Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-0048-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Effects of Sample Characteristics and Experience
with Infidelity on Romantic Jealousy
Colleen M. Varga & Christina B. Gee & Geoffrey Munro
Published online: 28 July 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Past research has suggested that men are more
upset by imagined sexual than emotional infidelity, and
women are more upset by imagined emotional infidelity
than sexual infidelity. However, experience with infidelity,
methodology, and age and gender of the sample may help to
explain inconsistent results. Two hundred ninety-four
English-speaking undergraduate students and 325 non-
college adults in a large mid-Atlantic urban area of the U.
S. completed forced-choice or continuous-scale anonymous
questionnaires regarding jealousy over a mate’s hypotheti-
cal infidelity. Chi-square and MANOVA analyses replicated
previous findings of the expected gender difference in all
hypothetical forced-choice scenarios. However, results for
those participants who reported experience with actual
infidelity demonstrated little support for the traditional
evolutionary model, as there were no gender differences in
which aspect of hypothetical infidelity was reported to be
more distressing, and no gender differences at the college
level in terms of which aspect of infidelity received the
greatest focus. These findings, extrapolated from both
undergraduates and adults and accounting for the impact
of actual, primed memory of experience of infidelity on
hypothetical jealousy scenarios, raise important questions
about the validity of hypothetical scenarios of jealousy as
proxies for real reactions to actual infidelity. The results of
the present study suggest that the lack of a consistent,
C. M. Varga (*) : C. B. Gee
Department of Psychology, The George Washington University,
2125 G St. NW,
Washington, DC 20052, USA
e-mail: cvarga@gwmail.gwu.edu
G. Munro
Department of Psychology, Towson University,
Towson, MD, USA
replicable gender difference across the lifespan may be
explained by two related factors: age and actual experience
with infidelity.
Keywords Jealousy . Evolutionary theory . Continuous-scale
methodology . Gender differences
Introduction
Gender differences in jealousy have been hotly debated for
two decades, since Buss et al.’s (1992) seminal study with
U.S. college-age students promulgated the evolutionary view
that men are more jealous over a mate’s sexual infidelity
while women are more jealous over a mate’s emotional
infidelity. Since that time, debate has focused largely on the
existence of these possible gender differences, disputing
questions of theoretical soundness (e.g. Buss et al. 1996;
DeSteno and Salovey 1996; Harris and Christenfeld 1996;
Hupka and Bank 1996) and study methodology (e.g.
DeSteno et al. 2002; Hofhansl et al. 2004). Much of the
earlier work has focused on reactions to hypothetical
scenarios of infidelity with college-age samples, which are
of questionable validity in resolving the debate. Little
research in the U.S. has focused on experience of infidelity
in jealousy and sample characteristics across the lifespan or
how these factors impact the question of gender differences.
In response, the current study utilized both forced-choice and
continuous-scale methodologies to examine the effect of
age and gender, as well as actual experience of infidelity
in U.S. undergraduate students and non-college age
adults. Notably, all studies reviewed here are based on
U.S. undergraduate samples using hypothetical scenarios
unless otherwise noted. The present study builds on past
research to explore methodological contributing factors
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
and individual differences in a U.S. sample, allowing a
more thorough and nuanced understanding of the
complex factors contributing to the relationship between
gender and jealousy in response to infidelity.
Hypothetical Reactions to Infidelity
The vast majority of studies examining gender differences
in reactions to infidelity have asked participants to respond
to hypothetical scenarios of infidelity, without determina-
tion of past experience of infidelity or recall and measure-
ment of participants’ response when they experienced past
infidelity. These hypothetical reactions to infidelity have
been widely studied from two different perspectives; that of
the evolutionary model and the social role model. The
evolutionary model espoused by Buss and colleagues stems
from the parental investment model, which holds that
females are more discriminant in mating due to the larger
investment required in parenting, while males compete for
access to females (Trivers 1972). As males risk investing
resources in offspring without paternal certainty, Buss et al.
(1992) extended the logic of parental investment to apply to
jealousy in humans. In particular, Buss et al. (1992)
proposed that men are more sexually jealous because they
possess an innate, biological tendency to advance their
reproductive success by attempting to ensure the fidelity of
their female mate. Females, on the other hand, are posited
to be more emotionally jealous because they need to secure
the emotional interest, resources, and protection of a
powerful male in order to propagate their progeny (Buss
et al. 1992; Wiederman and Allgeier 1993; Wiederman and
Kendall 1999). According to this theory, jealousy is an
adaptive emotion which evolved as a “coping device”
passed down by ancestral humans to help humans survive
and reproduce (Buss 2000, p. 5). This gender-specific
difference model has also been referred to as an evolved
jealousy mechanism (EJM), sexual strategies theory, or
jealousy as a specific innate module (JSIM) theory (Harris
2003b; Schutzwohl 2007).
Using two hypothetical forced-choice scenarios, Buss et
al. (1992) found that 60% of U.S. college-age men reported
that they would have greater distress over imagined sexual
infidelity than over imagined emotional infidelity, while
83% of college-age women reported that they would have
greater distress over imagined emotional infidelity than
over imagined sexual infidelity. These findings have been
replicated extensively in the U.S. using hypothetical
scenarios (Brase et al. 2004; Buunk et al. 1996; Hupka
and Bank 1996; Levy and Kelly 2010; Murphy et al. 2006;
Shackelford et al. 2002). In a meta-analysis based on 72
samples, including both college-age and adult samples and
unpublished studies, Hofhansl et al. (2004) reported a
moderate effect size of .64 for overall gender differences.
855
Social role theorists have noted that a strong version of
the parental investment model would always find the
majority of men selecting hypothetical sexual infidelity as
more upsetting and the majority of women selecting
emotional infidelity as more upsetting (Harris 2003b;
Hupka and Bank 1996). Such a scenario would be
