Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 April 2012
Received in revised form 19 July 2012
Accepted 11 August 2012
Available online 8 September 2012
Keywords:
Indelity
Jealousy
Sex differences
Moderators
a b s t r a c t
Studies examining sex differences in jealousy have often relied on student samples and were restricted to
the evaluation of a selected few moderators. In this study, a nationally representative survey of American
households was presented with either an actual or a hypothetical indelity scenario (which appeared as
either a forced choice or as continuous measures). Signicant sex differences only emerged for forced
choice measures and not for continuous measures. Importantly, this effect appeared most strongly in participants reporting reactions to an actual indelity. We also explored a number of potential moderators of
this effect. These moderators were more inuential for the hypothetical than for the actual indelity scenario. Exploratory analysis of additional demographic variables was conducted.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, sex differences in jealousy are seen as a result of differential challenges
faced by ancestral men and women when confronted with possible
indelity of their mating partner (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). From this perspective, ancestral men are seen as particularly vulnerable to sexual
indelity as it put them at risk of taking care of a child that was
not their own. In contrast, ancestral women had to fear the loss
of child-rearing support from a mate in case of an emotional indelity and possible abandonment by their partner. Men therefore
faced the challenge of paternal uncertainty whereas women faced
the challenge of ensuring paternal investment (Buss et al., 1992).
According to the theory, these different ancestral challenges
boosted mens jealousy in response to sexual indelity and womens jealousy in response to emotional indelity (Sagarin, 2005).
1.1. Methodological issues
Sex differences in jealousy were originally researched through a
forced choice measure that presented participants with a hypothetical indelity scenario and asked them to select which type
of indelity (sexual or emotional) would make them more dis Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 641 6632; fax: +1 815 753 8088.
E-mail addresses: bettina.zengel@gmail.com (B. Zengel), john.edlund@rit.edu
(J.E. Edlund), bsagarin@niu.edu (B.J. Sagarin).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.001
48
1.2. Moderators
2.2. Procedure
3. Results
The analysis of the data was split into the main analysis of sex
differences in jealousy for the forced choice and continuous measures and the additional analysis of moderator effects. For the
forced choice measure logistic regression was used with gender
as only covariate. For the continuous measures, a mixed model ANOVA was used with the aspect of the indelity (emotional vs. sexual) as the within-subject variable and sex as the between-subjects
variable. The result of interest was the interaction between sex and
indelity type (Edlund & Sagarin, 2009). However, main effects
were also reported. Categorical moderators with more than two
levels were effects coded and continuous variables were centered.
These moderators were then entered as additional covariates into
the models (along with their interactions).
3.1. Main analyses
3.1.1. Continuous measures
For continuous measures, sex differences in jealousy (as measured by the sex by indelity type interaction) were not signicant
for the actual indelity experiences, F(1, 783) = .37, p = .54, or
hypothetical indelity scenarios, F(1, 430) = 0.00, p = .99. In case
of actual indelity, the only signicant effect was the main effect
of indelity type, with sexual indelity eliciting greater jealousy
(M = 5.56, SD = 0.06) than emotional indelity (M = 5.46,
SD = 0.06), F(1, 783) = 5.77, p = .02. In the case of hypothetical indelity, both main effects were signicant. Women (M = 5.94,
SD = 0.11) reacted overall with higher jealousy ratings than men
(M = 5.34, SD = 0.11), F(1, 430) = 14.89, p < .001 (an effect that Sagarin & Guadagno, 2004, suggest is due to differential interpretation
of the upper anchor of the jealousy scale). Additionally, sexual indelity elicited higher responses (M = 5.71, SD = 0.08) than emotional indelity (M = 5.57, SD = 0.08), F(1, 430) = 7.93, p = .005.
