Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Culture and gender differences in romantic jealousy

Danielle L. Zandbergen , Susan G. Brown
University of Hawaii at Hilo, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 19 June 2014
Received in revised form 25 August 2014
Accepted 26 August 2014
Available online 19 September 2014
Keywords:
Jealousy
Cultural differences
Gender differences
Indelity
Social media
Relationships
Personality
Self-esteem

a b s t r a c t
Jealousy is an intense emotion that is experienced in the context of romantic relationships. Previous
research reported gender differences in ratings of jealousy over a sexual versus emotional indelity. This
study explored culture and gender differences in jealousy using a mixed methods survey design. One
hundred and forty-ve undergraduates from the University of Hawaii at Hilo participated. The
Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale, Self-Report Jealousy Scale, and a modied
Emotional and Sexual Jealousy Scale were used for analyses. Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that gender was a better predictor than culture in jealousy ratings involving an emotional
indelity; but culture was a better predictor for jealousy ratings involving a sexual indelity. t-Tests also
revealed that those who experienced an indelity in the past reported signicantly higher jealousy
ratings and that women reported signicantly higher jealousy ratings in emotional but not in sexual indelity than men. The qualitative results revealed four dominant themes related to participants causal
attributions of jealousy: Indelity, Expectations of Time and Commitment, Social Media and Self-Esteem.
The authors suggest that future research focus on intersexual and intrasexual differences in jealousy, as
well the role social media may play in relationship expectations.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The expression of jealousy is related to feelings of depression,
anxiety and anger, and a signicant loss of self-esteem. Jealousy
results in a wide variety of behaviors including destruction of
romantic relationships, violence, suicide, murder, marital
problems, and depression (Pines & Aronson, 1983). Explanations
of jealousy have focused on evolutionary theory, personality traits,
and relationship history. Cross-cultural studies exploring gender
differences in emotional and sexual indelities have been consistent with the evolutionary explanation of jealousy; however, the
extent to which individuals feel distress when made aware of sexual and emotional indelities varies across cultures. Moreover,
because gender equality and same-sex marriage is becoming more
ubiquitous within modern day society, the question remains
whether gender differences in reactivity toward emotional versus
sexual indelity are still reliable.
While research emphasized cultural differences in attribution of
human emotions, there has not been an exploration of potential
differences in how a culturally diverse set of individuals attribute

Address: P.O. Box 11512, Hilo, HI, United States. Tel.: +1 (808) 329 6418
(D.L. Zandbergen).
E-mail addresses: dzandber@hawaii.edu (D.L. Zandbergen), susanb@hawaii.edu
(S.G. Brown).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.035
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

their feelings of jealousy. The purpose of the current study is to

explore the attributions of jealousy in a multi-cultural population
where there is potential to develop a more representative
paradigm through the interaction between gender and culture.

1.1. Jealousy coping strategies and evolutionary theory

According to Parrot and Smith (1993), jealousy occurs specically in the context of personal relationships, where the individual
fears losing a relationship due to a potential rival. Similarly,
Spielman (1971) dened jealousy as an attitude of vigilant guarding against the threatened loss and an effort to preserve the status
quo, to maintain possession (p. 62). In this particular denition, it
is assumed that jealousy is used as a protective mechanism, where
the individual is vigilant in guarding her or his threatened loss of
relationship.
The way in which an individual experiences jealousy is assumed
to be fairly stable throughout an individuals lifetime and can be
identied as a specic personality trait (Pines & Aronson, 1983).
One study found that people whose partners were unfaithful in
the past reported being more jealous than their counterparts, while
at the same time individuals who reported being unfaithful to their
partner also reported being more jealous (Pines & Aronson, 1983).
This suggests that unfaithful individuals may express jealousy just
as often as their partners. While jealousy may manifest in many

123

D.L. Zandbergen, S.G. Brown / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127

