Facets of Jealousy

FACETS
OF JEALOUSY 1

The Facets of Jealousy: An Analysis of the Different Explanations of “Sex Differences” in
Romantic Jealousy

FACETS OF JEALOUSY 2

Abstract

Jealousy is an emotive reaction that is triggered when there is a perceived risk of losing one’s
companion to another person. It is an important area of study because if prevented, or better
understood, there may be less domestic violence that lead to homicide. Jealousy, many say, is
the result of evolution; and that the sexes differ in their triggering points due to differing
adaptive evolutionary needs. However, this explanation on sex differences that occur in
relation to romantic jealousy remains uncertain as sociocultural and attachment theorists
have raised many doubts regarding the rationalization of such triggers. This essay will
critique the various explanations of sex differences: evolution perspective, socio-‐cultural
perspective, attachment personalities, and the belief theory. Research evidence indicates that
sex difference in jealousy is robust even in the face of different cultures and methodology
applied, but attributing all of these difference to evolution is simply too narrow. It will be
argued that surely there is more to romantic jealousy than evolution alone.


The Facets of Jealousy: An Analysis of the Different Explanations of “Sex Differences” in
Romantic Jealousy

Jealousy has been, and still is, an intrinsic part of human nature and emotion. As much
as humans were known to emote, to love, and to feel sorrow, they have also been known to be
jealous creatures. This emotion occurred as early as 4000 BC, in a story from the Hebrew
bible, which involved two brothers, Cain and Abel, of which ended in homicide as a result of
jealousy. A biblical debate on the truth of this incident is not relevant here; what is significant
is the enduring existence of this potentially vicious emotion in the minds of humans
throughout history. Not much has changed since Cain and Abel, as we still see many instances
of homicide triggered by jealousy. For example, according to Daly and Wilson’s (1988) study
(as cited in Buss et al., 1999; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), amongst the other
risk factors women face with regard to spousal abuse and homicide, men’s sexual jealousy
rates are significant as well. More recently, an article by Guedel (2009) noted that domestic
violence is not in a decline. Therefore, developing a deeper understanding of the factors that
influence such a reaction, along with the psychology behind it, is pertinent, as it could
significantly contribute to the reduction of social problems stemming from jealousy (Buss et
al., 1999).
Harris (2003) defined jealousy as an emotional reaction towards a competitor who, in
the process of vying for one’s mate’s attention, threatens the stability of the relationship. Main
debates surrounding romantic jealousy revolve around two types of infidelity – sexual and
emotional. It is important to note that both forms of infidelity does cause distress to both
sexes (Buss et al., 1999) and that jealousy is not as single faceted as other emotions such as
anger or disgust (Cartwright, 2008, as cited in Mellgren, Hromatko, McArthur, & A. Mann,
2009). Due to its complex nature, many researches have been done to understand jealousy; of
which almost all of them found a significant sex difference in jealousy triggers. The main
debate, however, does not lie in the existence of a sex difference in romantic jealousy, but lies

in the explanation of the sex differences observed. In this discussion, the focus would be on
the ‘evolved sex difference’ explanation, as it seems to be one of the stronger standing
explanations. Other explanations such as the ‘socio-‐cultural’ explanation and other smaller
theories like the belief and attachment theory will also be brought into comparison to derive a
more holistic understanding of the sex difference observed in romantic jealousy.
The evolutionary perspective centers on the parental-‐investment model (Mellgren et
al., 2009) where the failure to prevent infidelity would cause the victimized partner to be very
disadvantaged. The explanation is that since humans are a species where biparental care is
essential in achieving effective reproduction (Buss et al., 1992), and since fertilization occurs
within the women, men have no guaranteed assurance that the offspring is theirs; this is
especially agonizing if a man’s life-‐partner is sexually unfaithful, as he may end up raising
another men’s progeny (Buss et al., 1999). According to evolutionary psychologists, men are
therefore more inclined to feel a strong, evolved, emotional repulsion towards the idea of
sexual infidelity as compared to women; women on the other hand, tend to be more
concerned about emotional infidelity, that is the threat of losing the attention and resource
that her partner is investing in the relationship, because both mother and offspring are
genetically dependent on the men for survival (Pines & Friedman, 1998).
Interestingly, a study done by Mellgren et al. (2009), involving 2 groups of students of
a fairly equal mix of males and females: one group from the University of Texas at Arlington
and the other from the University of Zagreb in Croatia; suggested that when tested against
homosexual infidelity types, results remained supportive of the evolved sex difference
explanation. This study employed the forced choice method in the form of a questionnaire and
students were asked to circle different emotions related to a certain scenarios of, heterosexual
or homosexual, emotional or sexual, infidelity type. This is significant because it showed that a
majority of males displayed stronger and more aggressive emotional reactions towards
heterosexual sexual infidelity compared to the homosexual one. Females, however, remain

