JSPR

Article

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Touch reduces romantic 2018, Vol. 35(7) 1019–1041
ª The Author(s) 2017
jealousy in the anxiously Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

attached DOI: 10.1177/0265407517702012

journals.sagepub.com/home/spr

Kaylyn J. Kim
Brooke C. Feeney
Brittany K. Jakubiak
Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Abstract
Feelings of jealousy are usually detrimental to relationships, often resulting in negative
outcomes ranging from conflict to violence and relationship dissolution. Anxiously
attached individuals are especially prone to jealousy in their relationships and are
therefore especially likely to experience negative outcomes of jealousy. In this research,
we examined the effectiveness of both touch and a traditional security prime as a
potential means of reducing feelings of jealousy for individuals who are high in anxious
attachment. Individuals in romantic relationships were induced to feel jealous, during
which time they were randomly assigned to receive affectionate touch from their
partners, a traditional nontouch security prime, or no intervention (control). Results
revealed that anxious attachment was associated with high levels of jealousy, and touch
was an effective buffer against jealous feelings for individuals high in anxious attachment.
The traditional security prime did not buffer jealous feelings. Implications of results for
potential relationship interventions are discussed.

Keywords
Anxious attachment, intervention, jealousy, romantic relationships, security prime,
touch

Jealousy is regarded as a common emotion that almost all individuals experience in

their lives (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). Jealousy can occur within any valued
relationship, such as within familial relationships, friendships, and romantic

Corresponding authors:
Kaylyn J. Kim and Brooke C. Feeney, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh,
PA 15213, USA.
Emails: kimkaylyn@gmail.com; bfeeney@andrew.cmu.edu
1020 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

relationships. Because jealousy has been shown to be detrimental to individuals and their
relationships (e.g., Anderson, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995; Mathes, Adams, &
Davies, 1985; Shackelford, Buss, & Weekes-Shackelford, 2003), the purpose of this
investigation is to investigate mechanisms for reducing the experience of jealousy in
anxiously attached individuals who tend to experience jealousy the most intensely and
destructively. Specifically, we examine whether two mechanisms known to enhance
feelings of security—affectionate touch and traditional security priming—will reduce
the negative effects of jealousy during a time when an individual is made to feel jealous.

Jealousy defined and outcomes of jealousy

In romantic relationships, jealousy refers to the thoughts, feelings, and actions that arise
from the perception that a partner either is or may become involved with a rival who
threatens the relationship (Buss & Haselton, 2005; DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Harmon-
Jones, Peterson, & Harris, 2009; Sharpsteen, 1995; White & Mullen, 1989). This per-
ceived threat may be real or imagined and involves concerns about an actual or potential
romantic attraction between the partner and a rival. Romantic jealousy includes a
combination of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses that occur in response to
the perceived threat to an individual’s relationship (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). The cog-
nitive and emotional responses are considered a jealous experience, whereas behavioral
responses are called a jealous expression (Andersen et al., 1995). Cognitive components
of jealousy include warranted or unwarranted suspicions regarding a partner’s infidelity
(e.g., “I believe my partner is cheating on me”) as well as motivated self-concept change
to become similar to the rival (Slotter, Lucas, Jakubiak, & Lasslett, 2013). Emotional
components involve an individual’s feelings of negativity in response to a jealousy-
evoking situation (e.g., feeling upset, distressed, or threatened). Jealousy expression,
or the behavioral response to jealousy, refers to the various coping mechanisms
employed to deal with the jealous situation (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2000). These behaviors
may include implementing detective or protective measures when perceived rivals are
seen as a threat (e.g., snooping through a partner’s belongings or messages), trying to
increase one’s own desirability to the partner, and/or retaliating by being aggressive or
trying to make the partner jealous in return (Buss, 1988, 1992; Kaighobadi, Shackelford,
& Goetz, 2009).
Previous research has shown that all three components of jealousy (cognitive, emo-
tional, and behavioral) are associated with loss of relationship rewards, loss of self-
esteem, depression, anxiety, and anger (Mathes et al., 1985). Cognitive and behavioral
manifestations of jealousy have been negatively associated with relationship satisfaction
and commitment (Anderson et al., 1995), whereas emotional jealousy has been associ-
ated with positive feelings of love (Pfieffer & Wong, 1989) or has been unrelated to
relationship satisfaction and commitment (Bevan, 2008). Thus, some argue that jealousy
may indicate that a partner values the relationship enough to preserve and protect it
(Bringle & Buunk, 1986), such that jealousy may not always be a maladaptive emotion.
According to this perspective, jealousy can indicate commitment to the relationship, and
the maladaptive outcomes of jealousy might stem from jealousy’s negative manifesta-
tions, such as brooding, dwelling on the past, retaliating, and projecting one’s own
Kim et al. 1021

insecurities onto the partner (Elphinston, Feeney, Noller, Conner, & Fitzgerald, 2013).
Even if an experience of jealousy signals commitment, there is abundant evidence that
strong jealous responses are related to negative outcomes for individuals and relation-
ships (e.g., Shackelford et al., 2003; Weekes-Shackelford, Shackelford, & Buss, 2003).
Therefore, a crucial next step in this research area is to examine ways that jealous
experiences can be reduced or eliminated for individuals who experience jealousy most
frequently and maladaptively in their relationships.

Anxious attachment and jealousy

One factor that consistently predicts frequent and maladaptive jealousy is anxious
attachment orientation (e.g., Buunk, 1997; Crowell, Fraley, & Roisman, 2016; Fraley &
Shaver, 2016; Guerrero, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz,
2001; Marshall, Bejanyan, DiCastro, & Lee, 2013; Rodriguez, DiBello, Øverup, &
Neighbors, 2015). Relationship threats—actual or perceived threats to the relationship—
activate the attachment system (e.g., Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002) and can lead
to the experience of jealousy and behavioral responses intended to protect the rela-
tionship, especially for anxiously attached individuals (Guerrero, 1998). Anxiously
attached individuals chronically expect significant others to be undependable and
unreliable, and they often perceive themselves as being misunderstood, unconfident,
and underappreciated (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). These perceptions lead
anxiously attached individuals to (1) experience greater levels of perceived relationship
threat (and resulting attachment system activation) and greater levels of jealousy in
response to perceived relationship threats (Buunk, 1997), (2) worry that their partner will
leave them for someone else (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998), and (3) respond to jealousy-
evoking situations with higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger than their secure
counterparts (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). Anxiously attached individuals also
report greater levels of monitoring their partner’s behavior for signs of infidelity and
greater surveillance behavior (e.g., spying, searching partner’s belongings) than secure
individuals (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998; Guerrero & Andersen, 1998).
Relatedly, anxiously attached individuals report lower trust in their relationships than
securely attached individuals (Brennan & Shaver, 1995). Specifically, anxiously
attached individuals have shown heightened accessibility of negative trust-related
memories, reported fewer positive trust events over time, and dealt with trust viola-
tions in more maladaptive ways (Mikulincer & Erev, 1991). Theoretically, the links
between anxious attachment and jealousy and distrust are thought to stem from deep-
seated insecurities regarding others’ availability and acceptance (Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Therefore, anxiously attached individuals are likely to be particularly sensitive to
the appraisal and processing of trust-related experiences, and their responses to these
experiences are likely to be particularly maladaptive, both personally and relationally.

