INTRAPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANOTHER’S JEALOUSY EXPRESSION:
TOWARD A REACTION MODEL OF JEALOUSY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
by
JENNIFER LEIGH BEVAN
(Under the Direction of Jerold L. Hale)
ABSTRACT
Jealousy research primarily involves identifying and studying antecedents and
correlates of jealousy experience and expression. To learn more about the consequences
of jealousy expression, this project proposes and tests four potential cognitive and
emotional reactions to another’s jealousy expression. Specifically, general partner
uncertainty, relational uncertainty, jealousy-related emotion, and rumination are predicted
to arise when one’s close relational partner expresses jealousy. These reactions are
examined in relation to relational context (i.e., dating partnership, sibling relationship,
and cross-sex friendship) and jealousy expression type (i.e., integrative communication,
distributive communication, and negative affect expression). Uncertainty findings
revealed that cross-sex friends were more uncertain about the partner and the relationship
than either siblings or daters after another expresses jealousy. Siblings experienced
greater relational uncertainty than did dating partners when reacting to another’s jealousy
expression. In addition, another’s use of negative affect expression was related to greater
partner and relational uncertainty compared with another’s use of integrative
communication. For jealousy-related emotion, siblings and dating partners experienced
stronger jealousy-related emotion compared with cross-sex friends, though jealousyrelated emotion levels did not differ according to jealousy expression type. In terms of
rumination, when one’s partner used distributive communication or negative affect
expression to communicate jealousy, that individual ruminated more than if integrative
communication was used. Rumination levels did not differ according to relational
context. In addition, a reaction model of jealousy is presented that specifies the order in
which these reactions occur after one’s close partner expresses jealousy. After one’s
partner expresses jealousy, that individual first experiences general partner uncertainty,
followed by relational uncertainty. Next, the individual ruminates about the jealousy
expression and then finally experiences jealousy-related emotion. These results broaden
jealousy expression research to include consequences of jealousy expression.
INDEX WORDS:
Jealousy expression, General partner uncertainty, Relational
uncertainty, Jealousy emotion, Rumination, Sibling relationships,
Cross-sex friendships, Dating relationships
INTRAPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANOTHER’S JEALOUSY EXPRESSION:
TOWARD A REACTION MODEL OF JEALOUSY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
by
JENNIFER LEIGH BEVAN
B.A., University of Delaware, 1997
M.A., University of Delaware, 2000
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2003
© 2003
Jennifer Leigh Bevan
All Rights Reserved
INTRAPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANOTHER’S JEALOUSY EXPRESSION:
TOWARD A REACTIONAL MODEL OF JEALOUSY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
by
JENNIFER LEIGH BEVAN
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso
Dean of the Graduate School
The University of Georgia
May 2003
Major Professor:
Jerold Hale
Committee:
Kenzie Cameron
Tina Harris
Michael Kernis
Jennifer Monahan
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my maternal grandmother, Margaret Virginia
Snyder Bull, who passed away before this project was completed but who was always
proud and supportive of my obtaining my Ph.D.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who have been a part of my journey toward finishing my
dissertation and my Ph.D. I am grateful overall to my committee members, my friends,
and my family for the important and essential ways that they guided me through this long
and sometimes frustrating process.
First, I would like to thank Jerry Hale, my major professor. His suggestions
always helped to improve this dissertation and his calm demeanor always helped to
counteract my “occasional” overexcitement and anxiety about the project. I am also
grateful to Jennifer Monahan and Kenzie Cameron, who I always felt comfortable
approaching with any sort of question about interpersonal communication. Tina Harris
and Mike Kernis also contributed unique and useful suggestions to improve this project.
Many friends have been instrumental to my success as a graduate student.
Without Sandy Williams, I simply never would have gotten through my first two years at
Georgia and I will eternally be grateful to her for our distracting notes in class, our coffee
shop “work” sessions, and the many projects we have worked on together (including data
collection for her master’s thesis). Without Kristy Maddux, I would not have been able to
finish up my final two years at Georgia. Our gossip sessions, her willingness to baby-sit
her “nieces” Daphne and Oreo, and our shopping trips will make me miss being in
Athens for years to come. In addition, I am grateful for the friendships that I share with
John Lynch, Rich Nabring, Shawn Powers, Kristan Poirot, Tasha Dubriwny, Pam
Lannutti, Eric Taubel, and John Roberts. My experience at Georgia has been greatly
vi
enhanced by knowing all of you. Finally, and most notably, I want to acknowledge the
influence and importance of my master’s advisor, Wendy Samter. Without you, I simply
would not be where I am today.
