SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

2019, VOL. 84, NO. 1, 17–29

https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1531916

Identity Gaps and Jealousy as Predictors of Satisfaction in

Polyamorous Relationships
Valerie Rubinsky
Communication Studies, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Participants in the present study include individuals in at least one Communication theory of
polyamorous relationship. Grounded in the communication theory of identity; polyamory; jealousy
identity, this article introduces identity gaps into two hierarchical regres-
sion models (n = 156, n = 151) to explain communication and relational
satisfaction from cognitive jealousy and communicative responses to
jealousy. Results indicate that identity gaps contribute significantly to
predicting both relationship satisfaction and communication satisfaction
for individuals in polyamorous relationships. Implications and areas for
future research are discussed.

Roughly 9.8 million people in the United States practice some form of consensual nonmo-
nogamy, although closer to 1.4 million explicitly identify as polyamorous (Sheff, 2014).
Polyamory is a specific type of consensual nonmonogamy in which there is an emphasis on
allowance or exploration of multiple romantic and/or sexual relationships (Dixon, 2016).
While a number of communication phenomena are underexplored within polyamorous rela-
tionships, the experience and expression of romantic jealousy may be of particular relevance
to this relational type. In polyamorous relationships, the presence of a third (or fourth or
fifth) party is often a part of a relational agreement (Conley & Moors, 2014), but may still
stimulate feelings of jealousy (Easton, 2010). Jealousy represents a frequent and sometimes
irreparable problem in romantic relationships (Guerrero, Hannawa, & Babin, 2011; Hesse,
Rauscher, & Trask, 2016). However, the polyamorous community treats jealousy as inevitable
but manageable (Mint, 2010) and produces a communal discourse on what jealousy consists
of and how it may be managed (Deri, 2015; Rubinsky, 2018).
The relationship between the experience of romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction
is not completely clear, as scholarship finds jealousy experience and expression variables
related to dissatisfaction, satisfaction, and commitment (Elphinston, Feeney, Noller, Connor,
& Fitzgerald, 2013). The present study proposes that for individuals in polyamorous relation-
ships, attention to the way that the experience and expression of jealousy produces or
mitigates tensions among different aspects of identity explains some portion of relational
and communication outcomes beyond that explained by the experience and expression of
jealousy alone. Specifically, the communication theory of identity (CTI) applied to under-
standings of jealousy within polyamorous relationships can illuminate (1) additional explana-
tions for relational outcomes and (2) an extension of CTI into jealousy and polyamory and
(3) may reveal additional communication strategies within this understudied relational type.

CONTACT Valerie Rubinsky vr225514@ohio.edu Communication Studies, Ohio University, 181 RTV Building, N. College
St., Athens 45701, USA
© 2019 Southern States Communication Association
18 V. RUBINSKY

Communicating jealousy and identity in polyamorous relationships

Jealousy and compersion in polyamorous relationships
Polyamory refers to a consensually nonmonogamous identity characterized by allowance for or
exploration of multiple romantic and/or sexual partners (Dixon, 2016). In response to identifying
with this type of relationship, many polyamorous individuals frequently describe a common reaction
from monogamous friends and families of, “Don’t you get jealous?” (Deri, 2015; Mint, 2010).
Traditionally, scholarship conceptualizes romantic jealousy as cognitive, affective, and behavioral
responses to a perceived relationship threat by a third party (White & Mullen, 1989), but some
scholars have offered arguments that jealousy may extend to other kinds of issues within romantic
and platonic relationships (Bevan & Samter, 2004). However, even more expansive conceptualiza-
tions of romantic jealousy still situate the phenomenon within a monogamous model (Deri, 2015;
Wolfe, 2003), with some polyamorous individuals feeling that the word jealousy may be inadequate
to describe their relational experiences (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). Polyamorous scholarship suggests
that the relational type might complicate Western conceptualizations of and approaches to jealousy
(Wolfe, 2003). Specifically, the polyamorous community’s discourse on jealousy emerges in relation
to the concept of compersion (Wolfe, 2003).
Compersion describes the affective state of happiness for a partner’s positive feelings with or for
another partner (Wolfe, 2003). Sometimes conceptualized as the opposite of jealousy (Duma, 2009),
compersion describes the experience of positive rather than negative emotions triggered by the
presence of a third party (Deri, 2015). Previous research on compersion finds that the polyamorous
community encourages feelings of compersion, but not all individuals who identify as polyamorous
fully realize this experience (Deri, 2015). Thus, compersion serves as both an ideal and a comparative
state for polyamorous individuals, guiding how they might interpret their own or their partner(s)’
feelings of jealousy, which they often describe as an umbrella term for insecurity or failure to have
needs met (Rubinsky, 2018). Consequently, compersion impacts relational quality, positively affect-
ing relationship satisfaction for individuals in polyamorous relationships (Aumer, Bellew, Ito,
Hatfield, & Heck, 2014; Duma, 2009). Alternatively, for monogamous or monoamorous individuals,
compersion has little effect on relational satisfaction (Aumer et al., 2014). Thus, the nature of a
relationship as polyamorous may factor into how individuals understand their own feelings of
jealousy and compersion and how those feelings affect their overall satisfaction with their relation-
ship. One reason compersion may positively impact relational quality for individuals who are
polyamorous is that it is closely related to feelings of empathy and intimacy for polyamorous
individuals (Morrison, Beaulieu, Brockman, & O’Beaglaoich, 2013). Thus, compersion appears to
positively affect relational quality when experienced. However, polyamorous individuals still experi-
ence jealousy (Deri, 2015; Rubinsky, 2018; Wolfe, 2003), and not all polyamorous individuals are
able to experience compersion (Aumer et al., 2014; Deri, 2015).