Interventions to reduce jealousy in the anxiously attached

How can we reduce the strong jealous response that is associated with the anxiously
attached? Given the insecurity inherent in this attachment orientation, security priming
1022 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

may offer an effective intervention to attenuate jealousy for anxiously attached indi-
viduals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The idea of security priming is based in attachment
theory and involves subtle and nonintrusive procedures that have the effect of making
people feel secure and supported (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Mikulincer, Shaver,
Sahdra, & Bar-On, 2013). Increasing feelings of security through security priming has
been shown to have beneficial effects on mental health, prosocial behavior, and inter-
group relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Security primes also enhance self and
relationship views and can provide reassurance of a partner’s love and care; they have
been shown to enhance positive mood and expectations regarding the self and the
relationship (Carnelley & Rowe, 2007).
Traditional security priming interventions have involved having participants
view photos of the secure experiences of others (Mikulincer, Girschberger,
Nachmias, & Gillath, 2001) or asking participants to visualize or write about
memories of feeling supported by an attachment figure (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007) by recalling times they have felt protected, safe, and secure, or times when
a caregiver was available and supportive. By making these experiences and
memories accessible, the schema for security is activated and can momentarily
shape cognitions, emotions, and behavior (Baldwin, 1992). Security primes have
been shown to be effective when administered subliminally (Baldwin, Keelan,
Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Carnelley & Rowe, 2007) or supraliminally
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Recent research has shown that receiving affectionate touch in the context of a close
relationship is also a strong and effective means of promoting feelings of security
(Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Specifically, participants who imagined receiving touch
had greater accessibility of secure words on a memory task (Experiment 1), and parti-
cipants who physically received touch from their romantic partners self-reported greater
state security (Experiment 2) than participants who did not receive touch (Jakubiak &
Feeney, 2016a). These effects were strongest for those low in avoidant attachment
(anxious and secure individuals) and suggest that by promoting state security, touch may
facilitate positive relational feelings and behaviors and protect adult relationships from
threats. Affectionate touch is theorized to promote state security because, like traditional
security primes, it serves as a reminder that the individual is accepted, cared for, and safe
(Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a).
We propose that particularly in threatening situations, especially relationship-
threatening situations, receiving affectionate touch may be more effective than tradi-
tional security priming manipulations to reduce or eliminate the perceived threat. This
is because affectionate touch is a more salient indicator of acceptance by the person
who is initiating the touch, and because it likely conveys greater in-the-moment inti-
macy and warmth than traditional security primes that involve recall or imagination
activities to enhance feelings of security. We propose that particularly in jealousy-
inducing situations that involve great threat to a significant relationship, a stronger and
highly salient security prime such as touch may be needed to thwart the threat. This
theorizing is consistent with research showing that touch reduces neural threat
responses in individuals facing the stressor of an impending electric shock (Coan,
Shaefer, & Davidson, 2006).
Kim et al. 1023

No prior research, however, has examined any type of security priming in

contexts related to jealousy, which is surprising given that this is a domain in which
anxiously attached individuals are likely to be in need of (and benefit from) stra-
tegies that make them feel more secure. Thus, the current research investigates
whether a traditional nontouch security prime and/or affectionate touch can suc-
cessfully reduce or eliminate the experience and expression of jealousy when
individuals experience a jealousy-inducing situation. We hypothesized that both
security-enhancing interventions (touch and a traditional security prime) might
effectively reduce or eliminate jealousy and negative behaviors associated with
jealousy for individuals who are more anxiously attached and thus highly prone to
jealousy and its maladaptive outcomes. However, we expected that the touch
manipulation would be particularly effective in attenuating jealous experiences,
as it is an especially salient indicator of a partner’s availability and acceptance
(Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Thus, we hypothesized that higher levels of anxious
attachment would predict more negative feelings of jealousy and more negative
responses to feeling jealous; however, we expected these effects to be attenuated or
eliminated particularly when receiving touch. We did not make specific predictions
regarding a main effect of condition on jealous experiences, as we expected the
touch and traditional security priming conditions to buffer jealous experiences for
those inclined to feel jealous (more anxious individuals) and not for those less
inclined to feel jealous (less anxious individuals).

Method
Participants
Participants were 75 romantic couples (69 heterosexual couples and 6 homosexual
couples; 71 males and 79 females). Couple members were aged 18–35 years (M ¼ 21.23
years old, 85% were 18–22 years old) and had been dating for at least 3 months
(M ¼ 16.14, standard deviation [SD] ¼ 15.56). Participants were recruited through the
Carnegie Mellon Psychology participant pool or through flyers and online advertise-
ments. Couples were compensated $20 for participating in a 1-hr study. Eleven couples
were excluded from analyses for not following confederate protocol (6 couples), for
suspicion (2 couples), or for early withdrawal (3 couples withdrew early, 2 of which did
not agree to complete the jealousy-induction task). We calculated power for this
investigation using G-Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009): To test an
interaction using hierarchical multiple regression with three predictor variables (two
dummy-coded variables and a continuous variable representing attachment anxiety), we
had a power of .70 to detect an effect size of .15 with a total sample size of 63 (at
p ¼ .05), and a power of .80 to detect an effect size of .20 with a total sample size of 59.
Thus, a sample size of 64 couples should be sufficient to test study hypotheses. Before
arriving at the study, one member of each couple was randomly designated to be the
“target” of the jealousy induction, and the other member was designated as the “partner-
confederate” who would assist with the jealousy induction. Therefore, we only collected
data from the target in each couple.
1024 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

Procedure
Couple members were greeted by the experimenter and brought into the laboratory
living room to begin the “couple’s sensory study.” Couple members were informed that
the study would examine their sensory acuity while working either independently or
with their partner on everyday sensory activities, such as rating objects or photographs.
This cover story prevented participants from knowing that the true nature of the study
involved inducing jealousy, which would have lead participants to behave in inau-
thentic ways.
After the cover story was explained, couple members completed background ques-
tionnaires in separate rooms to ensure privacy. These included measures of demo-
graphics and attachment orientation. To measure targets’ attachment orientation, they
completed an abbreviated version of Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in
Close Relationships Scale, which is a well-validated measure for assessing adult
attachment and contains two subscales—anxiety and avoidance. The anxiety subscale
(12 items) was the focus of this investigation, as we wished to test whether interventions
would reduce or eliminate the association between anxious attachment and jealousy.
This subscale measures the extent to which the individual is worried about being
rejected, abandoned, or unloved by significant others (a ¼ .85). Couple members
responded to each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) in
terms of their general orientation toward close relationships. Items were slightly
reworded so that respondents answered in terms of their general orientation toward close
relationships instead of their more specific orientation to romantic relationships.
Once both couple members were finished with their questionnaires, they were
escorted back to the laboratory living room, and the distractor task (“scent activity”) was
administered. Couple members were asked to work independently using their sense of
smell to rate five different soaps on various dimensions, such as how much they enjoyed
the scents and how willing they would be to purchase the soaps. When both couple
members were finished with the scent activity, they completed a questionnaire regarding
their sensory experiences to support the cover story.