My family has also been so instrumental in this journey. My mother, Jennie Bull,
and my father, Ron Bevan, have always supported my desire to earn a Ph.D., even if they
weren’t exactly sure what I was studying! Their pride in their only child was always vast
and unwavering. Also, I am excited knowing that I have made my maternal grandmother,
Margaret Bull (who passed away in February 2003 and to whom this dissertation is
dedicated), and my paternal grandparents, Jerry and Bob Bevan, proud by completing my
dissertation and earning my Ph.D.
Finally, I am most grateful to my immediate “family”: Gordon, Daphne, and
Oreo. Gordon is the most amazing fiancée that a girl could have. There is no one else that
knows and understands and loves (and tolerates!) me better. I am thrilled to be spending
my life with you and so thankful that you choose to do the same with me. Our sweet pets
also deserve recognition, as they have been with me first-hand throughout the dissertation
process and thus should be awarded medals of honor for being on the front lines! I love
you all.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND RATIONALE.............................1
The Nature of Relational Jealousy ................................................................3
Proposed Consequences of Another’s Jealousy Expression .......................17
2
METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................33
Pilot Studies .................................................................................................33
Main Investigation .......................................................................................49
3
RESULTS ........................................................................................................64
4
DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS ............................80
Consequences of Another’s Jealousy Expression .......................................81
The Reaction Model of Jealousy in Close Relationships ............................91
Limitations and Conclusions .......................................................................95
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................100
APPENDICES
A
EXAMPLE OF PILOT STUDY I INSTRUMENT (CROSS-SEX FRIEND
CONDITION) ...........................................................................................116
viii
B
ORIGINAL JEALOUSY EXPRESSION DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
FROM GUERRERO ET AL. (1995) AND JEALOUSY EXPRESSION
MESSAGES TESTED IN PILOT STUDY I ............................................125
C
EXAMPLE OF PILOT STUDY II INSTRUMENT (DATING PARTNER
CONDITION) ...........................................................................................127
D
EXAMPLE OF MAIN INVESTIGATION INSTRUMENT (SIBLINGNEGATIVE AFFECT EXPRESSION CONDITION) .............................130
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Realism, Frequency of Occurrence, and Ever Occurred Variable Means and
Standard Deviations for Relational Context Scenarios Examined in Pilot I and Pilot II ..38
Table 2: Valence and Realism Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Jealousy
Expression Types Examined in Pilot I ...............................................................................42
Table 3: Demographic Variables Overall and by Relational Context ...............................53
Table 4: Relational Variables Overall and by Relational Context .....................................54
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Main Investigation Dependent
Variables ............................................................................................................................61
Table 6: Realism, Frequency of Occurrence, and Ever Occurred Variable Means and
Standard Deviations for Jealousy Scenarios Examined in Main Investigation .................67
Table 7: Valence and Realism Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Jealousy
Expression Types Examined in Main Investigation ..........................................................69
Table 8: Means and Standard Deviations for the Relationship between Relational Context
and the Dependent Variables .............................................................................................74
Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for the Relationship between Jealousy
Expression Type and the Dependent Variables .................................................................75
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Proposed Path-Analytic Reaction Model of Jealousy ........................................32
Figure 2: Final Path-Analytic Reaction Model of Jealousy with Path Coefficients ..........79
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND RATIONALE
Jealousy has commonly been conceptualized as an interpersonal event that
necessarily involves an individual, his or her relational partner, and a potentially
threatening rival (e.g., White & Mullen, 1989). Specifically, because relational jealousy
occurs only as a result of one’s attachment to another, it is viewed as an “inherently
relational emotion” (Staske, 1999, p. 214). However, the study of jealousy within close
relationships typically has focused solely on individual and relational antecedents and
correlates of jealousy. For example, recent research has explored jealousy experience and
expression in relation to individuals’ sex and gender (Aylor & Dainton, 2001), sexual
orientation (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002), and loneliness (Rotenberg, Shewchuk, &
Kimberley, 2001) and in association with one partner’s assessment of relationship
commitment (Marelich, Gaines, & Banzet, in press), length (Aune & Comstock, 1997),
and intimacy (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001).