indicative of a consistent strategy particular to each gender.
However, several hypothetical scenario studies with
college-age samples (Buss et al. 1999; Buunk et al. 1996;
Harris 2002; Murphy et al. 2006) and one study with an
adult sample (mean age = 26 years: Sheets and Wolfe 2001)
found that although more men than women reported that
hypothetical sexual infidelity would be upsetting, the
majority of men still felt that emotional infidelity would
be more upsetting than sexual infidelity. In sum, testing of
the traditional hypothetical forced-choice scenario has
consistently demonstrated a gender difference whereby
men report that they would be more upset by imagined
sexual infidelity than women report they would be,
although the degree of expected distress over sexual
infidelity for men has not always been higher than distress
over emotional infidelity.
Research using hypothetical continuous-scale measures
to test the parental investment model has produced mixed
results, but overall, consistent gender differences have not
been identified. An unpublished meta-analysis of romantic
jealousy studies with both adult and college-age samples
found that continuous-scale data did not replicate forced-
choice data across 77 studies (Hofhansl et al. 2004). For
example, DeSteno et al. (2002) found with a college-age
sample that both men and women reported that they would
be more upset by hypothetical sexual infidelity, and no
gender differences were found when using a Likert measure
of agreement/disagreement and a checklist of target feeling
adjectives. Several other studies have replicated this lack of
consistent gender differences in college-age samples
(Dantzker and Eisenman 2005; Eisenman and Dantzker
2006; Takahashi et al. 2006) and one adult sample with a
mean age of 48 years (Green and Sabini 2006).
The inconsistent results found when using hypothetical
forced-choice versus continuous-scale methodologies have
not yet been fully explained. Several researchers have
suggested that the conflicting results may be due to women
having a greater tendency to report any emotions in a
relationship context more strongly than do men (Penke and
Asendorpf 2008; Sagarin and Guadagno 2004). However,
Hofhansl et al. (2004) found that gender differences in
sexual jealousy typically disappeared when tested with
continuous-scale methodologies, while differences in emo-
tional jealousy remained in about half of the studies
reviewed. Thus, emotional jealousy may be uniquely
predicted by gender, at least in part, while the evidence
for a consistent difference in sexual jealousy across
856
multiple methodologies is less substantial (Hofhansl et al.
2004; Penke and Asendorpf 2008).
While considerable research has been devoted to
methodological explanations for differing constructs of
male and female sexual and emotional jealousy, the
literature has by and large ignored the validity of examining
this construct by use of hypothetical scenarios. This lacuna
is problematic for several reasons. First, responses to
hypothetical scenarios vary by methodology within indi-
viduals (e.g. DeSteno et al.’s 2002 study with a college-age
sample). Second, individuals’ responses to hypothetical
scenarios do not correspond with actual experience. For
example, the expected gender difference was found when
participants were asked to imagine a hypothetical forced-
choice scenario consistent with Buss et al.’s (1992) survey,
but no gender difference was found when participants were
asked to recall a specific incidence of experienced infidelity
in either a college-age (Berman and Frazier 2005) or an
adult sample with a mean age of 37 years (Harris 2002).
Third, responses to hypothetical scenarios do not corre-
spond with physiological responses; several studies have
produced inconsistent results regarding physiological arous-
al in response to imagined infidelity in college-age samples
(Buss et al. 1992; Harris 2000; Pietrzak et al. 2002). In fact,
one study of college-age participants produced contradic-
tory results; based on electrodermal activity, men showed
the greatest reactance to imagined emotional infidelity,
while women reacted most to imagined sexual infidelity
(Grice and Seely 2000).
Age as Moderator
Another concern in the examination of gender differences
using hypothetical scenarios is the overwhelming use of
college-age samples. According to Harris’ (2003b) meta-
analysis, of 29 attempted replications of the original Buss et
al. (1992) study conducted with heterosexual populations,
24 studies used undergraduates. The overwhelming use of
such a restricted sample is problematic because under-
graduates’ relative inexperience with long-term emotional
and sexual relationships may cause them to have different
responses to infidelity than older, more experienced
populations (Sabini and Green 2004). Perhaps as a
consequence of the “hook-up” culture common to college
campuses (Garcia and Reiber 2008), two studies with
undergraduates found that both men and women in short-
term relationships were more threatened by hypothetical
sexual infidelity, while men and women in long-term
relationships were more threatened by emotional infidelity
(Mathes 2005; Wade and Fowler 2006).
Research results have been inconsistent in regard to the
effects of age as a sample characteristic on sexual and
emotional jealousy. Two hypothetical forced-choice scenario
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
studies yielded differing results; one study found no age
attenuation within an adult sample, although this adult sample
had a mean age of 26 and included both college students and
non-students (Edlund et al. 2006). Sabini and Green (2004)
found that an undergraduate sample demonstrated a gender
difference, but within an adult sample (mean age of 41 years
old), both genders reported that they would be more upset by
hypothetical emotional infidelity than hypothetical sexual
infidelity.
In regards to hypothetical continuous-scale studies, the
data are stronger for an age effect. One study completed
with a representative adult sample found no gender
difference (Green and Sabini 2006), while other studies
with college-age samples demonstrated a gender difference
in the expected direction (e.g. Becker et al. 2004; Sagarin
and Guadagno 2004). Two meta-analyses also found an age
effect; for example, in one meta-analysis; the average effect
size was .74 for student samples and .45 for community
samples (Harris 2003b; Hofhansl et al. 2004). Thus, there is
insufficient evidence that U.S. adult samples reflect the
same gender difference in sexual versus emotional jealousy
as is typically found in hypothetical jealousy studies with
undergraduate students. The current study examined both
U.S. undergraduate students and adults to fill a gap in the
literature by allowing direct comparison of the multiple
factors affecting romantic jealousy.
Experience with Infidelity
Very few studies have examined how the actual experience