An additional model was run that included type of scenario (actual
vs. hypothetical) as an additional variable. Once again, there was no
signicant interaction between sex and indelity type,
F(1, 1213) = 0.14, p = .71. There was also no signicant main effect
for the type of scenario, F(1, 1213) = 1.74, p = .19. However, there
was an interaction between the type of scenario and sex,
F(1, 1213) = 24.05, p = .03. Men reported slightly higher jealousy in
response to the actual (M = 5.42, SD = 0.09) as compared to the hypothetical scenario (M = 5.34, SD = 0.11), whereas women reported
higher ratings in response to the hypothetical (M = 5.94, SD = .11) as
compared to the actual indelity scenario (M = 5.60, SD = .08). This
model also showed a main effect for sex, with women (M = 5.77,
SD = .07) reporting higher jealousy than men (M = 5.38, SD = .07),
F(1, 1213) = 15.85, p < .001, as well as a main effect for indelity type,
with sexual indelity eliciting greater jealousy (M = 5.64, SD = .05)
than emotional indelity (M = 5.52, SD = .05), F(1, 1213) = 12.78,
p < .001. All other interactions were not signicant.
3.1.2. Forced choice measures
For the forced choice measures, theory-supportive sex differences emerged in response to both actual indelity experiences
and hypothetical indelity scenarios. For actual indelity, men
were 1.66 times more likely than women to select the sexual aspects of the indelity as more jealousy-provoking than the emotional
aspects,
B = .51,
.44 6 Exp(B) 6 .82,
S.E. = .16,
Wald(1) = 10.64, p = .001. 37.1% of men chose sexual indelity as
the more disturbing option compared to 26.2% of women. A similar
pattern emerged in response to the hypothetical scenario: men
were 1.50 times more likely than women to select the sexual aspects of the indelity as more jealousy-provoking, B = .41,
.45 6 Exp(B) 6 1.00, S.E. = .21, Wald(1) = 3.81, p = .05. Here 35.9%
of men but only 27.2% of women chose the sexual indelity as
the more disturbing option.
An additional model was run that included type of scenario as
an additional variable. For this model type of scenario and its interaction with sex were both not signicant (ps > .68).
3.2. Moderator analyses
Moderator analyses were conducted separately for hypothetical
indelity scenarios and actual indelity experiences for two rea-
49
sons. First, separate analyses reect the importance of the distinction between hypothetical indelity scenarios and actual indelity
experiences in this debate. Second, as shown below, patterns of
moderation differed markedly for hypothetical and actual
indelities.
As discussed above, the expected interaction pattern of sex differences in jealousy for the continuous measures did not emerge.
As the evaluation of moderators for a non-signicant interaction
was somewhat pointless, the potential moderators were not statistically evaluated. However, the trends of these variables might still
be of interest for future research and are therefore included as a list
of means and standard deviations in Supplementary Material:
Table B.1.
The moderator analyses for the forced choice measure are summarized in Supplementary Material: Table B.2. This table lists the
number of participants per subgroup as well as the results of the
logistic regressions that test each moderator. As can be seen in
Table B.2 (and as discussed above), the sex differences were stronger for actual indelity experiences as compared to hypothetical
indelity scenarios. Furthermore, the sex difference in response
to actual indelity was not moderated by any assessed demographic variables (all ps > .054). In contrast, the sex difference in
response to the hypothetical indelity scenario was moderated
by household size, the number of adult household members, the
presence of children between the age of 25, household income,
status of being the head of the household, and the ownership status of the living quarters. The nature of these moderations is discussed below (see also Table B.2).
Household size signicantly moderated the sex difference in
jealousy (B = .39, .48 6 Exp(B) 6 .96, S.E. = .18, Wald(1) = 4.95,
p = .03). For men the odds of selecting sexual over emotional indelity was 1.20 times higher with each additional household member, whereas for women the odds were .81 times lower with each
additional household member. Both of these simple effects were
not signicant (ps > .08).
Consistent with the household size effect were two other significant moderators: the presence of adults (B = .52, .36 6
Exp(B) 6 1.00, S.E. = .26, Wald(1) = 3.90, p = .048) and of children
ages 25 (B = 1.42, .07 6 Exp(B) 6 .89, S.E. = .67, Wald(1) = 4.53,
p = .03). For men the odds of selecting sexual over emotional indelity increased 1.25 times for each additional adult household
member, whereas for women the odds decreased .75 times. As before neither of the simple effects was signicant (ps > .09). A similar but more extreme pattern emerged for the number of children
between the ages of 2 and 5. For men each additional child in that
age range increased the odds of selecting sexual over emotional
indelity 3.05 times (B = 1.12, 1.02 6 Exp(B) 6 9.10, S.E. = .56,
Wald(1) = 3.99, p = .046) while the odds for women decreased .74
times. For women this decrease was not signicant (p = .40).