Although these studies are informative, one area is still lacking in jealousy
expression research: information about an individual’s reactions to his or her relational
partner’s direct communication of jealousy. Specifically, the intrapersonal reaction of an
individual to another’s expression of jealousy has escaped extensive scrutiny but is
important for two reasons. First, examining jealousy from this perspective can provide
crucial insight into the reactional nature of jealousy expression within close relationships
and the future relational consequences that could result. Scholars (e.g., Constantine,
2
1976; Ellis & Weinstein, 1986) suggest that jealousy exists in all close partnerships,
meaning that its presence and impact is likely to be negotiated and dealt with by
relational partners during the course of a relationship.
Second, the study of jealousy is lacking in useful theoretical frameworks created
specifically to explain the process of jealousy in close partnerships. Two theoretical
trends are currently evident in jealousy research. First, recent research that tested the
viability of Bryson’s (1991) dual motivation model of jealousy (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998)
and Bringle’s (1991) transactional model of jealousy (Marelich et al., in press) failed to
support the tenets set forth by these frameworks. Thus, a number of the models believed
to explain jealousy processes have not received empirical support. Second, many scholars
have imported general psychology and communication theories to explain the jealousy
process, including attachment theory (Guerrero, 1998) and evolution theory (Buss, 2000;
Buunk & Dijkstra, 2001). However, merely including jealousy as part of the scope of
these theories does not provide a comprehensive theoretical framework of jealousy
processes. Thus, current jealousy research should strive to create and refine empirically
supported and useful jealousy theories and models.
To examine both of these issues, the current project intends to study the
associations between relational context (i.e., siblings, cross-sex friends, and dating
partners), types of jealousy expression, and subsequent cognitive and emotional reactions
to another’s jealousy expression. More specifically, the present examination proposes that
jealousy-related emotions, general partner and relational uncertainty, and rumination
within an individual will arise in reaction to another’s jealousy expression. Further, these
variables are examined in concert with one another to create a reaction model of jealousy
3
useful in explaining how one partner reacts cognitively and emotionally to the other
partner’s jealousy expression within their relationship.
The Nature of Relational Jealousy
Jealousy is commonly defined as a perceived or actual threat to the exclusive
nature of one’s romantic relationship (e.g., Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Bringle & Buunk,
1986; White, 1981; White & Mullen, 1989). However, conceptualizing jealousy in this
manner is restrictive because it does not acknowledge the presence and importance of
nonromantic jealousy across different relational contexts (Bevan & Samter, 2001). As
such, jealousy is broadly defined as “a protective reaction to a perceived threat to a
valued relationship, arising from a situation in which the partner’s involvement with an
activity and/or another person is contrary to the jealous person’s definition of their
relationship” (Hansen, 1991, p. 213). This characterization, an expanded version of
Clanton’s (1981) definition, is useful for two reasons: (1) it is applicable to a range of
relational contexts; and (2) it suggests that the relationship is valuable to the jealous
individual. When jealousy does occur, it triggers a multidimensional experience
involving cognition, emotion, and communication (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b; Pfeiffer
& Wong, 1989).
According to Aylor and Dainton (2001), communication research has extended
the psychological study of jealousy in two ways: (1) by emphasizing the interactive
nature of jealousy by distinguishing between the cognitive and emotional experience of
jealousy and its communicative expression; and (2) by acknowledging the presence of
prosocial jealousy responses, which are frequently overlooked but important in terms of
relational development and satisfaction. In addition, communication scholars have also
4
developed the most comprehensive typology of jealousy expression. Specifically,
Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, and Eloy (1995) developed 14 communicative
responses to jealousy, defined as behavioral reactions to jealousy that possess
communicative value and have the potential to satisfy individual and relational goals.
Guerrero et al.’s (1995) jealousy responses can be divided into two general classes of
jealousy expression: interactive responses, which are efforts to either engage in or avoid
direct communication with one’s partner, and general behavioral responses, which may
be aimed at one’s partner, but do not necessarily involve direct communication between
the partners. Generally, the communication of jealousy and how it arises can help
relational partners manage and negotiate it (Planalp, 1999).