of infidelity affects report of jealousy in response to
hypothetical scenarios, and even fewer have examined
individuals’ immediate jealousy response following an
identified experience of infidelity. A scan of applicable
databases (Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, JSTOR,
and Google Scholar) identified four peer-reviewed studies
and one unpublished dissertation, all using U.S. samples,
which examined gender differences in responses to hypo-
thetical scenarios for individuals with actual experience
with infidelity. Of these, every study replicated the
predicted gender difference when using the forced-choice
hypothetical scenario with participants who had not
experienced infidelity, whereas four out of five found no
gender differences in jealousy when examining the
responses of participants who had actual experience with
infidelity (Berman and Frazier 2005; Edlund et al. 2006;
Harris 2002, 2003a; Kimeldorf 2009). Harris (2002, 2003a)
examined actual experience with infidelity in both an
undergraduate and adult sample using continuous measures;
both men and women reported that they focused more on
the emotional aspect of imagined infidelity. However, as
discussed in Edlund et al. (2006), Harris’s (2002) compar-
ison of hypothetical scenarios and actual experience may
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
have been confounded by a wording change from what
“distressed or upset” participants more to what participants
focused on more. Berman and Frazier (2005) used forced-
choice questions with an undergraduate sample, finding that
both genders who had experienced actual infidelity reported
a slightly greater focus on the sexual aspects of imagined
infidelity; however, due to the use of a more limited
definition of infidelity experience, the sample size for those
who had experienced infidelity was only 64. Finally, an
unpublished dissertation examined sexual and emotional
distress in a sample of 68 undergraduates who reported that
they had experienced infidelity (broadly defined, either
emotional or sexual) during the past week (Kimeldorf
2009). No gender differences were found for how distressed
individuals were by imagined sexual or emotional infidelity.
In contrast with these four studies, Edlund et al. (2006)
found the expected gender differences in response to actual
infidelity experiences using both continuous-scale and
forced-choice hypothetical measures of jealousy. Two
studies, one with an undergraduate sample of 110 partic-
ipants and one with an adult sample of 69 mixed students
and non-students (average age: 26), found that men
reported that they would be more upset by hypothetical
sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, while women
displayed the opposite pattern. In addition, Edlund et al.
(2006) examined the effect of age on gender differences for
participants who had experienced infidelity and reported no
age attenuation. As Edlund et al. (2006) used methods and
questions very similar to those of Harris (2002, 2003a), it is
unclear why these studies produced opposite outcomes. The
present study built on the questions raised here by
comparing a notably larger undergraduate sample with an
older, non-student adult sample within the same study.
Summary and Study Goals
While a large number of hypothetical, forced-choice studies
conducted with undergraduate U.S. samples have found
that men reported that they would be more distressed by
hypothetical sexual infidelity and women reported that they
would be more distressed by hypothetical emotional
infidelity (e.g. Buss et al. 1992; Hupka and Bank 1996;
Levy and Kelly 2010), very few studies have examined
emotional and sexual jealousy responses within adult
samples or individuals who have experienced infidelity.
Of these studies, the majority found no gender differences,
particularly when using continuous-scale measures, calling
into question whether or not hypothetical forced-choice
scenarios are valid measures of reactions to actual infidelity
(Berman and Frazier 2005; Harris 2002, 2003a; Kimeldorf
2009). One possibility that has not yet been examined in the
literature is that a lack of experience with infidelity and/or
college-age sampling would drive the replication of the
857
traditional gender difference for forced-choice scenarios,
but the traditional gender difference would not be replicated
when examining adult populations and those who have
experienced infidelity, particularly when using continuous-
scale scenarios instead of forced-choice. The present study
addressed a gap in the literature by examining larger
samples of both undergraduate and non-college age adult
participants, with and without experience with actual
infidelity, who responded to both continuous-scale and
forced-choice hypothetical measures of distress over emo-
tional and sexual jealousy.
Based on the existing literature, the following hypothe-
ses were proposed regarding the intersection of gender,
experience with infidelity, and age on emotional and sexual
jealousy in response to infidelity. We hypothesized that
among individuals who had not experienced infidelity: (1)
Using a hypothetical forced-choice scenario, male and
female undergraduate and adult responses would replicate
the expected gender difference (i.e., males would report that
they would be more upset by sexual infidelity and women
would report that they would be more upset by emotional
infidelity); and (2) Using continuous-scale measures, both
undergraduate and adult females would be more upset by
hypothetical emotional infidelity than undergraduate and
adult males would be.
We also hypothesized that among individuals who had
experienced infidelity: (3) All groups (college-age and adult,
males and females) would report more distress in response to
imagined sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity on forced-
choice scenarios; (4) All groups (college-age and adult, males
and females) would report more distress in response to
imagined sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity on
continuous-scale scenarios; (5) For both adults and under-
graduates, males would report higher levels of focus on
imagined sexual infidelity than would females; and (6) Male
and female undergraduate and adult responses to the forced-
choice question of whether the sexual or emotional aspect of
actual infidelity distressed/upset them more would replicate
the expected gender difference.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study included 294 heterosexual
English-speaking undergraduate students at a four-year
mid-Atlantic state university (age: M=18.48, SD=1.23;
range: 17–22 years) and 325 heterosexual non-college
adults in the same large urban area (age: M=38.12, SD=
12.60; range: 23–76 years). The final sample was com-
prised of 394 women and 225 men (See Table 1 for
descriptive statistics).
858 Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study variables by sample and gender