threatened in both heterosexual and homosexual infidelity instances. Therefore, in
conjunction with the theory of parental-‐investment, males are less threatened, evolutionarily,
when impregnation is impossible; for females, any form of non-‐commitment is threatening.
This explanation may sound full proof at this point but there are other studies, and
even within Mellgren’s et al. (2009) study, which indicate that jealousy is indeed multi-‐
faceted; and perhaps, the explanation that sex difference is evolved is not complete on its
own. For example, in the research done by Mellgren et al. (2009), Croatian males showed an
almost equal split between sexual and emotional infidelity in both heterosexual and
homosexual instances. This can be contrasted with the US males who were more distressed by
the heterosexual sexual infidelity scenarios. Culturally, there may be differences which
evolution cannot explain. Moreover, females appeared more upset when their mates engaged
in homosexual activities. This also indicates that there is more than just being distressed by
the loss of one’s mate commitment that females are concerned about; as the emotional
weighting of homosexual infidelity seem to be higher in females. Lastly, if evolutionary
psychologists are correct in saying that jealousy is an evolved emotional reaction arising from
the need to guard against threats to a romantic relationship (Groothof, Dijkstra & Barelds,
2009), then a forced choice testing method coupled with a hypothesized scenario where
infidelity has already occurred, would be an inaccurate test for jealousy (Sagarin, 2005; see
also Mellgren et al., 2009). Therefore, due to the multi-‐faceted nature of jealousy, the reliance
on one explanation that has contradictory methodology at this point would not suffice.
Another explanation for the sex difference occurring in jealousy with regards to
different infidelity types is the socio-‐cultural explanation. This explanation focuses more on
the environmental interaction – i.e. the influence of culture on the individual, knowledge that
the individual is exposed to, the impact that awareness has on one’s beliefs, etc. This is
supported by the fact that despite being supporters of the evolved explanation, according to
Buss et al. (1992), in cultures where there is more emphasis on biparental commitment

towards raising children, males and females are hypothesized to record higher sensitivity
towards jealousy triggers. In other words, there is an acknowledgement that jealousy is not
based on an exclusive evolutionary need to protect the pair bond from potential reproductive
inefficiency, but the individual’s surroundings and value-‐system (i.e. culture) play a role in
influencing jealousy as well. Jealousy can be said to be so multifaceted that it does not fall
within the category of ‘basic emotions’ per se; instead, it is a myriad of unsettled emotions
mirroring the social forces underlying a particular situation (The Corsini Encyclopedia of
Psychology, 2009). Even though the advocators of the social-‐cognitive perspective have not
come up with a unifying theory, the one thing that they strongly support is the idea that the
individual’s innate mental construction deserves full evaluation as it is essential to
understand jealousy along with other issues that might be involved (i.e. sexual and emotional
betrayal is too narrow a scope to explore jealousy in) (Harris, 2003). Therefore, looking at the
influences of modern society and culture is important in gathering a fuller picture of jealousy
drives.
It is inevitable that an individual living in a society be influenced by the culture and
beliefs that surround him. It is also acknowledged that individuals are able to form beliefs on
their own. This brings to light the belief hypothesis in the explanation of jealousy. Also known
as the “Double-‐shot Hypothesis”, this explanation brings out a possibility that the individual
may not necessarily be unhappy or jealous over that specific type of infidelity; but rather, the
individual chooses one infidelity over the other as more distressing because of the belief that
this particular infidelity would happen with the other (Buss et al., 1999). If the society has
nothing against extramarital affairs, then the individuals within this society are more likely to
take emotional infidelity more seriously than sexual infidelity – this is also because if
emotional infidelity takes place, sexual infidelity is likely to occur as well. Even though the
researches studied explicitly told their participants that the infidelities occur exclusively of
each other, the belief hypothesis proposes that individuals may not be able to get rid of their