different forms across an individuals lifetime, the feeling of jealousy in a romantic relationship can be viewed as a complex mechanism. To encompass the many manifestations of jealousy, the
present study used White and Mullens (1989) denition of jealousy as a complex of behaviors, thoughts and emotions resulting
from the perception of harm or threat to the self and/or the romantic relationship by a real or potential rival relationship (p. 56).
Different jealousy mechanisms are activated in men and
women determined by the types of cues associated with abandonment or cuckoldry (Buss, 2008; Confer & Cloud, 2011). Sexual jealousy in men is a possible psychological adaptation selected to
contend with the latent costs of being cuckolded (Buss, 2008)
whereas women typically report more distress when confronted
with an emotional indelity. Therefore, womens expressions of
jealousy tend to focus specically on cues about the males longterm investment (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992).
These gender differences are described as adapted patterns of protective behavior within romantic relationships.
Initial research validated the inference of evolved mechanisms
that are specic to the sex linked adaptive patterns in jealousy.
Subsequent studies found that the sexual dimorphism in
emotional reactivity to jealousy was not confounded by cultural
differences (Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996). In addition
to psychological distress, past research has also provided evidence
for gender differences by examining sexual versus emotional
determinants of jealousy (Buss et al., 1999; Buunk et al., 1996;
Strout, Laird, Shafer, & Thompson, 2005), through the likelihood
of terminating relationships after an indelity (Shackelford, Buss,
& Bennett, 2002), memory recall (Schutzwohl & Koch, 2004), cognitive preoccupations in response to sexual and emotional cues
(Schutzwohl, 2006), and different patterns of brain activation during fMRI imagery of either a sexual or emotional indelity
(Takahashi et al., 2006). However, there are many studies that have
found conicting results regarding specic gender differences in
ratings of distress when approached with a sexual versus emotional indelity scenario (Sagarin et al., 2012). For instance,
Zengel, Edlund, and Sagarin (2013) found that signicant gender
differences only emerged when a forced choice measure was used,
and that continuous measures did not produce signicant gender
differences.
The majority of studies exploring differences in romantic jealousy and differences in the expression of jealousy have tested
mostly European and Asian respondents (Buunk et al., 1996). There
have also been inconsistent ndings when using continuous measures for the gender difference in emotional versus sexual jealousy
(Edlund & Sagarin, 2009; Zengel et al., 2013). Taking the past
literature into consideration, the current study explored causal
attributions of romantic jealousy and hypothesized that gender
would be a better predictor than culture in ratings of jealousy
toward an emotional or sexual indelity. The present study also
goes beyond previous research in that it utilized a qualitative measure exploring causal attributions and perceptions of jealousy in
romantic relationships through a cross-cultural sample.
2. Methods

pants varied in ethnicity, with most self-identifying as multi-ethnic which is congruent with the overall population residing in
Hawaii. Mixed ethnicities and cultures included Pacic Islanders,
Filipinos, Hawaiians, Japanese, Koreans, African Americans, Chinese, Native Alaskans, Americans and Europeans. The relationship
status of the participants varied with 46.2% reporting being single,
25.5% dating, 22.8% in long-term relationships, 4.8% married, and
.7% separated. Ninety percent identied as heterosexual, 7.6%
reported as bisexual, 1.4% lesbian, and .7% gay. Eighty-eight percent of women identied as heterosexual, 10% reported bisexual
and 2% lesbian. Ninety-six percent of men identied as heterosexual, 2% reported bisexual and 2% gay. Participants were also asked
whether or not they, or their partners, had engaged in a sexual
activity with someone other than their partner, in a current or past
relationship. Twenty-one percent reported having engaged in sexual activity with someone other than their partner, 24.8% reported
that their partner engaged in a sexual activity with someone other
than them, and 17.2% did not know if their partner engaged in sexual relations with others.
2.2. Procedure
Participants were notied about the research study by the
Human Subjects Pool website provided by the University of
Hawaii at Hilo psychology department. Each participant scheduled
individual appointments to complete the survey in private. After
discussing and obtaining the signed informed consent, the participants typically nished the survey in less than 30 minutes.
2.3. Measures
The survey asked participants about their gender, ethnicity, age,
relationship status, and sexual orientation. The participants were
also asked two questions related to their involvement in a romantic relationship: whether or not they had ever been sexually
involved with someone other than their partner, and whether or
not their partner had ever been sexually involved with someone
other than them. The participants were then asked to provide a
brief description of a jealousy-evoking event and what they
thought caused their feeling of jealousy. These descriptions are discussed in the qualitative results section. Table 1 displays the
descriptive statistics. A modied version of Busss original Emotional and Sexual Jealousy Scale (Buss et al., 1992) was used for
analysis. Busss original scale only analyzes the difference in distress toward a sexual and emotional indelity, as opposed to the
feeling of jealousy. Due to the methodological issues involved with
a forced-choice formatted question (Zengel et al., 2013), two questions asked the participants to respond on a Likert scale with 1
for Not at all Jealous, up to 9 for Extremely Jealous, for imagining their partner forming a deep emotional attachment to
another individual. The second question asked the participant to
imagine their partner engaging in sexual relations with another,
and was displayed on a reversed scale for 1 as Extremely Jealous and 9 as Not at all Jealous. The measures included in
the survey were the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism (HVIC) Scale (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand,