Romantic jealousy and satisfying relationships

Positively or negatively, jealousy can affect relational quality. Cognitive and affective jealousies are
negatively associated with relational satisfaction (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995).
Cognitive or affective experiences of jealousy and communicative responses to jealousy affect
relational quality in different ways. For example, affective jealousy, cognitive jealousy, distributive
communicative responses to jealousy, active distancing, relationship threats, and surveillance are
negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (Bevan, 2008). In addition, cognitive jealousy and
surveillance may be associated with relationship dissatisfaction through rumination as a mediator
(Elphinston et al., 2013). Conversely, jealousy can also positively affect relationships. Specifically, if
the individual responds with increased affectionate communication, increased participation in
chores, or problem solving then jealousy may have a positive impact on relational satisfaction
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 19

(Noland, 2010). Further, integrative communication as an expression of jealousy is positively

associated with relational satisfaction (Andersen et al., 1995; Bevan, 2008; Guerrero et al., 2011).
Thus, jealousy experience and expression impact the quality of romantic relationships.
One way cognitive and affective jealousies and communicative responses to jealousy may impact
relationships negatively is through increased uncertainty (Kennedy-Lightsey & Booth-Butterfield,
2011; Theiss & Solomon, 2006) because decreased uncertainty within relationships relates to higher
relational satisfaction (Dainton, 2003). Cognitive jealousy is positively associated with partner and
relationship uncertainty, but emotional or affective jealousy is not (Theiss & Solomon, 2006).
Uncertainty also mediates the relationship among cognitive jealousy, integrative communication as
a response to jealousy, compensatory restoration, and relational maintenance behaviors (Kennedy-
Lightsey, 2018). Uncertainty may be heightened in cases of perceived threat to a relationship. Reactive
jealousy, or jealousy in response to what is perceived as a direct threat to the relationship, is positively
related to relational quality, and anxious jealousy, or jealousy that is present in the absence of a direct
threat to the relationship, is negatively related to relational quality (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007).
This is important to the present study because in polyamorous relationships, or partnerships in which
the relational agreement allows for extradyadic relations, the presence of a third party might not trigger
a relational threat in and of itself. Further, previous research finds that individuals who are polyamor-
ous experience jealousy more often as a result of not having their own needs met or a general sense of
insecurity in the relationship than due to a third-party threat (Rubinsky, 2018).
In addition, expressing jealousy may be more important in terms of relational quality outcomes
than simply experiencing jealousy (Guerrero, 2014; Guerrero, Trost, & Yoshimura, 2005). It is then
the communicative responses to jealousy rather than the cognitive or affective dimensions of
jealousy alone that may impact relational satisfaction or communication satisfaction. A number of
typologies describe communicative responses to jealousy among different dimensions. The present
study employs Guerrero and Andersen’s (1995) typology, which includes negative affect expression,
integrative communication, distributive communication, avoidance/denial, surveillance/restriction,
compensatory restoration, manipulation attempts, and rival contacts. Communicative responses to
jealousy may fulfill relational functions within romantic relationships such as maintenance, self-
esteem preservation, or uncertainty reduction (Guerrero & Afifi, 1999). Specific communicative
responses to jealousy may be predicted by the way that individuals experience the emotional reaction
to jealousy (Guerrero et al., 2005), which may differ for individuals who identify as polyamorous
(Deri, 2015; Rubinsky, 2018).
Other factors related to jealousy may also explain relational quality. For example, interpersonal
communication competence typically predicts relational satisfaction (Arroyo & Harwood, 2011;
Guerrero, 1994) and relational contingent self-esteem is also associated with generally feeling more
satisfied, close, and committed to a given relationship (Knee, Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008).
Relationship-contingent self-esteem is a form of self-esteem that depends on an individual’s relation-
ship (Knee et al., 2008). Self-esteem is related to integrative communication, manipulation, and
avoidance/denial as communicative responses to jealousy (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998). Both relation-
ship-contingent self-esteem and interpersonal communication competence are then included to
predict relationship and communication satisfaction.
In addition, identity, especially gender identity and expression, may affect communicative responses to
jealousy (Aylor & Dainton, 2001). Monogamous gay and lesbian individuals experience jealousy similarly to
heterosexual individuals (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002). Although same-sex and opposite-sex romantic dyads do
not significantly differ in level of cognitive or affective jealousy experience, there are identity-related
differences in terms of communicative responses to jealousy (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002). Thus, attention to
identity and differing sexual and romantic identities in the study of jealousy may be especially consequential.
In particular, for individuals in polyamorous relationships, the manner in which salient aspects of their
personal or polyamorous identity is affirmed or challenged through the experience and expression of
jealousy may explain additional variation in their communicative and relational satisfaction than jealousy
alone. Because polyamorous individuals may be enculturated into a particular understanding of jealousy
20 V. RUBINSKY

that presents an alternative, idealized experience of compersion at the presence of traditionally jealousy-
invoking experiences (Aumer et al., 2014; Deri, 2015), the way that identity is implicated in the experience of
jealousy for individuals who are polyamorous may be especially consequential.