In order to further knowledge regarding how jealousy is expressed by one partner
and the other partner’s reaction to that expression, three interactive responses will be
focused upon: integrative communication, negative affect expression, and distributive
communication. Guerrero and Andersen (1998b) define integrative communication as an
expression of jealousy that is direct and non-aggressive, such as disclosures and
reassurances. Negative affect expression is defined as nonverbal jealousy expression that
one’s partner can observe, including appearing hurt, crying, or acting anxious. Finally,
distributive communication involves direct and aggressive jealousy expression such as
accusations, sarcasm, or arguing.
For the purposes of the current study, these jealousy responses were selected from
Guerrero et al.’s typology (1995) for three reasons: (1) each is specifically directed
toward the partner; (2) each has been found to occur with relative frequency across a
variety of samples (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002; Bevan & Samter, 2001; Guerrero et al.,
5
1995), meaning that participants should be able to either recall a time when each did
occur or easily imagine an instance where each could happen in their own relationships;
and (3) each are likely to elicit qualitatively different reactions from one’s partner.
Namely, distributive communication is a negative method of jealousy expression, with
Guerrero and Andersen (1998b, p. 179) calling it “one of the most deleterious
communication strategies.” Negative affect expression could be viewed as a neutral
strategy because it can be positively or negatively construed depending upon the other
methods of jealousy expression it accompanies (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg,
1995; Guerrero et al., 1995). Finally, integrative communication is a positive method for
communicating jealousy because it can have constructive relational consequences
(Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b).
The Reaction Perspective in Jealousy Research
The bulk of jealousy research has centered on the individual who is jealous and
how he or she experiences and communicates jealousy. In other words, although
communication implies that the partner is somehow involved in the jealousy process,
most scholars only assess the way one’s partner would express jealousy and fall short of
measuring an individual’s reaction. However, jealousy should be considered from a
reaction perspective where the behavior of one partner is examined in terms of the
intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions from the other partner, and vice versa. In other
words, much like Dance’s (1967) helical spiral as a representation of interpersonal
communication, the interaction between partners’ emotions, cognitions, and behaviors
should be acknowledged according to the feedback received by both individuals during
the exchange.
6
This reaction perspective is important, as it allows for a more comprehensive and
realistic conceptualization of jealousy in close relationships. For example, three important
models of romantic jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989;
White, 1981) fail to specify how an individual might react to or evaluate various types of
communicative or coping strategies used by another. Instead, these jealousy models
merely allude to the effect of jealousy expression or coping by labeling them as
“outcomes” or “relational consequences.” According to Guerrero and Andersen (1998b,
p. 182), “how the partner and rival respond to the jealous individual’s communication,
and how their communication affects the jealous person’s goals, decisions, and behaviors
are interesting and important questions that have yet to be addressed.” Further,
Yoshimura, Guerrero, and Trost (1999, p. 3) point out that solely examining the jealous
individual’s perspective prevents scholars from “seeing the more global context in which
‘jealousy’ occurs.”
In response to these calls for studying jealousy as a more reactional process, the
current project focuses upon an individual’s cognitive and emotional reactions to
another’s direct communication of jealousy. In other words, what intrapersonal processes
do individuals go through after another expresses jealousy to them? Only a handful of
jealousy researchers have suggested possible reactions to another’s jealousy. For
example, Ellis and Weinstein (1986) note that expressing jealousy to another can carry
risks such as the jealousy object viewing the jealous individual as overly demanding or
suspicious or feeling as if the jealous individual views him or her as dishonest or
deceiving. Conversely, Planalp (1999) states that jealousy expression can be flattering for
the jealousy object. Further, Yoshimura et al. (1999) suggested that an individual who
7
another is jealous of can respond using a number of communication strategies, including
denial of the jealousy-provoking behavior, assurances to the jealous individual of
continued love and commitment, requests to the jealous individual for increased trust,
confirmation that the rival relationship exists and either is or is not threatening, and use of
partner jealousy expression as an excuse to end the relationship.
When considering empirical research on the subject, Mullen and Martin (1994)
found that almost 20% of a sample of members of the general population believed that
their partner’s jealousy caused a great deal of problems in the relationship. However, not
all jealousy interactions are negative. In a case study of jealousy between cross-sex
friends, a “shared understanding” of the male’s relational jealousy was reached and
resulted in the friends’ understanding of one’s romantic attachment to the other (Staske,
1999). From this, Staske (1999, p. 233) concluded that positive discussions of jealousy
between cross-sex friends can “provide a particularly useful resource in the ongoing
construction of romantic relational identities and the romantic bond.”