2.1. Participants
The current study used a mixed methods survey design with
undergraduate students (N = 145) attending the University of
Hawaii at Hilo. The research project was approved by the University of Hawaii Committee on Human Studies. A total of 101
females and 44 males participated and the average age of
participants was 21 with a range of 1849 years old. Due to the
overwhelming amount of female participants, the current study
may have produced a ceiling effect related to gender. The partici-

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
Variables

Mean

SD

Age
Emotional indelity
Sexual indelity
Collectivism
Individualism

20.81
7.49
2.42
36.63
25.44

6.04
1.58
2.53
5.68
8.64

124

D.L. Zandbergen, S.G. Brown / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127

1995), the Self-Report Jealousy Scale (Bringle, Roach, Andler, &

Evenbeck, 1979), and a modied version of Busss Emotional and
Sexual Jealousy scale (Buss et al., 1992). The HVIC scale (Singelis
et al., 1995) was modied due to weak internal consistency. Previous research also found inconsistent reliability and lack of vigorous
structure in the original scale across many different cultural samples (Zhang, Mandl, & Wang, 2011). After a modication of these
items, acceptable reliability was obtained for the overall scale
(a = .659).

Gender = -.062

Model 1

Gender = -.063
Model 2

Sexual
Infidelity

Individualism = -.183*
Collectivism = -.257**

Fig. 2. Sexual indelity model. Signicant at the .05 level.

level.

Signicant at the .01

3. Quantitative results
3.1. Hierarchical regression
Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted
to determine which of three predictor variables (gender, individualism (IND), collectivism (COLL)) were most inuential in predicting emotional versus sexual indelity ratings of jealousy. The rst
regression analysis used emotional indelity ratings of jealousy as
the dependent variable and the second regression analysis used
sexual indelity ratings of jealousy as the dependent variable.
There were no signicant interactions for emotional or sexual indelity ratings between gender or IND or COLL, so only the signicant main effects are discussed. The model summary and the
ANOVA analysis indicate an overall model of three predictors
(gender, IND, COLL) that signicantly predicted emotional indelity ratings of jealousy, R2 = .083, R2adj = .063, F(2, 141) = 4.253,
p < .05. In addition, bivariate and partial correlation coefcients
between each predictor and the dependent variable are presented
in Fig. 1. Gender was a stronger predictor (b = .231) than IND
(b = .193) or COLL (b = .084) for emotional indelity ratings of
jealousy. However, there were no statistical differences between
the beta-weights for emotional indelity ratings of gender and
IND (Z = 0.067) or for gender and COLL (Z = 0.551). In sum, gender seems to be a more accurate predictor for emotional indelity
ratings of jealousy than individualism or collectivism.
The second regression analysis used the sexual indelity ratings
of jealousy as the dependent variable, with gender, IND, and COLL
as the independent variables. Sexual indelity ratings of jealousy
were reverse scored for the following analysis. The model
summary and the ANOVA table indicate an overall model of three
predictors (gender, IND, COLL) that signicantly predicted sexual
indelity
ratings
of
jealousy,
R2 = .084,
R2adj = .065,
F(2, 141) = 4.311, p < .05. As shown in the model summary, gender,
IND, and COLL (R2 = .084) had a signicant impact on the outcome
of sexual indelity ratings of jealousy. Additionally, bivariate and
partial correlation coefcients between each predictor and the
dependent variable are presented in Fig. 2. Collectivism was a
stronger predictor (b = .257) than IND (b = .183) or gender
(b = .063) for sexual indelity ratings of jealousy. However, there
were no signicant differences in beta-weights for sexual indelity
ratings of jealousy for gender and IND (Z = 0.168) or for gender and
COLL (Z = 0.268). The current hypothesis was partially correct, in
that gender seemed to be a better predictor for emotional indelity