Theoretical framework: The CTI

The theoretical frame employed for this study is the CTI, which distinguishes itself from other
identity theories by proposing that identity is not just performed through communication but that
communication is itself a part of identity (Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, 2005). To account for
communication as a facet of identity, CTI posits a layered approach, stating that there are four loci of
identity: the personal layer, the enacted layer, the relational layer, and the communal layer (Hecht,
Jackson, & Pitts, 2005; Hecht et al., 2005). The personal layer includes self-concept or self-image
(Hecht et al., 2005). The enacted layer involves the self as enacted through messages, performance,
and expression (communication; Hecht et al., 2005). The relational layer has three levels: (1) identity
occurs through social interaction with others; (2) people identify through their relationships with
others (e.g., partners, coworkers, siblings); and (3) the relationship itself is a unit of identity (e.g., a
couple or triad; Hecht et al., 2005). Finally, the communal layer views the group as a site of identity
(Hecht et al., 2005), like the polyamorous community. A key tenet of CTI is the notion of the
interpenetration of layers (Hecht et al., 2005, 2005). For example, the polyamorous community’s
communal orientation toward jealousy may incline one partner toward downplaying another’s
feelings of jealousy or alternatively offer them a larger linguistic tool kit to manage jealous feelings.
Layer interpenetration is most frequently operationalized via identity gaps, or cognitive, affective, and
behavioral discrepancies between or among the four layers of identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008a). Identity
gaps are communicative phenomena and emerge inevitably to some extent in nearly all communicative
encounters (Jung, 2011, 2013; Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008a). The most commonly studied identity gaps
include the personal-enacted and personal-relational identity gaps (Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008a). Personal-
enacted identity gaps occur when an individual’s personal identity is in tension to some degree with the self
that exists in communication or performance (Jung & Hecht, 2004). For example, an individual in a
polyamorous relationship may experience a personal-enacted identity gap related to jealousy if he or she sees
himself or herself as secure in their relationship but questions a partner about his or her status with another
partner, thus perhaps performing a communicative response to jealousy. This communicative response to
jealousy (enacted identity), in addition to its association to relational or communication satisfaction, may
also cause a personal-enacted identity gap for this individual. Personal-relational identity gaps occur when
relational or communication partners make ascriptions that are in tension with personal identity (Jung &
Hecht, 2004). For example, if a polyamorous individual’s romantic partner tells him or her that he or she is
behaving like he or she is jealous, that ascription of jealousy may be in tension with how the individual sees
himself or herself as a person who does not experience a high degree of jealousy because he or she is
polyamorous and okay with multiple-partner relationships.
Individuals strive for consistency among their four layers of identity, and identity gaps represent
an aversive state. Identity gaps may be associated with various personal and relational outcomes. For
example, identity gaps negatively relate to communication satisfaction (Jung, 2011, 2013; Jung &
Hecht, 2004, 2008a; Kam & Hecht, 2009) and relationship satisfaction (Kam & Hecht, 2009;
Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008). Identity gaps are also found to mediate the relationship between
a number of communication phenomena including conversational appropriateness and effectiveness,
assertiveness, discrimination, and communication apprehension and relational and communication
satisfaction (Jung, 2011, 2013).
Because jealousy is an identity-laden relational situation in polyamorous relationships, identity gaps
may explain additional variance in relational and communication satisfaction than jealousy alone. In
addition, communicative responses to jealousy, not the cognitive and affective experience of jealousy
alone, impact relational outcomes. As identity gaps emerge in and affect communication (Jung & Hecht,
2004), introducing identity gaps as well as communicative responses to jealousy may explain additional
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 21

variance in satisfaction for individuals in polyamorous relationships. Although it is likely that identity
gaps add explanatory power to this relationship in monogamous relationships as well, the focus on
polyamorous relationships is especially important because of the manner in which jealousy is associated
with their relational identity. Because polyamorous individuals may experience jealousy in tension with a
community ideal (i.e., compersion), jealousy may be especially identity-laden in polyamorous relation-
ships. Therefore, this study poses the following hypotheses: H1: Identity gaps will explain additional
variance in relational satisfaction for polyamorous individuals over and above that explained by the set of
predictors: cognitive jealousy, communicative responses to jealousy, interpersonal communication compe-
tence, and relational contingent self-esteem. H2: Identity gaps will explain additional variance in commu-
nication satisfaction for polyamorous individuals over and above that explained by the set of predictors:
cognitive jealousy, communicative responses to jealousy, interpersonal communication competence, and
relational contingent self-esteem.