In the most comprehensive known examination of an individual’s reaction to
another’s jealousy expression, Sheets, Fredendall, and Claypool (1997) asked 178 pilotstudy participants to imagine that their partners became jealous following specific
jealousy-evoking situations and then describe how they would likely react to such
jealousy expressions. Forty six percent of the responses were reassurances such as
restating commitment to the relationship, ignoring/making light of the jealousy
comprised 20% of the reactions, 12% of the responses were exacerbations, where the
partner accented his or her attraction to the other, and 10% were explanations of actions
to the partner. In a subsequent study, Sheets et al. (1997) found that reassuring and
8
exacerbating comments from one’s partner were positively associated with the partner’s
expected relationship stability (as perceived by the participant). Further, reassuring
comments from the other person were positively associated with an individual’s actual
relationship stability. From these results, the authors concluded that reassurances from
the partner appear to strengthen the romantic bond. Further, jealousy can be seen as
immediately negative but can actually contribute to relational stability when countered
with partner reassurances.
The above research findings provide encouraging preliminary evidence that the
reaction perspective in jealousy research will be fruitful in learning more about how
relationships are affected by jealousy situations. The first step in this process is to
determine what an individual’s cognitive and emotional reactions might be when another
expresses jealousy and how these reactions might vary according to relational context and
the actual method used by the other to communicate jealousy. A discussion of potentially
relevant relational contexts is provided below.
Jealousy in Non-Romantic and Romantic Relational Contexts
Jealousy is believed to be present in nearly all partnerships (Constantine, 1976).
Despite this idea that jealousy is almost universal, it is primarily studied in relation to
romantic relationships, possibly because romantic jealousy is viewed as a particularly
potent threat between romantic partners (e.g., Bringle, 1995; Ellis & Weinstein, 1986).
Numerous researchers (e.g., Aune & Comstock, 1997; Bringle & Buunk, 1991) have
suggested that those in romantic relationships can experience jealousy about partners’
involvement with friends, family, hobbies, or work. Indeed, Hansen (1982, 1985)
substantiates these claims with his findings that involvement with family members and
9
spending extra time at work can elicit moderate to high jealousy responses between
spouses.
Jealousy has also been suggested within multiple relational contexts. Specifically,
jealousy has occurred between business associates, romantic partners, family members,
or friends (Buunk & Bringle, 1986; Guerrero & Andersen, 1998a; Hill & Davis, 2000;
White & Mullen, 1989). Buunk and Bringle (1987, p. 125) note that jealousy across
relationships is plausible because each relationship type can be characterized by “strong,
frequent, and diverse interdependency that lasts over a considerable period of time.”
Further, Guerrero and Andersen (1998a) contend that jealousy across non-romantic
relational contexts consistently involves a threat to something that is valued and is in
jeopardy of being altered or taken away.
Relational characteristics are important to the understanding of jealousy
experience. Indeed, Bringle and Buunk (1986) note that relationship characteristics
accounted for more variance than did personality variables in terms of jealousy
experience. Further, previous research indicates that dating relationships (Aylor &
Dainton, 2001; Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, & Andersen, 1993), sibling relationships
(Masiuch & Kienapple, 1993; Miller, Volling, & McElwain, 2000) and cross-sex
friendships (Bevan, 1999; Bevan & Samter, 2001; Werking, 1997b) are three relational
contexts that seem especially prone to jealousy. In fact, Bringle (1991) reported that
significantly more people had experienced friend jealousy, romantic jealousy, or sibling
jealousy than had not. As such, these three types of relationships are of particular interest
to the present examination and are developed in more detail below.
10
Jealousy in Dating Relationships
When two individuals become dating partners, they agree (explicitly or implicitly)
to engage in a romantic relationship that can vary in definition from casual and nonexclusive to exclusive, committed, and directed toward a more serious relational
commitment. Compared with marital partners, daters experience significantly more
romantic jealousy (Aylor & Dainton, 2001; Guerrero et al., 1993). Aylor and Dainton
(2001) found that casual daters experienced cognitive jealousy (i.e., suspicion or
worrying about a rival) to a greater degree than did serious daters, but no differences for
emotional jealousy experience were observed. Further, the amount of jealousy dating
partners experienced did not significantly vary according to whether dating partners
viewed the relationship as casual or exclusive (Yareb, Allgeier, & Sensibaugh, 1999). As
such, dating partners seem to believe that an expectation of exclusivity is present from
the relationship’s onset, regardless of whether or not exclusivity is explicit (Yareb et al.,
1999).