ratings of jealousy, but both collectivism and individualism

seemed to be more accurate predictors for sexual indelity ratings
of jealousy.
An independent sample t-test was conducted for overall ratings
of jealousy and gender, as well. The results indicated that women
(M = 161.7, SD = 29.50) were signicantly more jealous than men
(M = 148.64, SD = 29.60), t(142) = 2.45, p = .016, based on their
ratings on the Self-Report Jealousy Scale. An independent sample
t-test was also conducted for differences between emotional and
sexual indelity ratings of jealousy and gender. The results indicated that women (M = 7.69, SD = 1.52) were signicantly more
jealous in the emotional indelity scenario than men (M = 7.02,
SD = 1.62), t(143) = 2.39, p = .018. The sexual indelity variable
was not signicant for gender, t(143) = .748, p = .456. Thus,
women reported to be more jealous than males for the emotional
indelity scenario, but the genders did not differ in ratings of
jealousy for the sexual indelity.
An independent samples t-test was used to determine the relationship between participants who had a previous experience of
indelity and overall jealousy. Individuals who had a partner that
cheated previously (M = 161.99, SD = 30.30) reported signicantly
higher jealousy ratings than those who did not (M = 148.03,
SD = 26.09), t(1, 117) = 2.403, p < .05.
4. Qualitative results
The participants were asked to provide a description of a jealousy-evoking event that they experienced and what they thought
caused their jealousy. The open-ended responses were coded using
a grounded theory approach to analyze central themes related to
causal attributions of jealousy. There were no pre-dened
dimensions before the analysis; however the quantitative section
introduced indelity events that emerged in many of the participants responses. The rst phase in coding involved analyzing the
data and developing a set of preliminary categories. The broadest
categories were analyzed and then parsed through more detailed
analysis of the language used by the participants. Fig. 3 shows
the main themes found through the participants qualitative

25%
20%

Model 1

15%

Gender = -.196*

Males
es
Ma
Fe
Female
ales

10%
Gender = -.231*
Model 2

Individualism = -.193*

Emotional
Infidelity

5%
0%
Infid
fidelity

Collectivism =.084

Fig. 1. Emotional indelity. Signicant at the .05 level.

Time and
Comm
mitme
tment

So
Social
ial Meedia

Self-Este
steem

Fig. 3. Casual jealousy themes. The following represents the percentages of the four
dominant themes given by participants qualitative responses.

D.L. Zandbergen, S.G. Brown / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127

responses broken down by gender. These preliminary categories

were then coded to more theoretically oriented concepts, where
four dominant themes emerged: Indelity, Expectations of Time
and Commitment, Social Media, and Self-Esteem.
4.1. Indelity
The events that occur in past relationships can affect the way
individuals engage in their current relationships. Many individuals
reported instances of what happened within their or their partners
past relationships. Social cues, like communicating with an expartner, can invoke jealousy, and those who have dealt with an
unfaithful partner in the past reported feeling considerable
jealousy within their current relationships.
Many responses assumed an indelity but it was unclear
whether or not an indelity actually occurred. Previous studies
found that relational uncertainty or doubt in a partners involvement produces a considerable amount of jealousy (A &
Reichert, 1996; Muise, Christodes, & Desmarais, 2009; Theiss &
Solomon, 2006). About 17% of participants in the present study
responded that they did not know whether their partner had sexual relations with another individual outside of the relationship. A
female described how her ex-boyfriend did not come home after
going out to the bar. She claimed that she had to repeatedly ask
him what had happened before he nally told her that he slept
on a friends couch with another woman. Some participants
reported that they had dealt with an indelity in the past, which
may have been related to reactions of jealousy toward their current
partners. Participants also identied jealousy evocation within
their relationship when they believed their partners had intentionally invoked jealousy. Some suggest that jealousy evocation may
provide a feeling of commitment and conrmation for relationship
stability, but may provoke more frequent ghting between
partners (Sheets, Fredendall, & Claypool, 1997). A male participant
suggested potentially positive effects of jealousy, when he stated
that feeling jealous made it clear that he still cared about his partner. White (1980) suggested that jealousy evocation may be used
for equalizing power in the relationship. Similarly, Sheets and
colleagues (1997) found that individuals may evoke jealousy in
order to achieve a favorable relationship outcome.
The most common response described a potential rival or threat
to the relationship. In one case, a female talked about how her
partner knew she was a jealous person and that they had discussed
how she felt disrespected when her partner talked to other girls
extensively. That is, although she and her partner had discussed
the matter previously, her partner continued to disrespect her by
doing something he knew made her feel jealous. Indelity was
one of the most common replies in response to the jealousy
evoking events and had a signicant effect on how individuals
related to their partners. Similarly, participants related many of
their jealousy events to perceptions of indelity referring to time
allocation and differing expectations of commitment.
4.2. Expectations of Time and Commitment
Time allocation came up most frequently in participants
responses, with many individuals complaining about how their
partners did not spend enough time with them. Enough time is
idiosyncratic and individuals expectations of time allocation differ.
One example of expectations in time allocation was provided by a
female who stated that her partner was spending a signicant
amount of time with his female friends, thus contributing to her
overall jealousy.
In many of the responses, jealousy was perceived to be evoked
by the partner in search of some tangible reward, like attention or a
need to feel attractive. Many participants described events where

