infidelity in this context. The parental investment model suggests that an innate biological mechanism has led to a gender difference whereby men feel greater distress over sexual infidelity and women feel greater distress over emotional infidelity. The present study can be seen as additional evidence that the standard hypothetical forced-choice scenario consistently supports the traditional evolutionary model. Yet, the results produced from data driven by actual experience of infidelity, especially from continuous-scale data and particularly in regard to sexual infidelity, are inconsistent with this type of an evolutionary model. If this gender difference could be attributed to an innate biological mechanism, research should show a clear gender difference in a majority of males and females, regardless of experience with infidelity or age; such has not been the case. Consequently, in conjunction with Levy and Kelly (2010), a case can be made that sexual jealousy may covary with biological gender but is not specifically or exclusively driven by it, possibly for reasons at least partially attributable to age and experience with infidelity. The present study adds to evidence for a gender difference in emotional jealousy for individuals who have not experienced infidelity (Becker et al. 2004; Penke and Asendorpf 2008). Further, results particularly support previous research indicating that infidelity experience may alter or erase gender differences in sexual and emotional jealousy (Berman and Frazier 2005; Harris 2002, 2003a). As emotional and sexual jealousy demonstrate different patterns across individual factors such as age, relationship experience, and experience with infidelity, future research should examine these two perspectives together, while continuing to build on the literature differentiating between hypothetical and real infidelity scenarios. It is likely that additional social and ecological factors play a role in reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity; perhaps parental experience of infidelity, parental divorce, current relationship status, or an individuals view of the opposite gender might help explain aspects of this complex construct. For example, recent research has found that the relationship between sexual and emotional jealousy and biological gender is moderated by attachment style (Levy and Kelly 2010), chronic levels of jealousy (Miller and
865 Eisenman, R., & Dantzker, M. L. (2006). Gender and ethnic differences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university. The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 153162. doi:10.3200/ GENP.133.2.153-162. Fernandez, A. M., Vera-Villarroel, P., Sierra, J. C., & Zubeidat, I. (2007). Distress in response to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evidence of evolved gender differences in Spanish students. The Journal of Psychology, 14, 1724. doi:10.3200/JRLP.141.1.17-24. Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192208. Retrieved from http://www. jsecjournal.com/articles/volume2/issue4/NEEPSgarciareiber.pdf. Geary, D. C., DeSoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., & Cooper, M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy. Human Nature, 12, 299320. doi:10.1007/s12110-001-1001-2. Green, M. C., & Sabini, J. (2006). Gender, socioeconomic status, age and jealousy: Emotional responses to infidelity in a national sample. Emotion, 6, 330334. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.330. Grice, J. W., & Seely, E. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 348356. doi:10.1006/ jrpe.2000.2284. Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082 1091. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1082. Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 712. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00402. Harris, C. R. (2003a). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319329. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00112. Harris, C. R. (2003b). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102128. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128. Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psychological Science, 7, 364366. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1996.tb00390.x. Hofhansl, A., Voracek, M., & Vitouch, O. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytical reconsideration. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Berlin, Germany. Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social construction? Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 2459. doi:10.1177/106939719603000102. Kimeldorf, M. B. (2009). Reactions to infidelity: Individual, gender, and situational predictors of relationship outcome and forgiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 69(7-B), 4427. Levy, K. N., & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21, 166173. doi:10.1177/0956797609357708. Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual strategies and sexual jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96, 29 35. doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.29-35. Mathews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2002). Mean age of mother, 1970 2000. National vital statistics reports, 51. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf. Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Sex differences in response to sexual versus emotional infidelity: The role of individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 287291. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.013.
Maner 2009), and education (Penke and Asendorpf 2008). The results of the present study suggest that an examination of how and why jealousy changes across the lifespan may add to our understanding of the factors that determine experience of romantic jealousy.
References
Becker, D. V., Sagarin, B. J., Guadagno, R. E., Millevoi, A., & Nicastle, L. D. (2004). When the sexes need not differ: Emotional responses to the sexual and emotional aspects of infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 529538. doi:10.1111/ j.1475-6811.2004.00096.x. Berman, M. I., & Frazier, P. A. (2005). Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 16171627. doi:10.1177/0146167205277209. Brase, G. L., Caprar, D. V., & Voracek, M. (2004). Sex differences in responses to relationship threats in England and Romania. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 21, 763764. doi:10.1177/0265407504047836. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251255. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1992.tb00038.x. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Not gone, not forgotten, and not explained by alternative hypotheses. Psychological Science, 7, 373375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00392.x. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 121150. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x. Buunk, B., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359363. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1996.tb00389.x. Dantzker, M. L., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Sexual attitudes among Hispanic students at a border university: Gender differences and failure to support Busss jealousy theory. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 26, 7180. de Souza, A. A. L., Verderane, M. P., Taira, J. T., & Otta, E. (2006). Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample. Psychological Reports, 98, 529535. doi:10.2466/PR0.98.2.529-535. DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the fitness of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367372. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1996.tb00391.x. DeSteno, D. A., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 11031116. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1103. Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 462470. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04462470.pdf.
866 Murphy, M. M., Vallacher, R. R., Shackelford, T. K., Bjorklund, D. F., & Yunger, J. L. (2006). Relationship experience as a predictor of romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 761769. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.004. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex differences in emotional but not in sexual jealousy at the automatic level of cognitive processing. European Journal of Personality, 22, 330. doi:10.1002/per.654. Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 8394. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00078-2. Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 13751388. doi:10.1177/01461672 04264012. Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 6275. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5. Sagarin, B. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2004). Sex differences in the context of extreme jealousy. Personal Relationships, 11, 319 328. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00085.x. Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 1723. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00106-X. Schutzwohl, A. (2007). Decision strategies in continuous ratings of jealousy feelings elicited by sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 815828. Retrieved from http:// www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep05815828.pdf.
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854866 Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partners infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 299307. doi:10.1080/ 02699930143000202. Sheets, V. L., & Wolfe, M. D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals, lesbians, and gays. Sex Roles, 44, 255276. doi:10.1023/ A:1010996631863. Takahashi, H., Matsuura, M., Yahata, N., Koeda, M., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2006). Men and women show distinct brain activations during imagery of sexual and emotional infidelity. NeuroImage, 32, 12991307. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.049. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871 1971 (pp. 136179). Chicago: Aldine. Voracek, M. (2001). Marital status as a candidate moderator variable of male-female differences in sexual jealousy: The need for representative population samples. Psychological Reports, 88, 553566. doi:10.2466/PR0.88.2.553-566. Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 3750. doi:10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.1.3. Ward, J., & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 165171. doi:10.1080/ 00049530412331283381. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115140. doi:10.1016/01623095(93)90011-6. Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy: Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 121128. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00046-4.