Variables Total N M Range SD Sex distress df Test statistic p

Age (3, 616) F=238.03 .000***

College Males 91 18.63 17–22 1.27
College Females 203 18.35 17–22 1.11
Adult Males 134 39.66 22–76 13.41
Adult Females 191 36.55 23–64 11.82
Had Relationship Experience (3, 616) χ2 =24.89 .000***
College Males 91 87
College Females 203 92
Adult Males 134 100
Adult Females 191 97
Experience with Infidelity (3, 616) χ2 =28.56 .000***
College Males 91 39
College Females 203 39
Adult Males 134 55
Adult Females 191 63

Sex distress = Percent of forced-choice respondent more upset by sexual infidelity

***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Procedure Measures

The survey was anonymous and took approximately Demographic Information

10 min to complete. Half of the participants were
randomly given questionnaires including the forced-
choice scenarios, and half were given questionnaires
including the continuous-scale scenarios. The college-age
sample was a convenience sample collected by giving
questionnaire packets to students in introductory psy-
chology classes at a mid-Atlantic university; these
questionnaires were completed either in class or on
participants’ own time and returned anonymously to the
researcher or to a sealed box in the psychology
department. The comparison convenience sample of
non-college age adults was recruited by handing out
1,000 surveys (half including only forced-choice scenar-
ios and half including only continuous-scale scenarios)
between 7:00 and 8:30 am at two different subway
stations in a major mid-Atlantic urban area, within 50
miles of the university where surveys were collected.
Nearly 400 participants mailed questionnaire packets
back to the first author in self-addressed stamped
envelopes. Incomplete surveys and participants who
identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual were
removed, resulting in a final sample of 294 college-age
participants and 325 adult participants. Of the 294
college-age participants, 203 were female and 91 were
male. Of the 325 adult participants, 191 were female and
134 were male.
Participants provided minimal demographic information,
reporting only age, biological gender, and sexual orienta-
tion. Participants were also asked to indicate if they had
ever been involved in a romantic relationship.
Romantic Jealousy: Forced-Choice Scenarios
Half of the participants in each sample (undergraduate and
adult) received Buss et al.’s (1992) original two item Buss
Infidelity Questionnaire. Using the same wording as Buss
et al. (1992), the participant was asked to think of a serious
committed romantic relationship that he or she has had in
the past, currently had, or would like to have. The
participant was then asked to imagine that this person has
become interested in someone else and answer the question,
“what would distress or upset you more?” The first item
allowed one of two responses: (A) imagining your partner
forming a deep emotional attachment to that person, or (B)
imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual inter-
course with that other person (Buss et al. 1992, p. 252). In
the second item, the participant was presented with the
same scenario and asked to select if: (A) imagining your
partner trying different sexual positions with that other
person, or (B) imagining your partner falling in love with
that other person, would be more upsetting.
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
Romantic Jealousy: Continuous-Scale Scenarios
Half of the participants in each sample (undergraduate and
adult) responded to the same two questions as above, but
instead of a forced-choice scenario, participants responded
using a 7-point likert-type scale indicating their degree of
upset (1 = not at all upset to 7 = very upset) if their partner
told them of this infidelity. As described above, the first
item asked about their partner enjoying passionate sexual
intercourse and trying different sexual positions with that
person and the second item asked about forming a deep
emotional attachment, or falling in love with that person.
Experience of Infidelity
A question was included from Harris (2002) to find out if
participants had ever experienced infidelity. Using the same
wording as Harris (2002), participants were asked, “Have you
ever had any experiences in which someone you were
romantically involved with “cheated” on you?” This question
was included on both the continuous-scale and forced-choice
surveys, after the initial set of forced-choice or continuous-
scale hypothetical scenarios. Consequently, all forced-choice
and continuous-scale questions were administered in a
hypothetical format, but in analysis, continuous-scale and
forced-choice responses were grouped according to whether
or not each participant reported actual experience with
infidelity. Of the final sample, 60% of adults (55% of male
adults and 63% of female adults) and 39% of undergraduates
(39% of both undergraduate males and females) reported that
they had experienced a partner’s infidelity (See Table 1). Thus,
analysis of participants who reported previous experience of
infidelity was restricted to 109 males (36 college-age males
and 73 adult males) and 199 females (79 college-age females
and 120 adult females). These numbers were further
subdivided by type of survey received, forced-choice or
continuous-scale. For example, of the 73 adult males who
reported previous experience of infidelity, 33 completed the
forced-choice questions and 40 completed the continuous-
scale questions. All N′s are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
“Upset” Versus “Focus” Regarding Actual Infidelity
A second group of questions suggested by Sagarin (2005)
and Edlund et al. (2006) were answered only by individuals
who reported that they had experienced infidelity. These
questions were designed to see if participants were
responding to the choice between sexual and emotional
infidelity based on a differing understanding of the words
“upset or distressed” versus which aspect was focused on
more. Using the same wording as Sagarin (2005) partic-
ipants were asked, “Which aspect of your partner’s
infidelity did you focus on more?” and responded either:
859
(A) I focused more on the emotional aspects of my partner’s
infidelity, or (B) I focused more on the sexual aspects of my
partner’s infidelity. In addition, participants were asked,
“Which aspect of your partner’s infidelity distressed or upset
you more?” and responded either: (A) I was more distressed
or upset by the emotional aspects of my partner’s infidelity, or
(B) I was more distressed or upset by the sexual aspects of my
partner’s infidelity. As with actual experience of infidelity,
analysis of degree of upset versus focus was restricted to 109
males (36 college-age males and 73 adult males) and 199
females (79 college-age females and 120 adult females).
All N′s are presented in Table 4.
Results
Demographic information indicated that males and females
evidenced similar age ranges and means for undergraduate
males and females as well as for adult males and females,
with a significant difference between the two groups (see
Table 1). Age was normally distributed for both sample
groups; both skew and kurtosis fell within acceptable
bounds (+/− 1.0). Differences existed in relationship
experience such that more adults than undergraduates
reported having been involved in a romantic relationship.
Significant differences were also present for experience of
actual infidelity; adult males and females reported higher
levels of experienced infidelity than college-age males and
females, with adult females reporting the highest rate of
experience with infidelity at 63% (See Table 1 for
descriptive statistics on all demographic variables).
No Experience of Infidelity: Responses to Hypothetical
Infidelity Scenarios
Forced-Choice Hypothetical Scenarios
Hypothesis 1 predicted that male and female undergraduates
and adults who had never experienced infidelity would
replicate the expected gender differences in response to the
hypothetical forced-choice scenario. This hypothesis was fully
supported for undergraduates and partially supported for adults.
Chi-square analyses found that for scenario one, 48% of
college-age males compared to 38% of adult males, 20% of
college-age females, and 13% of adult females reported that the
sexual infidelity would distress them more, χ2(3, N=146)=
11.22, p=.011 (See Table 2). Main effects were also found
such that college-age males were more distressed by
sexual infidelity than were college-age females, χ2(1, N=
86)=5.67, p=.017, and adult males were more distressed
by sexual infidelity than were adult females, χ2(1, N=60)=
5.40, p=.020. For scenario two, 38% of college-age males
compared to 24% of adult males, 14% of college-age females,
860 Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866