Household income was another signicant moderator of the sex
difference in jealousy (B = .14, .78 6 Exp(B) 6 .96, S.E. = .05,
Wald(1) = 7.33, p = .01). For men the odds of selecting sexual over
emotional indelity decreased by .99 for each additional $10 k in
household income (a non-signicant decrease, p = .87). However,
for women these odds decreased .86 times for each additional
$10 k in household income (B = .15, .80 6 Exp(B) 6 .93, S.E. = .04,
Wald(1) = 16.07, p < .001).
Ownership of living quarters was also a signicant moderator of
the observed sex difference in jealousy (v2(2) = 6.49, p = .04; for effect code representing rent: B = 1.01, 1.22 6 Exp(B) 6 6.18,
S.E. = .41, Wald(1) = 5.97, p = .02). When asked about the ownership
status of their living quarters participants were given the choice to
select own, rent, or do not pay for housing. For men renting
(compared to the grand mean of all three types of ownership status) decreased the odds of selecting sexual over emotional indelity .56 times (B = .58, .34 6 Exp(B) 6 .94, S.E. = .26, Wald(1) = 4.86,
50
demonstrates an overall signicant effect across studies using continuous measures. However, the present results were obtained
from a large representative sample with strong generalizability
and high levels of statistical power. As such, we believe these results require consideration, even in the context of Sagarin et al.s
meta-analysis. To this end, we explored some possible reasons
for the non-signicant ndings. A ceiling effect explanation had
to be ruled out as less than 60% of men and women chose the highest anchor for any of the continuous measures. One possible difference in methodology introduced in this study was the display of
only one question per screen without possibility to compare or adjust answers. Previous research that used continuous measures
(e.g., Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, & Sagarin, 2006) displayed the
two questions about the emotional and sexual aspects of the indelity on the same screen. However, a follow-up study comparing
these methodologies did not produce the hypothesized decrease in
sex differences for the separate presentation of questions as compared to simultaneous questions.
In contrast to the continuous measures, the ndings for forcedchoice measures offer strong support for the theory of evolved sex
differences in jealousy. This support is particularly strong for responses to actual indelity experiencesan effect that was not
moderated by any of the demographic variables we examined. In
contrast, responses to hypothetical indelity scenarios were moderated by a number of demographic variables. These moderators
are discussed below.
4.1. Age, indelity experience and marital status
The present study offered an opportunity to attempt to replicate
prior published moderator analyses. Like Green and Sabini (2006)
age did not emerge as moderator in the present study. Of greater
theoretical importance was our attempt to replicate Tagler
(2010). Tagler found that for an adult (non-college) sample, those
who had not previously experienced indelity showed a sex difference in jealousy when presented with a hypothetical indelity scenario but those with indelity experience showed no sex
difference. Tagler interpreted these ndings as evidence against
the evolutionary psychological theory. In contrast, in the present
study, sex differences for the hypothetical scenario emerged
regardless of previous indelity experience and regardless of
whether age was also included in the model. Furthermore, in the
present study responses to actual indelity experiences produced
stronger effects than responses to hypothetical indelity scenarios.
Taken together, these ndings provide evidence inconsistent with
the naivet explanation of sex differences in jealousy offered by
Tagler (2010). Lastly, marital status did not emerge as a moderator
in the present studya result in contrast to the ndings of Burchell
and Ward (2011).
4.2. Household income and head of household status
Two demographics examined in the present study offer possible
evidence regarding whether SES moderates the sex difference in
jealousy. In the present study, household income moderated
forced-choice responses to the hypothetical indelity scenario.
Specically, although household income did not moderate mens
responses, higher household income women chose the emotional
indelity as causing greater jealousy more often than did lower
household income women. However, when women were the head
of the household they displayed an increase in jealousy in response
to sexual indelity, whereas men showed a decrease. These ndings highlight the fact that responses to indelity differ not only
by sexthey also differ importantly by individual social status
at least when considering the hypothetical possibility of indelity.
In particular, these ndings might reect female mating strategies,
51