Methods
Participants
This study included 157 participants who identified as 71.97% female (n = 113) and 26.75% male (n = 42),
and two participants identified that those categories did not describe their assigned sex. Regarding
gender identity, participants primarily included cisgender women (n = 83, 54.25%), with 22.88%
identifying as cisgender men (n = 35), 8.5% identifying as genderqueer (n = 13), 4.58% identifying as
genderfluid (n = 7), and the rest identifying broadly under the transgender or nonbinary umbrella.
Participants were fairly sexually diverse, with 30.57% identifying as heterosexual (n = 48), 27.39%
identifying as bisexual (n = 43), 21.02% identifying as pansexual (n = 33), 1.91% identifying as gay or
lesbian (n = 3), and the remainder identifying broadly under the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ)
umbrella. Participants were mostly White (90.57%, n = 144), with 7.55% (n = 12) identifying as two or
more races, one (0.6%) identifying as Black or African American, one (0.6%) identifying as Asian
American or Pacific Islander, and one (0.6%) identifying as Hispanic or Latin American. Ages ranged
from 18 to 81 (M = 38.84, SD = 13.31). All participants identified themselves as presently in at least one
polyamorous relationship at the time they took the survey.

Recruitment
Participants were recruited via volunteer and snowball sampling. The survey, hosted via Qualtrics.com, was
distributed on the researcher’s personal social media accounts as well as distributed on several polyamorous
webpages, organizations, and email lists. Specifically, the research call asked for participants who identified
as being in at least one polyamorous relationship and who were 18 years of age or older. The call was posted
with a link to the online questionnaire on/polyamorous subreddits on Reddit.com, in the #polyamory tag
on Tumblr.com, on the researcher’s Facebook page, on CRTNET, and on a polyamorous research Yahoo!
email list. The call was also posted and shared on personal blogs and webpages and other social media pages
by several individuals who saw the initial post. Participants were not compensated, and the survey took
approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Instrumentation
Via a survey method, participants completed an online, primarily anonymous questionnaire. At the end
of the questionnaire, participants had the option to provide contact information for further study, but it
was not required for participation. Thus, the survey had the option to be anonymous if participants chose
not to provide this information and was confidential for those who did provide this information.
Throughout the entire survey, participants were instructed to think of their relationship(s) with the
same romantic partner(s) for questions that ask them to think about a partner or communication
partner. This section outlines the measures used to describe the variables tested in this study.
22 V. RUBINSKY

Relationship-contingent self-esteem
Relationship-contingent self-esteem is measured with the scale of Knee et al. (2008; Cronbach
α = .89, M = 3.46, SD = .77), which includes 11 items that range from 1 (not at all like me) to 5
(very much like me), with lower scores reflecting lower relationship-contingent self-esteem.
Adjustments were made for multiple partners. Sample items from this measure include “I feel better
about myself when it seems like my partner(s) and I are getting along” and “I feel better about myself
when it seems like my partner(s) and I are emotionally connected.”

Jealousy
The Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (Elphinston, Feeney, & Noller, 2011) includes measures for
cognitive jealousy, emotional jealousy, and behavioral jealousy. The present study adapted this
measure by removing the behavioral jealousy dimension due to overlap with communicative
responses to jealousy. Additional adaptions included changing “X” to “my partner(s),” removing
“opposite sex” as a potential romantic rival to account for a diverse sample, and emphasizing
behaviors that make the participant uncomfortable (i.e., deviating from communicated agreements).
Affective jealousy was not included in the analyses due to insufficient reliability (Cronbach α = .63).
Cognitive jealousy was included. One item was removed from cognitive jealousy after item-level
analyses. An example item includes, “I suspect that my partner(s) are secretly seeing someone.”
Cronbach α for the adapted cognitive jealousy scale was .72 (M = 1.43, SD = .81) on a 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale, with higher scores indicating greater experiences of cognitive
jealousy.

Communicative responses to jealousy

The present study adapted the Communicative Responses to Romantic Jealousy Scale (CRJ; Guerrero
& Andersen, 1995), which includes 38 items that ask the participant to think of times they have felt
jealousy in their romantic relationships in the past three months. Dimensions include negative affect
expression (Cronbach α = .93, M = 2.27, SD = .95), integrative communication (Cronbach α = .79,
M = 3.71, SD = .95), distributive communication (Cronbach α = .80, M = 1.502, SD = .46),
avoidance/denial (Cronbach α = .77, M = 1.46, SD = .63), surveillance/restriction (Cronbach
α = .70, M = 1.30, SD = .41), compensatory restoration (Cronbach α = .75, M = 2.86, SD = .90),
manipulation attempts (Cronbach α = .63, M = 1.08, SD = .27), and rival contacts (Cronbach α = .75,
M = 1.06, SD = .21). Minor adaptations reflect allowance for multiple partners (e.g., “I have
displayed insecurity to my partner(s)”). CRJ is scored 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores
reflecting greater expression of jealousy.

Interpersonal communication competence

The Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale (Rubin & Martin, 1994) measures the level of
competence an individual generally has in interpersonal communication (i.e., not specific to a given
relationship). The short version includes 10 items (Cronbach α = .77, M = 3.89, SD = .51). Items are
scored 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), with higher scores reflecting more communication
competence. Sample items include “My conversations are characterized by smooth shifts from one
topic to the next” and “My friends can tell when I’m happy or sad.”