belief in the mutuality of the two infidelity types. Although Buss et al. (1999) thinks that it is
widespread knowledge that these infidelity types can clearly happen exclusively thereby
minimizing the influence of the belief hypothesis; it must be considered however, that
knowledge and practice are completely different. People may know it can occur exclusively,
but many may still feel that they come together.
Beliefs and societal influences start the moment an infant comes to life. The
connections made with other humans at this tender age influences the child’s characteristics
and development into adulthood. The attachment theory places emphasis on a child’s
development of relationship schemas through interactions with their caregivers. These ideas
and beliefs about relationships then shape the way the individual accepts and view romantic
relationships (Levy & Kelly, 2009). In Levy and Kelly’s (2009) study involving Psychology
undergraduate students from New York, they found, through a short questionnaire, that more
men than women have the avoidant attachment style causing them to be dismissing and
insecure. According to their analysis, they explained that this adult attachment style
contributed to the sex differences within and between the sexes. For example, men may reject
intimacy simply because they were brought up to not need that kind of comfort. This has its
connections with the socio-‐cultural explanation too, although it is an evolution-‐based theory
(Levy & Kelly, 2009); as societies tend to dictate for children at a very young age what they
should or should not be feeling according to their sex. For example, a very young boy may be
reprimanded for wanting to seek comfort when he gets hurt – he may be told to ‘be a man’
and just face up to his unhappiness. Past experiences do contribute to a person’s perception of
the world and how he should react in a social situation (Levy & Kelly). This may cause adults
later on to think that one form of jealousy may be more socially appropriate than another
causing results to be altered to suit the ‘socially accepted’ trend (Mellgren et al., 2009).
Self-‐worth may be worth exploring as well since it is quite clear that along with
different attachment styles, self-‐worth measures are altered. In some cases, there is a

proposal that jealousy is a ‘Self-‐Evaluation Maintenance’ (SEM) process (Tesser, 1988, as cited
in DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). It is the idea that certain individuals are more threatening than
others resulting in varying degrees of jealousy. The SEM process also indicated that women
were more likely than men to place their self-‐worth in their mate and if the relationship fails,
they take it very personally and genuinely feel like they failed as a person (DeSteno & Salovey,
1996). This may be linked to the attachment theory, as females tend to develop their feminine
personalities by attaching themselves to their mother and so carry on developing their
personality by attaching themselves to their partner. Therefore, with so many possibilities,
many more factors need to be taken into consideration in analyzing jealousy.
Given that there are so many more areas to explore, the evolved sex difference
explanation is clearly not complete on its own. In analyzing attitudes towards sexual and
emotional infidelity brought about by social pressures and the deviations between cultures
with regard to emotive expression (Mellgren et al., 2009), psychologists would be more
equipped to help people deal with jealousy stimulating situations. There are many reasons
why sex difference would occur and one very obvious reason is because men and women are
simply different altogether (Edlund & Sagarin, 2009). In Edlund and Sagarin’s (2009) study,
they found that in fact, that some things upset both men and women, and at the same time sex
difference remained apparent in many other aspects; thus they feel that in terms of totality,
the evolution perspective is inadequate so far.
In conclusion, it may be true that there are evolved sex differences in romantic
jealousy as proven by many studies. The fact remains that just as men and women differ in
physical attributes, their inner working models are very different as well; therefore jealousy
should not be an exception. However, due to the multifaceted nature of jealousy, other factors
like culture and society, attachment styles and beliefs, or even measurements of self-‐worth
needs to be taken into consideration. More tests and maybe a change in methodology to
encompass more external factors might help in the analysis of this intriguing phenomenon.

References

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251-‐255. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-‐9280.1992.tb00038.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(1), 125-‐150. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-‐6811.1999.tb00215.x

DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Jealousy and the characteristics of one’s rival: A self-‐
evaluation maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(9),
920-‐932. doi: 10.1177/0146167296229006

Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: Misinterpretation of
nonsignificant results as refuting the theory. Personal Relationships, 16(1), 67-‐78. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-‐6811.2009.01210.x

Groothof, H. A. K., Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: The case
of internet infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(8), 1119-‐1129.
doi: 10.1177/0265407509348003

Guedel, G. (2009, May 11). Homicide now a top-‐10 cause of death for native American women:
Native American legal update [Corporate newsletter-‐blog]. Retrieved from
http://www.nativelegalupdate.com/2009/05/articles/homicide-‐now-‐a-‐top10-‐cause-‐
of-‐death-‐for-‐native-‐american-‐women/

Harris, C. R. (2003). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An
examination of the social-‐cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319-‐329. doi: 10.1111/1471-‐6402.00112

Levy, K. N., Kelly, K. M. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from attachment
theory. Psychological Science, 21(2), 168-‐173. doi: 10.1177/0956797609357708

Mellgren, R. L., Hromatko, I., McArthur, D., & Mann, M. A. (2009). A test of the evolutionary
explanation of jealousy in the United States and Croatia. Drustvena istrazivanja: Journal
for General Social Issues, 19(6), 915-‐931. Retrieved from
http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=93822&lang=en

Pines, A. M., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 138(1), 54-‐71. doi: 10.1080/00224549809600353

Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: Comment on Harris
(2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 62-‐75. doi:
10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5

Weiner, I. B., & Craighead, W. E. (Eds.). (2009). The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Canada:
John Wiley & Sons.

Facets of Jealousy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facets of Jealousy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACETS

but many may still feel that they come together.

the evolution perspective is inadequate so far.

You might also like