125

there was potential for an indelity situation or a potential threat

to the relationship. One female described her partner avoiding her
because they had gotten into a ght. She proclaimed that instead of
trying to resolve the problem, her partner was hanging out with
other friends, including another girl that made her extremely jealous. It is evident that if ones expectation in time commitment is
not met by the partner, especially if there is a potential threat to
the relationship, one may experience intense feelings of jealousy.
Many people also expressed concern about their partner doing,
or not doing, what they expected of them while in a relationship.
Many of these experiences were subjective in terms of what each
individual expected from their partner. Expectations of time and
commitment were prevalent throughout participants responses
to jealousy events and attributions. In many cases, there was an
interaction between time commitment and time spent engaging
in social media networking.
4.3. Social Media
The role of social media was found to be noteworthy in participants responses of jealousy evocation. The new communication
tools involved in social media change relationship expectations,
as well as produce change in ones self-esteem. One female
described a situation in which her partner spent the entire night
on Facebook, ignoring her, which she attributed to her size and
negatively affected her body image. Some responses addressed
the issue of indelity and the pain caused by a partner talking to
someone else over the internet. Many responses attributed
jealousy to social media communication and how ultimately, it
damaged their overall self-esteem.
4.4. Self-Esteem
Another overlapping theme across jealousy events and causes
was self-esteem. Mathes, Adams, and Davies (1985) found that
men tended to report higher loss of self-esteem after discovering
their partner cheated, whereas women tended to report higher
rates of loneliness. In the current study, self-esteem seemed to
be a prevalent theme, specically with women. Some participants
responded that their jealousy was related to another individual
being perceived as more attractive or of higher status. A male
claimed that when he found out that his girlfriend was hanging
out with another man, he immediately was interested in his potential rivals attractiveness. Other participants talked about how their
self-esteem got in the way of their relationship, which in turn
made them aware of their partners seeking attention from other
attractive individuals.
In sum, the four most dominant themes that emerged in participants responses to their jealousy evoking events and causes were
Indelity, Expectations of Time and Commitment, Social Media, and
Self-Esteem. Relationship expectations in time and commitment
were endorsed in many of the participants responses. Self-esteem,
including ones identication of a relationship threat as well as
ones sense of worth, was found to be related to many participants
overall jealousy. Social media may exacerbate feelings of indelity,
too little time commitment and self-esteem.
5. Discussion
Gender was found to be an accurate predictor for the emotional
indelity, but collectivism and individualism were better
predictors for the sexual indelity ratings of jealousy. This result
is divergent from previous studies and suggests that cultural values may have a substantial effect on the way individuals express
jealousy in romantic relationships. Although women were found
to be signicantly more jealous to the emotional indelity scenario

126

D.L. Zandbergen, S.G. Brown / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127

than men, the genders reported similar levels of jealousy to the

sexual indelity scenario. Research suggests that women are more
likely than men to expect that an emotional indelity may imply a
sexual indelity (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Harris & Christenfeld,
1996), however Buss and colleagues (1999) found that the double-shot hypothesis was not signicant and the evolutionary
model was a better predictor in jealousy ratings. Zengel and
colleagues (2013) found theory-supportive gender differences for
the forced choice measures, but were unable to nd signicant
gender differences for continuous measures. Furthermore, the
present study used an extended scale (e.g. 9 point) and only found
signicant gender differences in the emotional indelity, which
contrasts from previous studies (Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno,
Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003) which found signicant gender differences in both scenarios.
The present study provided substantial evidence for more
intense jealousy ratings when indelity occurred in a past relationship. Zengel and colleagues (2013) found that the gender
difference was stronger when the participants had experienced
an actual indelity as opposed to the hypothetical scenario, where
the nature of the indelity can be considered a moderator variable
in jealousy ratings. Murphy, Vallacher, Shackelford, Bjorklund, and
Yunger (2006) found that past relationship experience is a signicant predictor for distress over indelity, but primarily for men. It
would be important to explore more within-sex differences in
overall jealousy, emphasizing the importance of previous relationships and attachments in relation to existing behavior and
emotional expressions.
Many individuals attributed their jealousy toward information
provided on the social networking site, Facebook. Chen and
Marcus (2012) found that individuals self-construals and level of
extraversion have a strong impact on how people present
themselves online. McAndrew and Shah (2013) used The Facebook
Jealousy questionnaire (Muise et al., 2009) and found sex differences in overall jealousy, where females were found to be more
prone to Facebook-evoked feelings of jealousy than males. Muise
and colleagues (2009) suggest that increased Facebook use results
in higher jealousy ratings. It is evident that social networking sites,
like Facebook may have a signicant impact on how people interact with and view relationships. Future research should emphasize
social networking use and perceived attributions of jealousy, since
these websites seem to have a noteworthy effect on expectations
within romantic partnerships.
The qualitative results provide another appealing concept that
may be related to jealousy evocation, namely Expectations of Time
and Commitment. Research has explored expectations of commitment, mostly identifying between-gender differences in attachment. Wongpakaran, Wongpakaran, and Wedding (2012) found
that individuals who were currently in a romantic relationship
reported more insecurities in their attachment than those who
reported being single. Future relationship research should explore
time allocation and commitment expectations in order to better
understand the role these expectations may have on relationship
outcomes.