Jealousy induction. While couple members were in separate rooms completing the ques-
tionnaire, the experimenter entered one randomly selected couple member’s room (the
person designated to be the partner confederate) to bring him or her in as a confederate of
the study. The confederate’s help was necessary to create an externally valid induction of
jealousy for the target. The experimenter explained that the next activity (“visual
activity”) would involve the confederate rating eight photographs of attractive indi-
viduals in front of his or her partner (referred to as the target of the jealous experience).
These photographs were preselected to be highly attractive based on their high ratings on
www.hotornot.com, a website from which the photos were retrieved. We selected photos
that were rated high on attractiveness, represented a diverse range of ethnicities, and
were in an age range that study participants were likely to find highly attractive (18–25
years old). The experimenter requested that the confederate (1) rate these photographs
highly (i.e., 8, 9, or 10 on a 10-point attractiveness scale) and (2) respond, when asked for
each photograph, that he/she would be willing to be in a relationship with most of the
Kim et al. 1025

individuals (the experimenter suggested that the confederate say no to one or two
photographs to ensure realism). If the couple was assigned to the touch condition, the
experimenter also asked the confederate to maintain physical contact with the target
(while sitting together on the sofa) for the entire duration of the activity, in whatever
way is natural for the couple, such as by putting his or her arm around the target, or by
putting his or her hand on the target’s leg. If the confederate agreed to follow these
procedures (only two did not agree), he/she was thanked and reminded that the target
would be fully debriefed (at the end of the study) that these were not the confederate’s
true ratings or preferences.
After couple members completed the scent activity questionnaire, they were escorted
back into the laboratory living room and seated on a sofa to begin the visual activity,
which was the jealousy-induction task. The experimenter explained that one couple
member (the confederate) was randomly assigned to make ratings of the attractiveness of
same-age individuals from the local Pittsburgh area. The other couple member (the
target) was asked to record the confederate’s ratings on a visual activity rating sheet to
ensure that the confederate gives his or her undivided attention to the photos and to
making the ratings honestly and accurately. In reality, we asked targets to record the
confederate’s ratings as a jealousy-induction technique. We wanted to ensure that targets
would be completely aware of the confederate’s favorable ratings of the attractive
individuals. Once both couple members agreed to these procedures, a laptop was placed
on the coffee table in front of and between them, and the experimenter began the slide
show. The confederate orally rated each of eight individuals in a series of eight photo-
graphs on two measures: (1) how attractive each person was on a scale of 1 (not at all
attractive) to 10 (extremely attractive) and (2) if the confederate would be willing to be
in a relationship with each person (by stating yes or no), while the target recorded the
ratings. After the confederate rated the eight individuals very favorably on both
dimensions, a slide with all eight photographs was shown, and the confederate was asked
to pick the individual he/she would want to be in a relationship with the most. The photos
included same-age, opposite sex individuals for heterosexual participants and included
same-age, same-sex individuals for homosexual participants.
If the partner confederate followed all of the instructions administered by the
experimenter during the jealousy-induction task (e.g., gave high ratings, verbally indi-
cated relationship interest, did not laugh during the activity, maintained touch if
requested), the experimenter recorded that the target participant should be included in
analyses. If the partner confederate did not follow the instructions in any way (e.g., gave
low ratings, did not verbally indicate relationship interest, laughed during the activity,
did not maintain touch if requested), the experimenter made a note to exclude the target
from analyses. The jealousy-induction procedure was piloted prior to the investigation to
ensure that it was an effective means of inducing jealousy.

Security priming manipulations. The security priming manipulations took place during this
jealousy-evoking activity. In the touch condition, the partner confederate placed his or
her arm around the target’s shoulder before the slide show began (or touched the target in
another way that was natural for the couple). If the target shifted away for any reason, the
confederate still maintained physical contact in another way (e.g., by placing his or her
1026 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

arm on the target’s leg). If the touch manipulation was incorrectly administered (i.e., the
partner-confederate did not touch the target at all or initially tried to touch the target but
the target pulled away and the partner made no further attempts to touch), the partici-
pants were excluded from analyses.
In the traditional security prime condition, the target’s visual activity rating sheet
included a photograph of a mother holding a baby and security-eliciting words
(“warmth—compassion—love—protection—security”) outlined the bottom of the sheet.
This security prime was derived from Mikulincer et al.’s (2001) successful security
prime manipulation of a Picasso portrait of a mother holding a baby. In the control
condition, the target experienced neither touch nor traditional security priming. After the
jealousy-evoking activity was completed, the visual activity rating sheet was collected
from the target, and a visual activity questionnaire was administered to couple members
in separate rooms.

Jealous experience measures. The visual activity questionnaire measured current thoughts
and feelings, including state jealousy (a ¼ .93), positive feelings (a ¼ .93), and state self-
esteem (a ¼ .96). These dependent measures of interest were embedded in other items
(e.g., regarding the visual activity) to support the cover story and to disguise the true
focus of the investigation being on jealousy. State jealousy was measured with two face-
valid items in which participants were asked to rate the extent to which they currently felt
jealous and threatened on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). To measure positive
mood, 14 items such as happy, playful, cheerful, and loving (which targets rated on the
same 5-point scale) were combined to create a positive mood measure. State self-esteem
was measured using a modified 14-item version of McFarland and Ross’s (1982) state
self-esteem measure that asked participants how they felt about themselves right now on
a series of 7-point scales with bipolar anchors (e.g., good–bad, unimportant–important,
loveable–unlovable). Ratings for each pair of opposing attributes were averaged to form
a composite measure of state self-esteem after the jealousy-evoking activity. Positive
feelings and state self-esteem were expected to be related to the experience of jealousy,
yet conceptually distinct; thus, they were retained as separate constructs in data analysis.