Satisfaction
Relational satisfaction was measured using Byers, Demmons, & Lawrence’s (1998) Global Measure of
Relational Satisfaction. This scale employs a seven-point bipolar scale (e.g., good–bad, valuable–
worthless), to assess overall satisfaction with the relationship (Cronbach α = .93, M = 6.30,
SD = 1.10), with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction. Similar to relational satisfaction,
interpersonal communication satisfaction (Hecht, 1978) asks participants how they would describe
their communication with their partners in their relationship (e.g., “I felt that during the conversa-
tion I was able to present myself as I wanted them to view me”). Items are scored 1 (strongly
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 23

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting higher satisfaction (Cronbach α = .90,
M = 5.82, SD = .85).

Identity gaps
Jung and Hecht’s (2004) identity gap scales include personal-relational and personal-enacted, which
are both 12-item scales. Personal-relational identity gaps (e.g., “I am different from the way my
communication partners see me”) had a Cronbach α of .85 (M = 2.43, SD = .89). Cronbach α for
personal-enacted identity gaps (e.g., “I do not reveal important aspects of myself in communication
with my communication partners”) was .90 (M = 1.86, SD = .79). Relational-enacted gaps were
measured with an adaptation of a three-item scale from Kam and Hecht (2009), but its Cronbach α
was .56, so the scale was excluded from the analyses below. All identity gap measures were scored 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting larger identity gaps.

Results
Relational satisfaction
To address H1, a hierarchical regression was conducted to identify how identity gaps and jealousy
might predict additional variance in relational satisfaction for polyamorous individuals than jealousy
alone (See Table 1) for correlations among all variables. Cognitive jealousy, all dimensions of
communicative responses to jealousy, interpersonal communication competence, and relational
contingent self-esteem were entered in to the first stage. The second stage entered personal-relational
and personal-enacted identity gaps. Prior to conducting the analysis, relevant assumptions were
tested. The dependent variable demonstrated a relatively normal curve, and the assumptions of
linearity and homoscedasticity were satisfied.
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, jealousy, communicative responses
to jealousy, interpersonal communication competence, and relational contingent self-esteem con-
tributed significantly to the regression model, F(11, 144) = 11.72, p < .001, with an adjusted R2 = .43,
accounting for approximately 43.2% of the variation in relational satisfaction. After introducing the
identity gap variables, the model accounts for 55.5% of the variation in relational satisfaction (R2
change = .12, p < .001), with adjusted R2 = .56, F(13, 142) = 15.86, p < .001, thus supporting the first
hypothesis. For a summary of hierarchical regression analysis forvariables predicting relational
satisfaction, (see Table 2).

Interpersonal communication satisfaction

To address H2, a two-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to assess whether identity
gaps explain additional variation in communication satisfaction for polyamorous individuals than
jealousy alone. Jealousy, all dimensions of communicative responses to jealousy, interpersonal
communication competence, and relational contingent self-esteem were entered into the first
stage. The second stage entered personal-relational and personal-enacted identity gaps. Prior to
conducting the analysis for the second model, relevant assumptions were tested. The dependent
variable had a relatively normal curve and met the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity.
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, jealousy, communicative responses
to jealousy, interpersonal communication competence, and relational contingent self-esteem con-
tributed significantly to the regression model, F(11, 139) = 7.80, p < .001, with an adjusted R2 = .33,
accounting for approximately 33.3% of the variation in communication satisfaction. Introducing
identity gaps added significant variation to the model (R2 change = .28, p < .001), with an adjusted
R2 = .63, F(13,137) = 20.93, p < .001, accounting for approximately 63.3% of the variation in
communication satisfaction, thus supporting the second hypothesis. For a summary of hierarchical
regression analysis forvariables predicting communication satisfaction, (see Table 3).
 24
V. RUBINSKY

Table 1. Bivariate Correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Communication satisfaction
2. Relational satisfaction .688**
3. Interpersonal communication competency .386** .413**
4. Relational contingent self-esteem −.136 −.096 −.231**
5. Personal-enacted identity gap −.688** −.540** −.485** .179*
6. Personal-relational identity gap −.701** −.514** −.351** .231** .584**
7. Cognitive jealousy −.342** −.243** −.089 −.026 .310** .309**
8. CRJ negative affect .098 .040 −.142 .203* −.032 .005 −.076
9. CRJ integrative .268** .173* .148 .032 −.308** −.116 −.172* .470**
10. CRJ distributive −.218** −.208** −.163* .093 .108 .122 .081 .348** .231**
11. CRJ avoidance −.050 −.184* −.160* .232** .132 .077 .291** .346** .158* .365**
12. CRJ surveillance −.177* −.424** −.270** .160* .150 .172* .168* .201* .126 .292** .301**
13. CRJ compensation .071 .015 .049 .311** −.114 .083 .064 .354** .347** .098 .159* .248**
14. CRJ manipulation −.253** −.491** −.235** .056 .258** .143 .257** .122 .076 .323** .254** .533** .155
15. CRJ rival contact −.163* −.534** −.233** .001 .200* .131 .148 .029 −.016 .167* .280** .482** .070 .460**
Note. N = 151.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
CRJ = Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale.
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 25