Romantic jealousy within dating relationships can have both positive and negative
implications. Romantic jealousy is positive when it facilitates communication and
produces an increase of relational commitment (Bringle, 1995). Conversely, romantic
jealousy is negative in that it can lead to violence and homicide in extreme circumstances
(Bringle, 1995; Guerrero & Andersen, 1998a). Pines and Aronson (1983) found that
individuals believe that there are more negative consequences to romantic jealousy than
positive ones. Overall, negative aspects of the relationship typically accompany romantic
jealousy between daters.
11
In terms of the communicative expression of romantic jealousy by daters, Aune
and Comstock (1991) found that dating partners were more likely to express jealousy to
one another than were friends. Further, Guerrero et al. (1993) found that dating partners
tended to use negative and avoidant jealousy responses, especially when compared with
spouses. More recently, Aylor and Dainton (2001) found that negative affect expression,
integrative communication, avoidance/denial, and compensatory restoration (i.e.,
attempting to make the primary relationship attractive to one’s partner) were the
dominant forms of jealousy expression across dating relationships. Bevan and Lanutti
(2002) also reported the prevalence of these jealousy responses in romantic relationships
(including dating partnerships). However, although much is known about how dating
partners experience and express romantic jealousy, how the individual whose dating
partner is jealous reacts to that expression remains unclear.
Sibling Rivalry and Jealousy
Cicirelli and Nussbaum (1989, pp. 283-4) define sibling relationships as “the total
of the interactions (actions, verbal, and nonverbal communication) of two or more
individuals who share common biological parents, as well as their knowledge,
perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings regarding each other.” The sibling relationship
is unique from other close relationships for a number of reasons. Siblings share a
common biological heritage, are often committed to maintaining their relationship
throughout the life span because of common parentage, and have a long shared history
resulting in intimate and common experiences (Cicirelli & Nussbaum, 1989). Compared
with cross-sex friendships and dating relationships, sibling relationships are nonvoluntary
in nature, often provide unique roles and functions such as role models or socialization
12
agents, and cannot be completely terminated, even in the absence of frequent interaction
(Myers et al., 2001). Moreover, siblings have longer and more egalitarian relationships
(Cicirelli & Nussbaum, 1989) and provide less psychological, social, and instrumental
support (Bedford, 1989) than do cross-sex friends or daters. In terms of similarities, each
of these three relational contexts provides feelings of positive affect, association,
attachment, and well being (Myers et al., 2001). Further, sibling relationships can have
initiation, maintenance, and dissolution phases similar to non-familial relationships;
however, these phases develop over the entire life span (Cicirelli, 1985).
According to Miller et al. (2000, p. 434), sibling interactions are salient because
they “lay the groundwork for how a child responds in future relationships.” The
significance of sibling relationships in future relational development is echoed by other
family researchers (e.g., Brody, 1998; Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1994; Ponzetti & James,
1997). However, despite the significant impact sibling interactions can have in an
individual’s relational development, very few family and personal relationship scholars
study the sibling relationship (Fingerman & Hay, 2002). To remedy this and
acknowledge the importance of siblings in individual’s lives, the current study includes
sibling relationships in its examination of jealousy.
One sibling dynamic that can play an instrumental role in the type of adult one
becomes is sibling rivalry, defined as “competition between siblings for the love,
affection, and attention of one or both parents or for other recognition or gain” (Leung &
Rosen, 1991, p. 314). Specifically, White and Mullen (1989) note that sibling rivalry
could play a role in one’s jealousy in adult romantic relationships and can also be a major
factor in the formation of one’s personality. Thus, sibling rivalry has received heavy
13
focus from sibling researchers (Bank & Kahn, 1997), and research on this topic has
established rivalry as one of the primary dimensions of sibling interaction. For example,
both Furman & Buhrmeister (1985) and Stocker and McHale (1992) determined that
rivalry represented one of the primary dimensions or qualities of sibling relationships
between the ages of six and 11 years. Further, Gold (1989) considered the extent to which
jealousy was present between siblings as an important aspect of sibling relationships
when creating five types of elderly sibling relationships.