Jealous expression measure. After the visual activity questionnaire, the couple members
were escorted back into the laboratory living room and informed that the target would
now have an opportunity to make ratings of the attractiveness of same-age individuals
from the local Pittsburgh area as the confederate previously did. The same protocol was
administered; the laptop was placed in front of and between the couple members on the
coffee table, and the confederate was asked to write down the target’s attraction ratings
(i.e., how attractive each person in the photo is on a scale from 1 to 10) and relationship
preferences (i.e., desire to meet the person) on the visual activity rating sheet. Again, the
photos included same-age, opposite sex individuals for heterosexual participants and
same-age, same-sex individuals for homosexual participants. This opportunity for the
target to make similar ratings was included as a measure of potential retaliation against
the partner confederate for his/her earlier ratings, as the target was not instructed on how
to respond, and the photos used for the retaliation task were selected from the website
hotornot.com to be of average attractiveness and thus less attractive than those rated by
Kim et al. 1027

the partner confederate. The sets of photos rated by the confederate and target were
piloted to ensure that the photos used for the initial jealousy induction were more
objectively attractive (M ¼ 6.7 for attractive male photos, M ¼ 7.4 for attractive female
photos, rated on a 10-point scale) than the photos the target rated during the retaliation
task (M ¼ 4.7 for average male photos, M ¼ 5.2 for average female photos, rated on
a 10-point scale). The target’s attraction ratings were averaged into an attraction-
retaliation index (higher scores indicated greater reported attraction to the individuals in
the photos). The number of people the target indicated that he or she wanted to meet
was summed to form a relationship-retaliation index.
After this activity, the couple members were fully debriefed about the true nature of
the study. The experimenter explained to the target that his or her partner’s ratings of the
photographs were not genuine (that the confederate was asked by the experimenter to
provide those ratings), and the target was assured that whatever ratings he or she gave
were completely normal and common among couples. Couple members were then asked
to have a discussion about the first time they met, or another positive topic if they
preferred, to provide an opportunity for a positive interaction between couple members
before they left the laboratory. After the discussion, they were thanked and compensated
for their time.

Results
We tested our hypotheses by conducting a series of hierarchical multiple regression
analyses in which condition and attachment anxiety were entered on the first step of
the equation, and the interactions between condition and attachment anxiety were
entered on the second step of the equation. Given that there were three levels of
condition (touch, traditional security prime, and control), we created two dummy-
coded variables representing comparisons between (1) participants in the touch and
control conditions and (2) participants in the traditional security prime and control
conditions. Dependent variables included feelings of state jealousy, positive feel-
ings, state self-esteem, attraction retaliation, and relationship retaliation. Means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the dependent measures are shown in
Table 1. The intercorrelations among dependent measures justify retaining them as
conceptually distinct constructs in data analyses. We also conducted supplementary
analyses to test for differences between the touch and traditional security priming
conditions in predicting jealous experiences by creating dummy-coded variables with
touch as the reference group.

Jealous feelings
As expected, there was a significant main effect of anxiety predicting jealous feelings,
indicating that more anxiously attached targets experienced greater state jealousy
(B ¼ .23, b ¼ .27, standard error [SE] ¼ .11, p ¼ .035, 95% confidence interval [CI]
[.02, .45]). There was no significant main effect of condition (p ¼ .240 for touch vs.
control and p ¼ .897 for traditional security vs. control). Also consistent with
predictions, there was a significant interaction between attachment anxiety and the
1028 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among dependent variables.

Jealous Positive State Attraction Relationship

DVs feelings feelings esteem retaliation retaliation M SD

Jealous feelings – –.41** –.67*** .06 .09 2.01 1.01

Positive feelings – .54*** .41** .32** 2.47 .87
State esteem – .07 .09 4.80 1.33
Attraction retaliation – .47*** 6.23 1.18
Relationship retaliation – 3.08 1.95
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

dummy-coded variable representing a comparison between the touch and control con-
ditions predicting jealous feelings (B ¼ .60, b ¼ 1.16, SE ¼ .25, p ¼ .018, 95% CI
[1.09, .11]). Follow-up analyses revealed that for the participants in the control
condition, attachment anxiety was strongly predictive of jealous feelings (B ¼ .41,
b ¼ .44, SE ¼ .12, p ¼ .002, 95% CI [.16, .66]). However, as predicted, for participants in
the touch condition, the association between attachment anxiety and jealous feelings was
eliminated (B ¼ .17, b ¼ .22, SE ¼ .18, p ¼ .352, 95% CI [.55, .21]).
Additional follow-up analyses were conducted using the procedures and computa-
tional program developed by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006) for testing simple
slopes at conditional values of a moderator variable and for testing regions of sig-
nificance. We probed the nature of the interaction in these ways by specifying touch
condition as the primary predictor variable (x) and attachment anxiety as the moderator
variable (z), predicting jealous feelings (y). Simple slopes representing the relation
between touch and jealous feelings were calculated at low (1 SD below the mean ¼
2.50), high (1 SD above the mean ¼ 4.80), and average (mean ¼ 3.65) levels of
attachment anxiety. As expected, the relationship between the touch dummy-coded
variable and jealous feelings at low levels of anxiety (B ¼ .45, SE ¼ .43, t ¼ 1.04,
p ¼ .303) and at average levels of anxiety (B ¼ .24, SE ¼ .30, t ¼ .80, p ¼ .426) were
not significant. However, consistent with predictions, the simple slope representing the
relationship between touch and jealous feelings at high levels of attachment anxiety was
significant (B ¼ .93, SE ¼ .39, t ¼ 2.40, p ¼ .020). Therefore, touch during the
jealousy-induction task resulted in less jealous feelings than the control condition for
individuals high in attachment anxiety. Further tests of the region of significance (which
defines the specific values of anxiety at which the regression of jealousy on touch moves
from nonsignificance to significance) revealed that at values of attachment anxiety
above 4.338, the regression of jealousy on touch becomes significant. Thus, touch
reduces state jealousy at higher levels of anxiety (4.338 and above). The simple slope at
this upper region boundary is statistically significant at B ¼ .65, SE ¼ .33, t ¼ 2.0,
p ¼ .05. The interaction between touch condition and attachment anxiety predicting
jealous feelings is plotted in Figure 1.
There was no significant interaction between attachment anxiety and the dummy-
coded variable representing the comparison between the traditional security priming
and control conditions predicting jealous feelings (p ¼ .815). This indicates that the
Kim et al. 1029

Figure 1. Interaction between touch condition and target anxiety predicting jealous feelings. Low
and high anxiety are plotted at 1 standard deviation (SD) below and above the mean. At low
anxiety, the simple slope comparing touch and control is not significant, B ¼ .45; at high anxiety, the
simple slope comparing touch and control is significant, B ¼ .93. *p < .05.