Table 2 Participants who have not experienced infidelity: responses to hypothetical infidelity scenarios by sample and gender

Variables Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress M SD df Test p

Forced-choice Item 1
College Males 21 10 47.6
College Females 65 13 20.0
Adult Males 30 11 36.7
Adult Females 31 4 12.9
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 86) χ2 =5.67 .017*
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 61) χ2 =5.40 .020*
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 147) χ2 =11.22 .011*
Forced-choice Item 2
College Males 21 8 38.1
College Females 65 9 13.8
Adult Males 30 7 23.3
Adult Females 31 3 9.7
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 85) χ2 =7.34 .007**
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 60) χ2 =1.57 .210
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 145) χ2 =8.35 .039*
Continuous-scale Sexual Distressa
College Males 34 6.71 .68
College Females 59 6.69 .74
Adult Males 31 6.34 .90
Adult Females 40 6.76 .64
Main Effect for Gender (1, 164) F=2.73 .100
Gender*Sample Interaction (1, 164) F=3.22 .074
Continuous-scale Emotional Distressa
College Males 34 5.94 1.10
College Females 59 6.41 .80
Adult Males 31 6.06 .88
Adult Females 40 6.76 .60
Main Effect for Gender (1, 164) F=12.99 .000***
Gender*Sample Interaction (1, 164) F=.67 .411

N Sex distress = Number of forced-choice respondents more upset by sexual infidelity

a
7-pt scale (1 = not at all upset, 7 = very upset)
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

and 10% of adult females reported that the sexual infidelity
would distress them more, χ2(3, N=145)=8.35, p=.039. A
main effect was found such that college-age males were more
distressed by sexual infidelity than were college-age females,
χ2(1, N=85)=7.34, p=.007, but no main effect for gender
differences emerged in adults.
were found for either adults or undergraduates regarding
sexual jealousy, and neither interaction term was significant
for differences among sample and gender. However, a main
effect for gender was found in which females reported greater
levels of distress over emotional infidelity than did men F
(1,164)=12.99, p=.000 (see Table 2).

Continuous-Scale Hypothetical Scenarios Experience of Infidelity: Responses to Hypothetical

Hypothesis 2 predicted that on continuous-scale measures of
hypothetical jealousy, both undergraduate and adult females
would be more upset by emotional infidelity than males
would be. Results of a multivariate ANOVA suggested that
this hypothesis was fully supported. No gender differences
Infidelity Scenarios
Forced-Choice Hypothetical Scenarios
Hypothesis 3 predicted that among individuals who had
experienced infidelity, all groups (college-age and adult,
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866 861

Table 3 Participants who have experienced infidelity: responses to hypothetical infidelity scenarios by sample and gender

Variables Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress M SD df Test p

Forced-choice Item 1
College Males 20 9 45.0
College Females 40 8 20.0
Adult Males 33 9 27.3
Adult Females 66 8 12.1
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 60) χ2 =6.37 .012*
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 99) χ2 =3.42 .064
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 159) χ2 =12.28 .006**
Forced-choice Item 2
College Males 20 9 45.0
College Females 40 3 7.5
Adult Males 33 13 39.4
Adult Females 66 5 7.6
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 60) χ2 =11.72 .001***
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 90) χ2 =14.97 .000***
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 159) χ2 =26.88 .000***
Continuous-scale Sexual Distressa
College Males 16 6.88 .50
College Females 39 6.74 .55
Adult Males 40 6.51 .99
Adult Females 54 6.70 .67
Main Effect for Gender (1, 149) F=.31 .860
Gender*Sample Interaction (1,149) F=1.47 .228
Continuous-scale Emotional Distressa
College Males 16 6.31 .87
College Females 39 6.29 .96
Adult Males 40 6.28 1.08
Adult Females 54 6.51 .82
Main Effect for Gender (1, 149) F=.36 .551
Gender*Sample Interaction (1, 149) F=.54 .465

Sex distress = Percent of forced-choice respondent more upset by sexual infidelity

a
7-pt scale (1 = not at all upset, 7 = very upset)
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

males and females) would report more distress in response
to sexual infidelity on forced-choice scenarios. This
hypothesis was not supported by chi-square analyses. For
scenario one, 47% of college-age males compared to 27%
of adult males, 17% of college-age females, and 12% of
adult females reported that the sexual infidelity would
distress them more, χ2(3, N=159)=12.28, p=.006 (See
Table 3). A main effect was found such that college-age
males reported that they would have more distress in
response to sexual infidelity compared to college-age
females, χ2(1, N=61)=6.37, p=.012, but no main effect
for gender differences emerged in adults. For scenario two,
45% of college-age males compared to 39% of adult males,
8% of college-age females, and 18% of adult females
reported that the sexual infidelity would distress them more,
χ2(3, N=159)=26.88, p=.000. Main effects were also
found such that college-age males were more distressed
by sexual infidelity than were college-age females, χ2(1, N=
61)=11.72, p=.001, and adult males were more distressed by
sexual infidelity than were adult females, χ2(1, N=98)=
14.97, p=.000.
Continuous-Scale Hypothetical Scenarios
Hypothesis 4 predicted that on continuous-scale measures,
all groups (college-age and adult, males and females) would
report more distress in response to sexual infidelity than in
response to emotional infidelity. Results of a multivariate
862 Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866

Table 4 Participants who have experienced infidelity: responses to real infidelity by sample and gender

Variables Total N N Sex distress % Sex distress df Test p

Forced-choice: Focused More

College Males 36 18 50.0
College Females 79 31 39.2
Adult Males 73 31 42.5
Adult Females 120 28 23.3
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 115) χ2 =1.23 .237
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 193) χ2 =7.56 .006**
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 308) χ2 =12.35 .006**
Forced-choice: Distressed/Upset More
College Males 36 16 44.4
College Females 79 33 41.8
Adult Males 73 23 31.5
Adult Females 120 28 23.3
Main Effect for Gender: College (1, 115) χ2 =.30 .583
Main Effect for Gender: Adult (1, 193) χ2 =1.51 .219
Gender*Sample Interaction (3, 308) χ2 =9.65 .022*