Although rivalry is widely believed to be one of the more dominant aspects of
young sibling relationships, researchers do not agree on the extent to which rivalry
persists after childhood. Some scholars (Allan, 1977; Mander, 1991) believe that rivalry
dissipates as the siblings grow older and move to different geographic locations. Other
researchers (Bank & Kahn, 1997; Brody, 1998; Cicirelli, 1982, 1985; Cicirelli &
Nussbaum, 1989; Dunn, 1985) contend that rivalry can continue into adulthood, although
it is more latent than childhood competition. In fact, Ross and Milgram (1982) found that
71% of adult group interview participants still experienced sibling rivalry, which was
most commonly attributed to continued parent favoritism and competitive sibling
behavior. In addition, Gold (1989) observed jealousy between elderly siblings that ranged
from constructive to aggressive.
In terms of the communication of sibling jealousy and rivalry, Furman and
Burhmeister (1985) reported a moderate positive correlation between conflict and rivalry.
Further, Hetherington (1988) found that one sibling’s rivalry was positively correlated
with the other sibling’s avoidance, rivalry, and aggression or coercion. Toddlers and their
older siblings tended to use negative affect when expressing jealousy (Miller et al., 2000).
14
Though valuable, the above research findings all involve children younger than 11 years
of age. Whether these same communication patterns would extend to adolescent and
young adult siblings is unknown. However, researchers hypothesize that adolescent and
adulthood rivalry is difficult to communicate and is either avoided (Cicirelli, 1985; Ross
& Milgram, 1982) or communicated in a verbally aggressive or violent manner (Raffaelli,
1992).
Obviously, inconsistency exists with regard to the extent to which sibling rivalry
continues and is communicated by adult siblings. Further, the manner in which sibling
rivalry is communicated has escaped empirical scrutiny. To help clarify these issues and
to fill what many researchers (e.g., Cicirelli, 1982; Dunn, 1985; Stocker & McHale,
1992) consider to be a void in this research area, the current study intends to examine
sibling jealousy in late adolescence and early adulthood. Rivalry and jealousy are very
similar concepts, with Bank and Kahn (1997, p. xv) referring to them as “emotional
cousins,” and a number of researchers using the terms interchangeably (e.g., Leung &
Robson, 1991; Mander, 1991). Indeed, a recent study on sibling jealousy (Miller et al.,
2000) found that such an experience could be managed and regulated much like previous
research findings on rivalry (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Masiuch & Kienapple, 1993).
Thus, to be consistent throughout the current project and to allow for comparisons with
general jealousy research and the specific study of jealousy in cross-sex friendships and
dating relationships, the term sibling jealousy (rather than rivalry) will be utilized
exclusively.
15
Jealousy between Cross-Sex Friends
A cross-sex friendship is “a specific type of friendship – a nonromantic,
nonfamilial, personal relationship between a man and a woman” (O’Meara, 1989, p.
526). However, being nonromantic does not exclude sexuality or passion entirely;
instead, the relationship is seen as separate from romantic courtship rites (O’Meara,
1989). Fundamentally, a cross-sex friendship shares many of the same characteristics that
all friendships have, including spontaneity, support, acceptance, and understanding
(Monsour, 1997). Overall, examining cross-sex friendship as an influential relational
context is important for two reasons: (a) adult friendship represents one of the most
salient relationships for individuals (Bruess and Pearson, 2000); and (b) very few
personal relationship scholars examine friendships (Fingerman & Hay, 2002).
Although 8th graders reported that their sibling relationships and cross-sex
friendships did not differ in the amount of companionship present (Buhrmeister &
Furman, 1987), cross-sex friendships have been found to be closer, more important, and
more reciprocal compared with siblings (Pulakos, 1988). Further, friends discuss more
topics and share more activities than do siblings (Pulakos, 1988). In addition, unlike
sibling relationships (but similar to dating relationships), friendships between men and
women introduce the potential for sexual attraction (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; O’Meara,
1989). Compared to romantic relationships, friendships (both same- and cross-sex)
involve less exclusiveness, lower demands on loyalty, and less willingness to help the
partner (Davis & Todd, 1985). Same- and cross-sex friends are also less romantically
intense, less intimate, and have less sharing, caring, and supportiveness of the partner
compared with romantic relationships (Davis & Todd, 1982). Cross-sex friends also
16
disclose less intimate information with one another compared with romantic partners
(Patford, 2000). However, friends and romantic partners both are voluntary relationships
that involve affection, love, and emotional commitment (Werking, 1997a). Further, both
contexts possess similar levels of trust, respect, acceptance, spontaneity, and stability
(Davis & Todd, 1982).