traditional security prime was not effective in reducing or eliminating jealous feelings
for highly anxious individuals.
Additional analyses with touch as the comparison group (to test for differences
between the touch and traditional security priming conditions) revealed a marginally
significant interaction between attachment anxiety and a dummy-coded variable
representing a comparison between the touch and traditional security prime condi-
tions predicting jealous feelings (B ¼ .54, b ¼ .92, SE ¼ .24, p ¼ .058, 95%
CI [.02, 1.10]). Follow-up analyses revealed that for the participants in the tra-
ditional security priming condition, there was a marginal trend for attachment
anxiety to predict more jealous feelings (B ¼ .37, b ¼ .38, SE ¼ .21, p ¼ .091,
95% CI [.07, .80]). However, for participants in the touch condition, the associ-
ation between attachment anxiety and jealous feelings was eliminated (B ¼ .16, b ¼
.19, SE ¼ .13, p ¼ .214, 95% CI [.09, .41]).
We also probed this interaction using the recommended procedures for testing simple
slopes at conditional values of a moderator variable and for testing regions of sig-
nificance. Simple slopes representing the relation between traditional security prime (vs.
touch) condition and jealous feelings were calculated at low (1 SD below the mean ¼
2.50), high (1 SD above the mean ¼ 4.80), and average (mean ¼ 3.65) levels of
attachment anxiety. The relationship between condition and jealous feelings at low
levels of anxiety (B ¼ .42, SE ¼ .46, t ¼ .91, p ¼ .365) and at average levels of anxiety
(B ¼ .20, SE ¼ .31, t ¼ .65, p ¼ .516) were not significant. However, the simple slope
representing the relationship between condition and jealous feelings at high levels of
attachment anxiety was marginally significant in the predicted direction (B ¼ .82,
SE ¼ .43, t ¼ 1.90, p ¼ .062), indicating that touch reduced jealous feelings compared to
the traditional security prime for individuals high in attachment anxiety. Further tests of
the region of significance revealed condition differences between the touch and
1030 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

Figure 2. Interaction between target anxiety and touch versus traditional security priming con-
dition predicting jealous feelings. Low and high anxiety are plotted at 1 standard deviation (SD)
below and above the mean. At low anxiety, the simple slope comparing touch and the traditional
security prime is not significant, B ¼ .42; at high anxiety, the simple slope comparing touch and
the traditional security prime is marginally significant, B ¼ .82. þp < .10.

traditional security priming conditions at values of attachment anxiety of 5.144 and

above. Thus, touch buffered jealousy more strongly than the traditional security prime
for participants with higher levels of anxiety (5.144 and above). The simple slope
beginning at this region boundary is statistically significant at B ¼ 1.01, SE ¼ .50,
t ¼ 2.0, p ¼ .05. The interaction between condition (traditional security prime vs. touch)
and attachment anxiety predicting jealous feelings is plotted in Figure 2.

Positive feelings
For the positive feelings measure, there was a main effect of attachment anxiety
(B ¼ .19, b ¼ –.26, SE ¼ .09, p ¼ .046, 95% CI [.38, .00]), indicating that anxious
attachment predicted less positivity after the jealousy induction. There was no main
effect of condition (p ¼ .941 for touch vs. control, and p ¼ .790 for traditional security
vs. control). However, consistent with predictions, there was a significant interaction
between attachment anxiety and the dummy-coded variable representing a comparison
between the touch and control conditions predicting positivity (B ¼ .58, b ¼ 1.30,
SE ¼ .21, p ¼ .008, 95% CI [0.16, 1.01]). Follow-up analyses to examine the nature of
this interaction revealed a strong negative association between attachment anxiety and
positivity for participants in the control condition (B ¼ .32, b ¼ .39, SE ¼ .11,
p ¼ .007, 95% CI [.54, .09]). However, as predicted, for participants in the touch
condition, the negative association between attachment anxiety and positive feelings was
eliminated (B ¼ .10, b ¼ .14, SE ¼ .16, p ¼ .543, 95% CI [23, .42]).
Simple slopes representing the relationship between touch and positive feelings were
calculated at low (1 SD below the mean ¼ 2.50), high (1 SD above the mean ¼ 4.80),
and average (mean ¼ 3.65) levels of attachment anxiety (Preacher et al., 2006).
Kim et al. 1031

Figure 3. Interaction between target anxiety and touch condition predicting positive feelings. Low
and high anxiety are plotted at 1 SD below and above the mean. At low anxiety, the simple slope
comparing touch and control is marginally significant, B ¼ .71; at high anxiety, the simple slope
comparing touch and control is marginally significant, B ¼ .62. þp < .10.

Unexpectedly, there was a marginally significant negative relation between touch and
positive feelings at low levels of anxiety (B ¼ .71, SE ¼ .37, t ¼ 1.93, p ¼ .059);
however, consistent with predictions, there was a marginally significant positive relation
between touch and positive feelings at high levels of anxiety (B ¼ .62, SE ¼ .33, t ¼ 1.92,
p ¼ .060). These results indicate that touch during the jealousy-induction task resulted in
more positive feelings for highly anxious individuals and less positive feelings for low
anxiety individuals. At average levels of anxiety, there was no significant relation
between touch and positive feelings (B ¼ .04, SE ¼ .25, t ¼ .18, p ¼ .858).
Further tests of the region of significance revealed that at values of attachment
anxiety below 2.3962, the regression of positive feelings on touch becomes significant,
and at values of attachment anxiety above 4.8913, the regression of positive feelings on
touch becomes significant. Thus, touch significantly influences positive feelings at
both lower (2.396 and below) and higher (4.891 and above) levels of anxiety, but in
opposite directions. The simple slope at the lower region boundary is statistically
significant at B ¼ .77, SE ¼ .39, t ¼ 2.0, p ¼ .05, and the simple slope at the upper
region boundary is statistically significant at B ¼ .68, SE ¼ .34, t ¼ 2.0, p ¼ .05. The
interaction between touch condition and attachment anxiety predicting positive feel-
ings is plotted in Figure 3.
There was also a significant interaction between attachment anxiety and the dummy-
coded variable representing the comparison between the traditional security priming and
control conditions predicting positivity (B ¼ .46, b ¼ .90, SE ¼ .22, p ¼ .042, 95% CI
[.02, .90]). Follow-up analyses revealed a negative relationship between attachment
anxiety and positivity for participants in the control condition (B ¼ .25, b ¼ .34,
SE ¼ .10, p ¼ .020, 95% CI [.45, .04]), and no significant association between
attachment anxiety and positivity for the traditional priming condition (B ¼ .03,
b ¼ .03, SE ¼ .20, p ¼ .900, 95% CI [.44, .39]).
1032 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

Figure 4. Interaction between target anxiety and traditional security prime condition predicting
positive feelings. Low and high anxiety are plotted at 1 SD below and above the mean. At low
anxiety, the simple slope comparing the control and the traditional security prime is not significant,
B ¼ –.53; at high anxiety, the simple slope comparing the control and the traditional security prime
is not significant, B ¼ .52.