Sex distress = Percent of forced-choice respondent more upset by sexual infidelity

***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

ANOVA suggested that this hypothesis was fully sup-
ported (see Table 3). All sample groups reported greater
distress in response to sexual infidelity. No gender differ-
ences were found for either adults or undergraduates
regarding sexual or emotional jealousy, and neither
interaction term was significant for differences among
sample and gender.
Responses to Real Infidelity
The next sections focus on reactions to real infidelity as
opposed to hypothetical infidelity, which was the focus of
all previous analyses, after being questioned about past
infidelity experience.
In response to which aspect of actual infidelity dis-
tressed/upset them more, hypothesis 6 suggested that both
male and female undergraduate and adult responses to the
forced-choice question of whether the sexual or emotional
aspect of actual infidelity distressed/upset them more would
replicate the expected gender difference. This hypothesis
was not supported. While an interaction between gender
and age group was identified such that 46% of college-age
males compared to 32% of adult males, 41% of college-age
females, and 23% of adult females reported that they were
more distressed or upset by the sexual aspect of the
experienced infidelity, χ2(3, N=302)=9.65, p=.022, no
main effects were found for gender differences either in
adults or undergraduates (See Table 4).

“Upset More” Versus “Focus More”

Hypothesis 5, which stated that both adult and undergrad-
uate males who had experienced infidelity would report
higher levels of focus on sexual infidelity than would
females, was partially supported. An interaction was found
such that 50% of college-age males compared to 44% of
adult males, 39% of college-age females, and 24% of adult
females reported that they focused more on the sexual
aspect of the experienced infidelity, χ2(3, N=302)=12.35,
p=.006 (See Table 4). Adult males reported focusing more
on sexual infidelity than adult women, χ2(1, N=187)=7.56,
p=.006, but no difference was found for college-age males
and females.
Discussion
The present research makes several important contributions
to the burgeoning literature on gender differences in
hypothetical jealousy, suggesting ways in which experience
of infidelity, age of the respondent, and biological gender
may influence participants’ report of romantic jealousy in
response to hypothetical sexual or emotional infidelity.
First, the current work replicated Buss et al.’s (1992) results
very closely, adding to a considerable body of literature
finding gender differences in sexual and emotional jealousy
when using hypothetical, forced-choice scenarios; the data
were especially strong in regards to forced-choice scenarios
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
with college-age participants. However, the results of the
present study obtained by using the alternative method of
continuous-scale measures and by examining both college-
age and adult populations do not fit well with Buss et al.’s
(1992) theory suggesting that the parental investment
model can explain proposed gender differences in human
jealousy.
Results for those participants who reported experience
with infidelity demonstrated little support for the traditional
evolutionary model, as there were no gender differences in
which aspect of hypothetical infidelity was more distress-
ing, and no gender difference at the college level in terms of
which aspect of infidelity received the greatest focus. These
findings, extrapolated from both undergraduates and adults
and accounting for the impact of actual, primed memory of
experience of infidelity on hypothetical jealousy scenarios,
raise important questions about the validity of hypothetical
questions about jealousy as a proxy for real reactions to
actual infidelity. Additional inconsistencies emerged when
examining the breadth of forced-choice and continuous-
scale responses across populations that have and have not
had experience with infidelity. For participants who had no
experience with infidelity, a strong interaction effect
emerged for forced-choice questions, along with consistent
gender differences for college students and inconsistent
gender differences for adults. A gender difference also
emerged for continuous-scale questions, but only as a main
effect for hypothetical emotional infidelity. In contrast,
when participants who reported actual experience with
infidelity responded to these same hypothetical measures,
continuous-scale hypothetical questions revealed no gender
differences at all. For forced-choice questions among
participants who reported experience of infidelity, the
expected gender difference was replicated among college-
age males and females, but among adult males and females,
there was no gender difference found in one of the two
forced-choice hypothetical scenarios.
These results suggest that the lack of a consistent,
replicable gender difference across the lifespan may be
explained by two related factors: age and actual experience
with infidelity. Across scenarios, younger males were the
group that reported the least experience with relationships
and infidelity, while simultaneously demonstrating the most
consistent pattern of greater distress over hypothetical
sexual infidelity. In contrast, older males reported more
actual experience with relationships and infidelity. These
results reflect the conclusions of two previous meta-
analyses, providing support for the suggestion that younger
individuals predict that they will be more upset by
hypothetical sexual infidelity (Harris 2003b; Hofhansl et
al. 2004). Thus, while previous research has suggested that
relationship experience activates sexual jealousy in men
(Becker et al. 2004; Buss et al. 1992; Murphy et al. 2006;
863
Sagarin et al. 2003), the actual experience of infidelity did
not appear to activate hypothetical sexual jealousy in adult
men in the present study. This change across time and
experience may interact with a separate pattern for women.
All data indicating a gender difference across hypothetical
forced-choice and continuous-scale scenarios for partici-
pants who had not experienced infidelity suggested that
women were more upset by emotional infidelity than men
were. However, for participants in the current study who
had experienced infidelity, no gender difference emerged
for distress over hypothetical emotional infidelity when
continuous-scale data were examined. Perhaps for women,
the idea of emotional infidelity may be more upsetting than
hypothetical sexual infidelity before they have actually
experienced infidelity, but once that experience occurs, they
are equally as distressed as men by both scenarios.
Further, based on differing patterns of results among
college-age and older adult samples, these results support
the assertion that the overwhelming use of college-age
student samples may have skewed the current research
literature toward demonstrating more of a gender difference
than exists in the general population. Some might argue that
the college-age or adolescent group is the best indicator of
the true nature of men and women in regards to jealousy
because they are in their prime child-bearing years; women
in particular are most fertile during what are now the high
school and college years. However, two points bear notice
regarding college-age groups. First, women in modern
western industrialized societies experience first birth nearly
10 years later than women in preindustrial environments
and possibly in ancestral environments as well (Mathews
and Hamilton 2002). Paired with the “hook-up” culture of
college campuses and the phenomenon of extended
adolescence, cultural norms may be a factor in that the
combination of delayed adulthood and the salience of sex
for men and emotion for women may contribute to an age-
based gender difference in Western countries (Green and
Sabini 2006). The frequency of short-term relationships and
relative inexperience with infidelity may lead to men
expressing more distress over sexual infidelity than do
women in college-age samples, but in the larger framework,
it is evident that both men and women seek both intimacy
and sexual relations (Garcia and Reiber 2008). It would be
theoretically valuable to replicate this study in developing
countries where 18-year-olds function as adult, procreating
members of the community and are exposed to different
cultural norms.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study
It should be acknowledged that there are limits to the