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Relational Satisfaction.
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .687** .472** .472**
Interpersonal communication competence .235* 3.446 .0437
Cognitive jealousy −.110 −1.610 .0094
CRJ Negative affect .099 1.261 .0058
CRJ Integrative communication .084 1.125 .0046
CRJ Distributive communication −.094 −1.329 .0064
CRJ Avoidance .057 .767 .0002
CRJ Surveillance −.107 −1.358 .0067
CRJ Compensation .049 .672 .0016
CRJ Manipulation −.200* −2.529 .0234
CRJ Rival contact −.315** −4.136 .0625
Relational contingent self-esteem −.056 −.822 .0025
Step 2 .769** .592** .120**
Interpersonal communication competence .084 1.268 .0046
Cognitive jealousy .018 .285 .0002
CRJ Negative affect .083 1.202 .0041
CRJ Integrative communication .046 .680 .0013
CRJ Distributive communication −.057 −.903 .0023
CRJ Avoidance .009 .142 .0001
CRJ Surveillance −.109 −1.560 .0071
CRJ Compensation .042 .645 .0012
CRJ Manipulation −.169* −2.380 .0164
CRJ Rival contact −.301** −4.462 .0571
Relational contingent self-esteem .026 .420 .0005
Personal-enacted identity gap −.183* −2.343 .0159
Personal-relational identity gap −.296** −4.254 .0520
Note. *p < .05. **p < .001.
CRJ = Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale.

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Communication Satisfaction.
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .618** .382** .382**
Interpersonal communication competence .315** 4.293 .0818
Cognitive jealousy −.281** −3.734 .0620
CRJ Negative affect .119 1.383 .0085
CRJ Integrative communication .134 1.598 .0114
CRJ Distributive communication −.233* −3.012 .0404
CRJ Avoidance .145 1.810 .0146
CRJ Surveillance −.023 −.294 .0004
CRJ Compensation .047 .584 .0015
CRJ Manipulation −.126 −1.659 .0123
CRJ Rival contact −.120 −1.687 .0128
Relational contingent self-esteem −.084 −1.093 .0053
Step 2 .816** .665** .283**
Interpersonal communication competence .066 1.117 .0030
Cognitive jealousy −.081 −1.376 .0046
CRJ Negative affect .093 1.461 .0052
CRJ Integrative communication .070 1.097 .0029
CRJ Distributive communication −.190* −3.320 .0269
CRJ Avoidance .078 1.298 .0041
CRJ Surveillance −.034 −.583 .0008
CRJ Compensation .016 .258 .0002
CRJ Manipulation −.040 −.706 .0012
CRJ Rival contact −.056 −1.059 .0027
Relational contingent self-esteem .037 .641 .0010
Personal-enacted identity gap −.355** −5.023 .0615
Personal-relational identity gap −.398** −5.950 .0864
Note. *p < .05. **p < .001.
CRJ = Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale.
26 V. RUBINSKY

Discussion
How individuals experience and express jealousy within their relationships is assumed to impact
their relational satisfaction and communication satisfaction. However, the present study suggests
that beyond the experience and expression of jealousy, the presence of identity gaps may be involved
in predicting these outcomes. This study contributes to CTI in several ways. First, it demonstrates
that identity gaps contribute significantly to explaining variation in both communication and
relational satisfaction for polyamorous individuals. Although this finding may not be unique to
polyamorous individuals, it does take on a special importance to polyamorous individuals. This
extends CTI by introducing it as an applicable theory for this relational type. In addition, it
reinforces that identity gaps are a communication phenomenon and affect communication outcomes
(communication satisfaction) as well as a relational phenomenon that affects relational outcomes
(relational satisfaction). This section discusses the study’s findings in light of CTI and jealousy
scholarship. In addition, the present study’s limitations and areas for future research are addressed.
Although both stages of both models were statistically significant, not every dimension of
communicative responses to jealousy explained significant variation in satisfaction in either model.
Specifically, manipulation and rival contact are the only dimensions of communicative responses to
jealousy that add significant variation to relational satisfaction, and only distributive communication
adds significant variation to communication satisfaction, both before and after adding identity gaps
to the model. However, identity gaps accounting for some of the variance initially explained by
communicative responses to jealousy is in line with previous research. Identity gaps tend to mediate
that relationship between communication phenomena and communication and relational outcomes
(Jung, 2011, 2013). Thus, adding identity gaps to a regression model assumes that they will account
for some of the variation initially explained by communicative responses to jealousy. However,
several dimensions of communicative responses to jealousy were not significant in the first stage of
either model. As this deviates from past research (Andersen et al., 1995; Guerrero et al., 2011),
further research should investigate whether these dimensions of jealousy may be more or less
prevalent for polyamorous individuals who may experience different communicative responses to
jealousy than monogamous individuals or who may develop different communal language for
managing jealousy (Mint, 2010; Rubinsky, 2018). Further, cognitive jealousy explained significant
variation in communication satisfaction in the first stage of the model, but does not after adding
identity gaps. This extends previous research on CTI because in addition to accounting for some of
the variance explained by communication phenomena, identity gaps may be relevant in the study of
cognitive phenomena.
In addition, relational contingent self-esteem, which was included as a control, did not signifi-
cantly contribute to either stage of either model. As past research indicates that relational contingent
self-esteem relates to satisfaction (Knee et al., 2008), more research may be needed to investigate
whether the finding in this study is specific to this population.
Of interest, interpersonal communication competence, while contributing significantly to varia-
tion in the first stage of both models as expected, no longer significantly contributed to explaining
either relational or communication satisfaction once identity gaps were entered. Identity gaps are
negatively associated with aspects of communication competence (Jung & Hecht, 2004) and mediate
the relationship between communication competence and communication satisfaction (Jung, 2013).
Thus, it is possible that identity gaps account for the variation in satisfaction initially attributed to
interpersonal communication competence. The ability to communicate effectively and appropriately
likely minimizes certain identity gaps (Jung & Hecht, 2004). However, it may be the ability to
minimize the discrepancies between layers of identity, rather than communication competence in
and of itself, that contributes to variation in relational and communication satisfaction within
polyamorous intimate relationships.
Although it is possible that these findings would hold up, to some degree, in monogamous
relationships as well, the present study is especially relevant to polyamorous relationships. The
experience and expression of jealousy in polyamorous relationships is an identity-laden situation,
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 27