Simple slopes representing the relationship between traditional security prime (vs.
control) and positive feelings were calculated at low (1 SD below the mean ¼ 2.50), high
(1 SD above the mean ¼ 4.80), and average (mean ¼ 3.65) levels of attachment anxiety.
Similar to the results for touch (but weaker in terms of significance), there was a non-
significant negative relation between traditional security prime condition and positive
feelings at low levels of anxiety (B ¼ .53, SE ¼ .32, t ¼ 1.65, p ¼ .105); however, there
was a nonsignificant positive relation between traditional security prime condition and
positive feelings at high levels of anxiety (B ¼ .52, SE ¼ .37, t ¼ 1.42, p ¼ .162). At
average levels of anxiety, there was no relationship at all between traditional security
prime condition and positive feelings (B ¼ .005, SE ¼ .24, t ¼ .02, p ¼ .983).
Further tests of the region of significance revealed that the regression of positive
feelings on traditional security prime condition becomes significant only at values of
attachment anxiety below 1.305. The relation does not become significant at higher values
that are within the range of the attachment anxiety scale. Thus, very low levels of anxiety
are required for the effect of the traditional security prime on positive feelings, given that
the anxiety scale ranges from values of 1 to 7. Thus, the traditional security prime sig-
nificantly and negatively influences positive feelings only at low (1.305 and below) levels
of anxiety. The simple slope at this lower region boundary is statistically significant at
B ¼ 1.08, SE ¼ .54, t ¼ 2.0, p ¼ .05. The interaction between traditional security prime
condition and attachment anxiety predicting positive feelings is plotted in Figure 4.
Additional analyses with touch as the comparison group (to test for differences
between the touch and traditional security priming conditions in predicting positive
feelings) revealed no significant interaction between attachment anxiety and a dummy-
coded variable representing a comparison between the touch and traditional security
prime conditions predicting positive feelings (B ¼ .12, b ¼ .24, SE ¼ .24, p ¼ .614).
Kim et al. 1033

State self-esteem
For state self-esteem, there was a main effect of attachment anxiety predicting state
self-esteem (B ¼ .39, b ¼ .34, SE ¼ .14, p ¼ .006, 95% CI [.66, .12]), indicating
that individuals who were higher in attachment anxiety experienced lower levels of
state self-esteem after the jealousy induction. However, there were no main effects of
condition (p ¼ .325 for touch vs. control, and p ¼ .229 for traditional security vs.
control), and no significant interactions between attachment anxiety and condition
predicting state self-esteem (p ¼ .199 for anxiety  Touch condition and p ¼ .837 for
anxiety  Traditional Security condition), suggesting that neither security prime
buffered against reductions in self-esteem when a romantic partner expressed interest
in other relationships. Additional analyses with touch as the comparison group (to test
for differences between the touch and traditional security priming conditions in pre-
dicting state self-esteem) confirmed no significant interaction between attachment
anxiety and a dummy-coded variable representing a comparison between the touch and
traditional security prime conditions predicting state self-esteem (B ¼ .35, b ¼ .46,
SE ¼ .37, p ¼ .344).

Retaliation
We next examined effects of attachment anxiety and condition on the two measures of
retaliation: attraction retaliation (retaliating by giving high ratings of attraction to
photos of potential partners) and relationship retaliation (retaliating by expressing
interest in having a relationship with potential partners). Results revealed no signifi-
cant main effects or interactions of attachment anxiety and condition in predicting the
attraction-retaliation measure (all ps > .470). However, there was a significant main
effect of attachment anxiety predicting the relationship-retaliation measure (B ¼ .41,
b ¼ .25, SE ¼ .21, p ¼ .048, 95% CI [.82, .00]). Interestingly, this main effect
indicated that greater attachment anxiety was related to less retaliation; that is, more
anxiously attached targets retaliated less by indicating in front of their partners that
they wished to meet alternative partners. There were no significant main effects of
condition (p ¼ .111 for touch vs. control and p ¼ .151 for traditional security vs.
control), and no significant interactions between attachment anxiety and condition
predicting relationship retaliation (ps > .580), which makes sense given that there were
no retaliation effects to buffer with the security priming. Additional analyses with
touch as the comparison group (to test for differences between the touch and traditional
security priming conditions in predicting retaliation) confirmed no significant inter-
action between attachment anxiety and a dummy-coded variable representing a com-
parison between the touch and traditional security prime conditions predicting state
self-esteem (ps > .463).1,2

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether affectionate touch or a traditional
security prime would be effective in reducing negative experiences and expressions of
1034 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

jealousy for individuals high in anxious attachment. Consistent with prior research
linking attachment to experiences of jealousy (e.g., Buunk, 1997; Hazan & Shaver,
1987), more anxiously attached participants in this investigation reported more jealous
feelings, less positive feelings, and lower state self-esteem in response to a jealousy-
eliciting laboratory situation. These results indicate that more anxiously attached people,
overall, are more threatened than less anxiously attached people by jealousy-evoking
relationship threats.
We proposed that receiving touch from the romantic partner would reduce jealousy,
especially for individuals high in anxious attachment who are prone to experience jea-
lousy, because touch very saliently conveys acceptance, warmth, and intimacy. Con-
sistent with predictions, results revealed a significant interaction between attachment
anxiety and condition (touch vs. control) predicting jealous feelings. Specifically, more
anxiously attached individuals reported more jealousy in response to the jealousy-
evoking situation in the control condition. However, the link between anxious
attachment and jealous feelings was eliminated for individuals in the touch condition.
Additional probing of this interaction revealed that it was only at high levels of anxiety
(4.34 and above on a 7-point scale) that touch during the jealousy-induction task buffered
jealous feelings. These results are consistent with recent work showing that touch pro-
motes feelings of security (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2016b) and with recent theorizing
regarding the important function that affectionate touch might serve in close relation-
ships, including the promotion of relational well-being (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016c).
Interestingly, a traditional security prime was not effective in eliminating the link
between anxious attachment and jealous feelings. Thus, touch seems to be a stronger
mechanism than traditional security primes for reducing the negative feelings of jealousy
during a relationship threat for highly anxious individuals. Touch may be more effective
in reducing jealous feelings because it provides a more salient and intimate conveyance
of acceptance and security than the traditional security prime, and it is also partner-
specific (in that the partner in the threatened relationship is doing the touching). It will be
important for future research to determine whether touch from any source would be
equally effective in reducing or eliminating jealous feelings, or if touch must come from
the person in the specific relationship being threatened in order to be effective.
An interesting pattern occurred for both touch and traditional security priming in
predicting positive feelings. On the surface, the significant interactions between touch
and anxiety, and between traditional security priming and anxiety, indicated that greater
attachment anxiety was significantly associated with less positive feelings for partici-
pants in the control condition, and as expected, the negative association between
attachment anxiety and positive feelings was eliminated for participants in either the
touch or traditional security prime condition. However, further probing into regions of
significance revealed that touch during the jealousy-induction task resulted in more
positive feelings for highly anxious individuals and (unexpectedly) less positive feelings
for low-anxiety individuals. A similar but nonsignificant pattern emerged for the tra-
ditional security prime: There was a nonsignificant negative relation between traditional
security prime condition and positive feelings at low levels of anxiety, and a non-
significant positive relation between traditional security prime condition and positive
feelings at high levels of anxiety. However, probes into regions of significance revealed
Kim et al. 1035