generalizability of this study. The sample was not com-
pletely random, as the adult sample was recruited during
864
morning rush hour in a business district of a major
metropolitan area. As a result, the men and women in the
adult population who responded to the survey were likely to
be in a higher income bracket and steadily employed, which
may have unanticipated effects on the data. However, at the
same time, this study extended the sample beyond the
typical undergraduate students and created a direct com-
parison to an adult sample. In addition, the hypothetical,
forced-choice results are in accordance with a number of
studies from countries including Australia (Ward and
Voracek 2004, college-age), Spain (Fernandez et al. 2007,
college-age), Brazil (de Souza et al. 2006), and Germany
(Penke and Asendorpf 2008). The limitations of the forced-
choice methodology may also be generalized to other
countries, as studies in Germany, the Netherlands, China,
Japan and Austria found that between 60% and 82% of men
chose emotional infidelity as most upsetting (Buss et al.
1999; Buunk et al. 1996; Geary et al. 2001; Voracek 2001).
Second, the adult sample was limited to individuals
motivated enough to complete the survey and return it in
the mail; while a return rate of 40% is fairly high,
participants who did respond may differ in important ways
from those participants who did not respond. For example,
it is possible that a bias exists in using data only from
highly motivated individuals with a certain degree of
literacy. This study also did not collect data on marital
status, though it is quite likely that reactions to sexual or
emotional infidelity could be different in the context of a
marital relationship. Future research should collect such
data so as to determine whether married individuals are
more upset by infidelity in general than non-married
individuals and if one aspect of infidelity is more upsetting
than the other. One additional concern with the set-up of the
questionnaire is that participants completed the hypothetical
scenarios, responded to a question regarding their experi-
ence of infidelity, then answered two additional questions
about what was more distressing about the infidelity and
what aspect they focused on more. In response to this
question order, some participants might have changed one
set of answers to correspond with the other. Future research
should focus on first priming individuals with a memory of
infidelity and then asking questions about degree of distress
over different aspects of that actual infidelity.
Another limitation may lie in the design of the
continuous-scale data. Similar to previous studies, the vast
majority of respondents scored degree of distress over both
emotional and sexual infidelity as a six or a seven on a 7-
point scale, which may suggest that respondents cannot
differentiate effectively between their degree of upset over
emotional and sexual infidelity. Edlund et al. (2006) suggest
that failures to find gender differences with continuous
rating scales may be attributable to a ceiling effect in the
data. However, DeSteno et al. (2002) have previously
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
utilized a number of different methods as well as a latent
variable approach to suggest that the ceiling effect on this
scale does not obscure any reliable differences between
men and women.
Conclusion
In summary, the present research offers a small but notable
contribution to our understanding of male and female
jealousy and the relevance of sample characteristics such
as age and actual experience of infidelity in this context.
The parental investment model suggests that an innate
biological mechanism has led to a gender difference
whereby men feel greater distress over sexual infidelity
and women feel greater distress over emotional infidelity.
The present study can be seen as additional evidence that
the standard hypothetical forced-choice scenario consistently
supports the traditional evolutionary model. Yet, the
results produced from data driven by actual experience
of infidelity, especially from continuous-scale data and
particularly in regard to sexual infidelity, are inconsistent
with this type of an evolutionary model. If this gender
difference could be attributed to an innate biological
mechanism, research should show a clear gender differ-
ence in a majority of males and females, regardless of
experience with infidelity or age; such has not been the
case. Consequently, in conjunction with Levy and Kelly
(2010), a case can be made that sexual jealousy may
covary with biological gender but is not specifically or
exclusively driven by it, possibly for reasons at least
partially attributable to age and experience with infidelity.
The present study adds to evidence for a gender difference
in emotional jealousy for individuals who have not
experienced infidelity (Becker et al. 2004; Penke and
Asendorpf 2008). Further, results particularly support
previous research indicating that infidelity experience
may alter or erase gender differences in sexual and emotional
jealousy (Berman and Frazier 2005; Harris 2002, 2003a).
As emotional and sexual jealousy demonstrate different
patterns across individual factors such as age, relationship
experience, and experience with infidelity, future research
should examine these two perspectives together, while
continuing to build on the literature differentiating between
hypothetical and real infidelity scenarios. It is likely that
additional social and ecological factors play a role in
reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity; perhaps
parental experience of infidelity, parental divorce, current
relationship status, or an individual’s view of the opposite
gender might help explain aspects of this complex
construct. For example, recent research has found that the
relationship between sexual and emotional jealousy and
biological gender is moderated by attachment style (Levy
and Kelly 2010), chronic levels of jealousy (Miller and
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
Maner 2009), and education (Penke and Asendorpf 2008).
The results of the present study suggest that an examination
of how and why jealousy changes across the lifespan may
add to our understanding of the factors that determine
experience of romantic jealousy.
References
Becker, D. V., Sagarin, B. J., Guadagno, R. E., Millevoi, A., &
Nicastle, L. D. (2004). When the sexes need not differ:
Emotional responses to the sexual and emotional aspects of
infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 529–538. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.2004.00096.x.
Berman, M. I., & Frazier, P. A. (2005). Relationship power and
betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1617–1627.
doi:10.1177/0146167205277209.
Brase, G. L., Caprar, D. V., & Voracek, M. (2004). Sex differences in
responses to relationship threats in England and Romania.
Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 21, 763–764.
doi:10.1177/0265407504047836.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as
necessary as love and sex. New York: Free.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.
Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1992.tb00038.x.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in
jealousy: Not gone, not forgotten, and not explained by
alternative hypotheses. Psychological Science, 7, 373–375.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00392.x.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim,
H. K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999).
Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of
competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States,
Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 121–150.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x.
Buunk, B., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex
differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective:
Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States.
Psychological Science, 7, 359–363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1996.tb00389.x.
Dantzker, M. L., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Sexual attitudes among
Hispanic students at a border university: Gender differences and
failure to support Buss’s jealousy theory. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 26, 71–80.
de Souza, A. A. L., Verderane, M. P., Taira, J. T., & Otta, E. (2006).
Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual
orientation in a Brazilian sample. Psychological Reports, 98,