implicating communal, personal, and relational identities for polyamorous individuals (Deri, 2015).
Thus, the possibility of discrepancy between layers of identity as a result of jealousy experience or
expression in polyamorous relationships likely accounts for some degree of the association between
jealousy and relational quality. The present study lends some support to this contention, suggesting
that attention to identity gaps in the study of jealousy for polyamorous individuals may help explain
relational and communication satisfaction. However, more research is needed to test this contention
definitively and to assess whether there are meaningful differences between the experience of identity
gaps in jealousy communication for polyamorous compared to monogamous individuals.

Limitations
Although this study produced theoretically relevant insights for an understudied population, several
aspects of the research design are limiting and warrant mention. While this study obtained a diverse
sample in terms of relational type, sexual orientation, gender identity, and age, survey research tends
to attract a more educated demographic, and, as reflected in this article, tends to limit racial/ethnic
diversity. In addition, one type of identity gap (relational-enacted) was not included in the analyses
because of low reliability. Results should be interpreted in light of these limitations.
An additional and significant limitation of the present study is the implementation of an older
version of the CRJ. The new version of the CRJ scale (Guerrero et al., 2011) was not used in the
present study. Some dimensions from the old version still relatively align with the new (negative
affect, integrative communication, surveillance, compensation), but there are some changes that may
be relevant for future research. The new scale includes violent in addition to distributive commu-
nication, which is not accounted for in the present study. Avoidance and denial, measured per the
old CRJ in the present study, has been updated in the new version. Manipulation is similar to, but
not as comprehensive as, counter jealousy induction per the new CRJ. Rival contact is measured in
both scales, but the new scale also includes signs of possession and rival derogation, which are not
accounted for in the present study. Although connections can still be made between different
dimensions of communicative responses to jealousy from the present study, future research should
attend to this limitation by implementing the revised scale.
Another limitation of the present study is the lack of comparative sample. Participants all
personally identified as polyamorous and identified their relationships as polyamorous relationships.
As the present study argues, the identity-laden implications of jealousy are especially consequential
to polyamorous relationships, making the findings of the present study useful. Future research,
however, could extend this by testing whether (a) these findings apply to monogamous samples and
(b) there are meaningful differences in identity gaps and jealousy communication between poly-
amorous and monogamous individuals. In addition, relationship characteristics (i.e., number of
partners each participant had, the length of each relationship, or extent of relational agreement) were
not measured in the present study, which poses a significant limitation since they were not included
as controls. Future research should consider measuring these items as possible controls, to determine
whether relational length or number of partners is influential in jealousy communication or the
experience of identity gaps.

Conclusion
Identity gaps play a significant role in explaining relational outcomes from communication constructs.
For polyamorous individuals, jealousy is both identity-laden and communicative. The present study
offers support for this claim by demonstrating one way in which the communicative nature of jealousy
may affirm or challenge aspects of an identity in which jealousy constitutes an assumed dilemma.
Attention to identity gaps explained additional variance in both relational and communication
satisfaction than jealousy and communicative responses to jealousy alone for individuals in
28 V. RUBINSKY