that the regression of positive feelings on traditional security prime condition was sig-
nificant only at very low values of attachment anxiety. Thus, only at extremely low
levels of anxiety (below 1.30 for traditional security prime, and below 2.40 for touch, on
a scale of 1–7) did touch and the traditional security prime significantly reduce positive
feelings, whereas only touch (and not the traditional security prime) increased positive
feelings at high levels of anxiety (above 4.34).
The results for high anxiety are consistent with expectations, but why would a
traditional security prime—and especially affectionate touch—result in less positive
feelings at very low levels of anxiety? One admittedly post hoc explanation is that
highly secure (very low anxious) individuals may view touch during a relationship
threat that they were not particularly concerned about as a signal that perhaps they
should be concerned. The traditional security prime may also remind these individuals
of secure relationships and thus make the relationship threat more salient than it would
otherwise be to them. This is an interesting pattern that should be replicated and
explained in future research.
Although the touch manipulation successfully eliminated the link between anxious
attachment and jealous feelings in a relationship threatening situation, it is interesting to
note that it did not have the same effect on highly anxious individuals’ state self-esteem.
This makes sense in light of prior research showing that anxious attachment is linked
with chronically low self-esteem (Bylsma, Cozzarelli, & Sumer, 1997; Feeney, 2016;
Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). It is likely that when threatened by potential rivals, short-
term interventions may help to buffer against jealous feelings, but they may not be
powerful enough to combat the chronically low self-esteem of anxious individuals.
Future research is needed to examine and establish methods of improving self-esteem for
anxious individuals both acutely (in specific threatening situations) and chronically.
This investigation also considered the extent to which anxious attachment would be
linked with retaliation in response to a jealousy-evoking situation. We considered two
assessments of retaliation: attraction retaliation (retaliating by giving high ratings of
attraction to photos of potential partners) and relationship retaliation (retaliating by
expressing interest in having a relationship with potential partners). Results revealed
only that anxious attachment was predictive of less relationship retaliation. This implies
that although anxiously attached individuals experience the highest levels of jealousy,
they do not risk retaliating by stating that they wish to meet alternative partners in front
of their current partner, as their partner did just minutes ago. This finding is consistent
with the characteristics of the anxiously attached – that they are clingy and worried about
abandonment (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Shaver &
Hazan, 1988). That is, although anxious individuals experience a great deal of distress in
relationship threatening situations, they may be unlikely to consider alternative options
in front of their partner out of fear of further alienating the partner and experiencing the
abandonment that they seek to avoid. This is also consistent with prior self-report
research showing that anxious individuals try to resist expressing their anger in jea-
lousy situations (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). Anxious individuals’ communication
that they are not interested in anyone else may have been a means of emphasizing their
commitment to their relationship, and it may reflect a form of mate guarding, which is
a common response to jealousy (Buss, 1988, 1992). Another possible explanation for
1036 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

this effect is that anxious individuals may assume that the alternatives would not want a
relationship with them, as they feel unworthy of love and affection from others. Thus,
anxious individuals may thwart this potential rejection by not risking the relationship
initiation. It will be important for future research to examine and establish the
mechanisms underlying the link between anxious attachment and less relationship
retaliation.
The attraction-retaliation assessment did not reveal any significant effects for
attachment anxiety or condition. The average rating for these photos across conditions
(6.27 on a 10-point scale) fell in between the pilot ratings of these photos (4.7 for male
photos, M ¼ 5.2 for female photos) and the pilot ratings for the highly attractive photos
(M ¼ 6.7 for male photos, M ¼ 7.4 for attractive photos) yet was much lower than the
partner confederates’ ratings during the jealousy-induction task (9s and 10s). This can be
interpreted to mean that targets across conditions gave what they perceived to be
accurate ratings and did not retaliate at all, given that the ratings were not as high as the
partner-confederate ratings. It is also possible that targets did not view giving very high
ratings (9s and 10s) to average-attractiveness photos as a viable means of retaliating
(perhaps perceiving that it would not sufficiently make their partner jealous).
Nevertheless, because anxious attachment did not predict retaliatory behavior in this
context, the behavior did not need to be reduced by security interventions. Future
research should examine whether anxious individuals retaliate in more indirect ways that
would be less explicitly threatening to the partner and relationship, or if they retaliate in
especially intense ways if they feel that they have already lost their partner. This idea is
consistent with research showing that insecure attachment is linked with violence and
abuse in relationships, particularly in response to abandonment fears (Babcock,
Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000; Dutton, 2011; Mayseless, 1991; Roberts &
Noller, 1998). It will be important for future research to seek to understand conditions
under which various forms of retaliatory behavior are likely to occur when feeling
jealous and to establish the best laboratory methods for assessing retaliatory behavior.
Overall, these study findings must be considered within the context of the study’s
limitations. One limitation was the study’s reliance on self-reports of jealous experi-
ences, although these assessments were embedded in other items and the purpose of the
study was disguised. Jealousy is seen as an undesirable emotion, so participants may
have been concerned about self-presentation when they responded to these items.
However, because jealousy is a subjective experience, its assessment requires reports
from the participants. The study also was comprised of mostly young, dating couples;
thus, the findings may not generalize to couples in longer term, well-established rela-
tionships. We expect that the results would be even stronger in more established
relationships (that would be even more threatening to lose), but this remains to be
determined in future research. Further research should investigate whether touch is
effective to reduce jealous feelings and behaviors in other types of romantic relationships
(e.g., long-term marriages) as well as in nonromantic relationships (e.g., relationships
between siblings and friends). Additionally, more research is needed to establish the
boundary conditions of touch’s effects in reducing jealousy. For example, it remains to
be determined whether touch would benefit individuals in more threatening situations
(e.g., the presence of an actual rival). Finally, although we obtained strong effects with a
Kim et al. 1037