529–535. doi:10.2466/PR0.98.2.529-535.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex
differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model.
Psychological Science, 7, 367–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1996.tb00391.x.
DeSteno, D. A., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002).
Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact
of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 1103–1116. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1103.
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M., & Sagarin, B. J.
(2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual
infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 462–470. Retrieved from
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04462470.pdf.
865
Eisenman, R., & Dantzker, M. L. (2006). Gender and ethnic differ-
ences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university. The
Journal of General Psychology, 133, 153–162. doi:10.3200/
GENP.133.2.153-162.
Fernandez, A. M., Vera-Villarroel, P., Sierra, J. C., & Zubeidat, I.
(2007). Distress in response to emotional and sexual infidelity:
Evidence of evolved gender differences in Spanish students. The
Journal of Psychology, 14, 17–24. doi:10.3200/JRLP.141.1.17-24.
Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsy-
chosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and
Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208. Retrieved from http://www.
jsecjournal.com/articles/volume2/issue4/NEEPSgarciareiber.pdf.
Geary, D. C., DeSoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., &
Cooper, M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy.
Human Nature, 12, 299–320. doi:10.1007/s12110-001-1001-2.
Green, M. C., & Sabini, J. (2006). Gender, socioeconomic status, age
and jealousy: Emotional responses to infidelity in a national
sample. Emotion, 6, 330–334. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.330.
Grice, J. W., & Seely, E. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in
jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results. Journal of
Research in Personality, 34, 348–356. doi:10.1006/
jrpe.2000.2284.
Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined
infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy recon-
sidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082–
1091. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1082.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual
and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7–12.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00402.
Harris, C. R. (2003a). Factors associated with jealousy over real and
imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and
evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 27, 319–329. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00112.
Harris, C. R. (2003b). A review of sex differences in sexual
jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological
responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128.
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason.
Psychological Science, 7, 364–366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1996.tb00390.x.
Hofhansl, A., Voracek, M., & Vitouch, O. (2004). Sex differences in
jealousy: A meta-analytical reconsideration. Paper presented at
the 16th Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution
Society, Berlin, Germany.
Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution or social construction? Cross-Cultural Research, 30,
24–59. doi:10.1177/106939719603000102.
Kimeldorf, M. B. (2009). Reactions to infidelity: Individual, gender,
and situational predictors of relationship outcome and forgive-
ness. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences
and Engineering, 69(7-B), 4427.
Levy, K. N., & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A
contribution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21,
166–173. doi:10.1177/0956797609357708.
Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual
strategies and sexual jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96, 29–
35. doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.29-35.
Mathews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2002). Mean age of mother, 1970–
2000. National vital statistics reports, 51. Hyattsville: National
Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf.
Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Sex differences in response to
sexual versus emotional infidelity: The role of individual differ-
ences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 287–291.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.013.
866
Murphy, M. M., Vallacher, R. R., Shackelford, T. K., Bjorklund, D. F.,
& Yunger, J. L. (2006). Relationship experience as a predictor of
romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
761–769. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.004.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex
differences in emotional but not in sexual jealousy at the
automatic level of cognitive processing. European Journal of
Personality, 22, 3–30. doi:10.1002/per.654.
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S.
(2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study
of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological
responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior,
23, 83–94. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00078-2.
Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual
and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across
genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1375–1388. doi:10.1177/01461672
04264012.
Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy:
Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 62–75. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5.
Sagarin, B. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2004). Sex differences in the
context of extreme jealousy. Personal Relationships, 11, 319–
328. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00085.x.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., &
Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in
jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and
sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 17–23. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00106-X.
Schutzwohl, A. (2007). Decision strategies in continuous ratings of
jealousy feelings elicited by sexual and emotional infidelity.
Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 815–828. Retrieved from http://
www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep05815828.pdf.
Sex Roles (2011) 65:854–866
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or
breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity.
Cognition and Emotion, 16, 299–307. doi:10.1080/
02699930143000202.
Sheets, V. L., & Wolfe, M. D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in hetero-
sexuals, lesbians, and gays. Sex Roles, 44, 255–276. doi:10.1023/
A:1010996631863.
Takahashi, H., Matsuura, M., Yahata, N., Koeda, M., Suhara, T., &
Okubo, Y. (2006). Men and women show distinct brain activations
during imagery of sexual and emotional infidelity. NeuroImage, 32,
1299–1307. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.049.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.
Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–
1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.
Voracek, M. (2001). Marital status as a candidate moderator variable
of male-female differences in sexual jealousy: The need for
representative population samples. Psychological Reports, 88,
553–566. doi:10.2466/PR0.88.2.553-566.
Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in response to sexual
and emotional infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness
and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary
Psychology, 4, 37–50. doi:10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.1.3.
Ward, J., & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive
explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 56, 165–171. doi:10.1080/
00049530412331283381.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in
sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation?
Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115–140. doi:10.1016/0162-
3095(93)90011-6.
Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy:
Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 20, 121–128. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00046-4.