polyamorous relationships. Future research may extend these findings to other relational contexts in
which attention to identity may explain additional variation in relational quality.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Romantic jealousy and relational satisfaction: A
look at the impact of jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 8, 77–85. doi:10.1080/
08934219509367613
Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2011). Communication competence mediates the link between shyness and relational
quality. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 264–267. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.041
Aumer, K., Bellew, W., Ito, B., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2014). The happy green eyed monogamist: Role of jealousy and
compersion in monogamous and non-traditional relationships. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 77–88.
Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/happy.html
Aylor, B, & Dainton, M. (2001). Antecedents in romantic jealousy experience, expression, and goals. Western Journal
Of Communication, 65, 370–391. doi: 10.1080/10570310109374717
Barelds, D. P., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner
perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188. doi:10.1002/cpp.532
Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the investment model. Southern
Communication Journal, 73, 42–67. doi:10.1080/10417940701815626
Bevan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2002). The experience and expression of romantic jealousy in same-sex and opposite-sex
romantic relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19, 258–268. doi:10.1080/08824090209384854
Bevan, J. L., & Samter, W. (2004). Toward a broader conceptualization of jealousy in close relationships: Two
exploratory studies. Communication Studies, 55, 14–28. doi:10.1080/10510970409388603
Byers, E. S, Demmons, S, & Lawrance, K. A. (1998). Sexual satisfaction within dating relationships: a test of the
interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal Of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 257-267. doi:
10.1177/0265407598152008
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please!: How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate
marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 56–63. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908
Dainton, M. (2003). Equity and uncertainty in relational maintenance. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), 164–
186. doi:10.1080/10570310309374765
Deri, J. (2015). Love’s refraction: Jealousy and compersion in queer women’s polyamorous relationships. Buffalo, NY:
University of Toronto Press.
Dixon, J. (2016). Polyamory, sex, and the communication of commitment. In J. Manning & C. Noland (Eds.),
Contemporary studies of sexuality & communication: Theoretical & applied perspectives (pp. 143–154). Dubuque,
IA: Kendall Hunt.
Duma, U. (2009). Jealousy and compersion in close relationships: Coping styles by relationship types. Mainz, Germany:
GRIN Verlag.
Easton, D. (2010). Making friends with jealousy. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding Non-
Monogamies (pp. 207–211). New York, NY: Routledge.
Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Measuring romantic jealousy: Validation of the multidimensional
jealousy scale in Australian samples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 63, 243–251. doi:10.1111/ajpy.2011.63.issue-4
Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship
satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 293–304. doi:10.1080/
10570314.2013.770161
Guerrero, L. K. (1994). “I’m so mad I could scream:” The effects of anger expression on relational satisfaction and
communication competence. Southern Journal of Communication, 59, 125–141. doi:10.1080/10417949409372931
Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Jealousy and relational satisfaction: Actor effects, partner effects, and the mediating role of
destructive communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 78(5), 586–611. doi:10.1080/
10570314.2014.935468
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1998). Communicative responses to jealousy as a function of self-esteem and
relationship maintenance goals: A test of Bryson’s dual motivation model. Communication Reports, 11(2), 111–
122. doi:10.1080/08934219809367693
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1999). Toward a goal-oriented approach for understanding communicative responses
to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 63(2), 216–248. doi:10.1080/10570319909374637
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 29

Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring
communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal Of Communication, 59, 270–304. doi:10.1080/
10570319509374523
Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The communicative responses to jealousy scale: Revision,
empirical validation, and associations with relational satisfaction. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 223–
249. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.596993
Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. R., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005). Romantic jealousy: Emotions and communicative responses.
Personal Relationships, 12, 233–252. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00113.x
Hecht, M., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. L. (2005). The communication theory of identity: Development,
theoretical perspectives, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural commu-
nication (pp. 257–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human
Communication Research, 4, 253–264. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00614.x
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood
& H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hesse, C., Rauscher, E. A., & Trask, S. L. (2016). Family communication patterns and communicative responses to
jealousy: The mediating role of alexithymia. Journal of Family Communication, 16(4), 318–336. doi:10.1080/
15267431.2016.1190371
Jung, E. (2011). Identity gap: Mediator between communication input and outcome variables. Communication
Quarterly, 59(3), 315–338. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583501
Jung, E. (2013). Delineation of a threefold relationship among communication input variables, identity gaps, and
depressive symptoms. Southern Communication Journal, 78(2), 163–184. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2012.741652
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication
outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52, 265–283. doi:10.1080/01463370409370197
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2008a). Identity gaps and level of depression among Korean immigrants. Health
Communication, 23, 313–325. doi:10.1080/10410230802229688
Kam, J. A., & Hecht, M. L. (2009). Investigating the role of identity gaps among communicative and relational
outcomes within the grandparent–Grandchild relationship: The young-adult grandchildren’s perspective. Western
Journal of Communication, 73, 456–480. doi:10.1080/10570310903279067
Kennedy-Lightsey, C., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). Responses to jealousy situations that evoke uncertainty in
married and dating relationships. Communication Quarterly, 59, 255–275. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.563443
Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D. (2018). Cognitive jealousy and constructive communication: The role of perceived partner
maintenance and uncertainty. Communication Reports, 31(2), 115–129. doi:10.1080/08934215.2017.1423094
Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent self-esteem and the ups and downs
of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 608–627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.608
Mint, P. (2010). The power mechanisms of jealousy. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding Non-
Monogamies (pp. 201–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Beaglaoich, C. Ó. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and
monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship wellbeing and sociosexuality? Psychology
& Sexuality, 4, 75–91. doi:10.1080/19419899.2011.631571
Noland, C. M. (2010). Sex talk: The role of communication in intimate relationships. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’:
Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601.
doi:10.1177/1363460706069987
Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence.
Communication Research Reports, 11, 33–44. doi:10.1080/08824099409359938
Rubinsky, V. (2018). Bringing up the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and communicating jealousy with a
partner who has other partners. The Qualitative Report, 23, 1441–1455. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.
edu/tqr/vol23/iss6/11
Sheff, E. A. (2014, May 9). How many polyamorists are there in the U.S.? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201405/how-many-polyamorists-are-there-in-the-us
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, 469–503. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and acculturation in
international students’ educational satisfaction in american classrooms. Communication Education, 57(1), 64–87.
doi:10.1080/03634520701668407
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wolfe, L. (2003). Jealousy and transformation in polyamorous relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco, CA
Copyright of Southern Communication Journal is the property of Southern States
Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.