sample size indicated as appropriate by power analyses, a larger sample size might have
revealed additional effects that we were unable to detect. We have confidence that the
effects obtained are of sufficient magnitude that they would only increase in strength
with a larger sample. Of course, it will be important for researchers to replicate and
extend the work with new samples.
Despite these limitations, this investigation offers many strengths and contributions to
the existing literature. Jealousy is one of the most common areas of conflict in rela-
tionships, and one that is associated with many negative outcomes for couple members,
such as depression (Gotlib & Wiffen, 1989), low self-esteem (Buunk & Bringle, 1987),
divorce (Amato & Rogers, 1997), physical violence, and spousal homicide (Daly,
Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982; Shackelford et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important for
research to address ways of reducing jealousy, and this is the first study to our knowledge
to examine experimental interventions for reducing jealousy. Affectionate touch appears
to be a simple and effective intervention to administer in a jealousy-evoking situation as
a salient reminder of the partner’s closeness and acceptance. Touch interventions may be
particularly important for anxiously attached individuals who are most concerned about
their partners’ love and acceptance, and who experience the most jealousy in their
relationships. This study also contributes an effective method for inducing jealousy in
the research laboratory. The results of this investigation have important implications for
easily implemented interventions designed to enhance the functioning and well-being of
jealousy-prone individuals and their relationships.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Hyea Young Yang and Shaleena Jeawoody for
their assistance with data collection and entry.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a Carnegie Mellon University
Dietrich Honors Fellowship awarded to the first author.

Notes
1. Although not the focus of this investigation, which investigates how to reduce experiences of
jealousy in anxiously attached individuals who are prone to experience it, we conducted
supplementary analyses with the avoidant attachment dimension for interested readers. Given
that avoidant individuals characteristically distance themselves from close relationships, we did
not expect avoidance to predict jealous feelings and behaviors; thus, we did not anticipate a
need to reduce jealousy in avoidant individuals. Consistent with expectations, all effects
involving the avoidance dimension were nonsignificant, with the exception of one main
effect of avoidance predicting lower state self-esteem after the jealousy-induction procedure
(B ¼ .41, b ¼ .32, SE ¼ .15, p ¼ .009, 95% CI [.71, .11]).
2. All results remained the same when controlling for gender, relationship length, and jealous
history (an index of trait jealousy), all of which were assessed in the background questionnaires.
Jealous history was assessed with 2 items (“I often have jealous thoughts in our relationship”
1038 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

and “I have experienced a lot of jealousy in my past” [childhood, adolescence, previous

relationships]) rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(disagree strongly) to 7(agree strongly).

References
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent
divorce. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 59, 612–624.
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. Communi-
cation Reports, 8, 77–85.
Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment, emotional
regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure, preoccupied, and
dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 391–409.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psycholo-
gical Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social
cognitive conceptualization of attachment styles: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109.
Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the invest-
ment model. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 42–67.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment
theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and
romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1986). Examining the causes and consequences of jealousy: Some
recent findings and issues. In R. Gilmour & S. W. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal
relationships (pp. 225–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American under-
graduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.
Buss, D. M. (1992). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 23–29.
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9,
506–507.
Buunk, B., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.),
Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 123–147). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of
jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997–1006.
Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Extradyadic relationships and jealousy. In C. Hendrick & S. S.
Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 317–329). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Bylsma, W. H., Cozzarelli, C., & Sumer, N. (1997). Relation between adult attachment styles and
global self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1–16.
Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences
immediate and later views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14, 307–320.
Kim et al. 1039

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the
neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, C. R., & Roisman, G. I. (2016). Measurement of individual differences in
adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 598–638). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology,
3, 11–27.
DeSteno, D., & Salovey, P. (1996). Jealousy and the characteristics of one’s rival: A self-
evaluation maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 920–932.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to
the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
626–641.
Dutton, D. G. (2011). Attachment and violence: An anger born of fear. In P. R. Shaver & M.
Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences
(pp. 259–275). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy
and relationship satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77,
293–304.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power
3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Feeney, J. A. (2016). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relation-
ships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 435–463). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fraley, C. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment, loss, and grief: Bowlby’s views, new devel-
opments, and current controversies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attach-
ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 40–62). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Gotlib, I. H., & Whiffen, V. E. (1989). Depression and marital functioning: An examination of
specificity and gender differences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 23–30.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions
underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
430–445.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment style differences in the experience and expression of romantic
jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273–291.
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, 111–122.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998). The dark side of jealousy and envy: Desire, delusion,
desperation, and destructive communication. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The
dark side of relationships (pp. 33–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, C. K., & Harris, C. R. (2009). Jealousy: Novel methods and neural
correlates. Emotion, 9, 113–117.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
1040 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(7)

Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016a). A sense of security: Touch promotes state attachment
security. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 745–753.
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016b). Keep in touch: The effects of imagined touch support on
stress and exploration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 59–67.
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016c). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological,
and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review of the research.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. doi: 1088868316650307
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder:
Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of
General Psychology, 13, 327–334.
Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of relationship development and
attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8, 205–224.
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors
of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relation-
ships, 20, 1–22.
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,
42, 1552–1561.
Mayseless, O. (1991). Adult attachment patterns and courtship violence. Family relations, 40,
21–28.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success
and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937–946.
Mikulincer, M., & Erev, I. (1991). Attachment style and the structure of romantic love. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 273–291.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and
emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 143–165). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in
adulthood: Threat related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attach-
ment-figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881–895.
Mikulincer, M., Girschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective component of
the secure base schema: Affective priming with representations of attachment security. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 305–321.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sahdra, B. K., & Bar-On, N. (2013). Can security-enhancing
interventions overcome psychological barriers to responsiveness in couple relationships?.
Attachment & Human Development, 51, 246–260.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 6, 181–196.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction
effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Roberts, N., & Noller, P. (1998). The associations between adult attachment and couple violence:
The role of communication patterns and relationship satisfaction. In J. A. Simpson & W. S.
Kim et al. 1041

Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 317–350). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rodriguez, L. M., DiBello, A. M., Øverup, C. S., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The price of distrust:
Trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse. Partner Abuse, 6, 298–319.
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2003). Wife killings committed in
the context of a lover’s triangle. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 137–143.
Sharpsteen, D. J. (1995). The effects of relationship and self-esteem threat on the likelihood of
romantic jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 89–101.
Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment.
Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 72, 627–640.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 5, 473–501.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within
couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.
Slotter, E. B., Lucas, G. M., Jakubiak, B., & Lasslett, H. (2013). Changing me to keep you: State
jealousy promotes perceiving similarity between the self and a romantic rival. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1280–1292.
Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2003). Murder in a lover’s
triangle. In M. D. Smith, P. H. Blackman, & J. P. Jarvis (Eds.), New directions in homicide
research: Proceedings of the 2001 annual meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group,
(pp. 219–232). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies.
New York, NY: Guilford.