5.1. Limitations to the study

The current study tested undergraduate students at a small university and had signicantly more women participate, producing a
ceiling effect. These results may not be an accurate representation
of the overall population. The change in the HVIC scale may have
affected the results in the current study. However, since the HVIC
scale needed to be signicantly modied, this begs the question
of whether or not ratings on this scale best represent a multiethnic culture. Perhaps this is an indication to change the way in

which we view these dichotomous cultural value systems, and

create a more accurate cultural value measure.

References
A, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy
experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9, 93104.
Bringle, R. B., Roach, S., Andler, A., & Evenbeck, S. (1979). Measuring the intensity of
jealous reactions. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 9, 2324.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd ed.).
Austin, TX: Pearson Education Inc.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology. Psychological Science, 3,
251255. http://dx.doi.org/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.,
et al. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about indelity: Tests of
competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and
Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 121150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1999.tb00215.x.
Buunk, A. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in
jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective. Psychological Science, 7,
359363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x.
Chen, B., & Marcus, J. (2012). Students self-presentation on Facebook: An
examination of personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 20912099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.013.
Confer, J. C., & Cloud, M. D. (2011). Sex differences in response to imagining a
partners heterosexual or homosexual affair. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 129134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.007.
DeSteno, D., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy?
Questioning the tness of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00391.x.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: Misinterpretation of
nonsignicant results as refuting the theory. Personal Relationships, 16, 6778.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Jealousy and rational responses to indelity
across gender and culture. Psychological Science, 7, 378379. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00394.x.
Mathes, E. W., Adams, H. E., & Davies, R. M. (1985). Jealousy: Loss of relationship
rewards, loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and anger. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 15521561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.48.6.1552.
McAndrew, F. T., & Shah, S. S. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy over Facebook
activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26032606. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.030.
Muise, A., Christodes, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever
wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 441444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
cpb.2008.0263.
Murphy, S. 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2005.09.004.
Parrot, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906920. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.906.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual
jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.1983.tb00857.x.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex
differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating inuence of indelity
experience and sexual orientation of the indelity. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 1723.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J.,
et al. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution
and Human Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.02.006.
Schutzwohl, A. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy: Information search and cognitive
preoccupation. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 285292. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.024.
Schutzwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to
sexual and emotional indelity in personally more and less threatening
conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 249257. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.03.006.
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex
differences in responses to a partners indelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16,
299307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000202.
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner
reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benets
of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 387402. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00088-3.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement renement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240275. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302.
Spielman, P. M. (1971). Envy and jealousy an attempt at clarication. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 40, 5982.

D.L. Zandbergen, S.G. Brown / Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015) 122127
Strout, S. L., Laird, J. D., Shafer, A., & Thompson, N. S. (2005). The effect of vividness
of experience on sex differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 3,
263274.
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 indelity. Neuroimage, 32, 12991307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2006.05.049.
Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2006). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel
modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy
experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence
model. Human Communication Research, 32, 469503. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/014616728062006.
White, G. L. (1980). Inducing jealousy: A power perspective. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 6, 222227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728062006.

127

White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., & Wedding, D. (2012). Gender differences,
attachment styles, self-esteem and romantic relationships in Thailand.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 409417. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.001.
Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy in response
to indelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 4751.
Zhang, J., Mandl, H., & Wang, E. (2011). The effect of verticalhorizontal
individualismcollectivism on acculturation and the moderating role of
gender. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 124134. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.004.