In general, considerable research (e.g., Afifi & Burgoon, 1998; O’Meara, 1989;
Rawlins, 1982) describes cross-sex friendships as being more difficult to maintain and
containing greater obstacles to overcome compared with other relational contexts.
Specifically, Arnold (1995) notes that cross-sex friends must often deal with issues of
relational definition, sexuality, emotional intensity, jealousy, and the way third parties
perceive the relationship. These difficult issues can be explained by the scant societal
guidelines or role-defined expectations guiding cross-sex friend interactions (O’Meara,
1989).
The presence and management of sexuality between cross-sex friends has
constituted a large portion of research in this area. However, Kaplan and Keys (1997)
suggest that the nature of cross-sex friends’ emotional bond should also be considered.
One emotional experience that is relevant to the study of cross-sex platonic relationships
is jealousy (Arnold, 1995). Recent research suggests that various types of jealousy are
experienced at moderate levels of intensity (Bevan & Samter, 2001) and frequency
(Bevan, 1999) in cross-sex friendships. Such jealousy is troublesome for cross-sex
friends: Females reported that being jealous of other people was the most costly aspect of
their relationships, with males indicating that jealousy was second most costly to them
(Beske & Buss, 2000).
17
Jealousy expression is also problematic for cross-sex friends. For example, Aune
and Comstock (1991) reported that friends (same- and cross-sex) communicated jealousy
to a significantly lesser degree than romantic partners did. Moreover, although integrative
communication was most frequently used across the entire sample, Bevan (1999) found
that participants with romantic interest in their cross-sex friends were more likely to
avoid communicating romantic jealousy to the friends than those who were unsure of or
without romantic interest.
Thus, there seems to be difficulty in expressing jealousy between cross-sex
friends. To learn more about this issue, and about the general management of jealousy in
both romantic and non-romantic associations, cross-sex friendships, dating relationships,
and sibling relationships will serve as frameworks from which to examine how
individuals react to others’ direct communication of jealousy to them.
Proposed Consequences of Another’s Jealousy Expression
Four consequences seem possible when another expresses jealousy to an
individual: general partner uncertainty, relational uncertainty, jealousy-related emotion,
and rumination. Descriptions of these consequences and their relation to specific jealousy
expression types and relational contexts are presented below.
General Partner and Relational Uncertainty
The first proposed consequence of partner jealousy expression is the presence of
uncertainty. The concept of uncertainty has arisen from Berger and Calabrese’s (1975)
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT), which has been useful to communication scholars
in focusing attention to “the role of uncertainty in various communication situations and
to practical concerns with how individuals manage uncertainty in problematic situations”
18
(Goldsmith, 2001, p. 514). Scholars agree that uncertainty is a basic human experience
that must be managed in a variety of situations and relational contexts (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996; Bradac, 2001; Brashers, 2001; Goldsmith, 2001).
Though the construct of uncertainty is most frequently associated with new
relationships, uncertainty levels remain salient in established relationships as well
(Berger, 1987; Knobloch & Solomon, 2002b). Indeed, Prisbell (1999) reported that
friends and romantic partners experienced greater amounts of uncertainty compared with
casual acquaintances and business relationships. Further, because the negotiation of
uncertainty within close relational contexts is an important aspect of relational health
(Knobloch & Solomon, 2002b), it is an area worthy of study. Goldsmith (2001) criticizes
URT’s failure to address the role of communication quality in uncertainty processes. To
remedy this theoretical oversight, the current project examines the quality of another’s
jealousy expression (i.e., whether it is seen as positive, negative, or neutral) as a predictor
or antecedent of an individual’s experience of uncertainty.
Generally, uncertainty is present when “when details of situations are ambiguous,
complex, unpredictable, or probabilistic; when information is unavailable or inconsistent;
and when people feel insecure in their own state of knowledge or the state of knowledge
in general” (Brashers, 2001, p. 478). Uncertainty can be divided into two broad
categories: general and relational. General uncertainty, which exists when there is little
knowledge about one’s attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behavior, can further be divided
into self and partner uncertainty (Berger & Bradac, 1982). Knobloch and Solomon (1999,
p. 262) define self uncertainty as occurring when individuals are unable “to describe,
predict, or explain their own attitudes or behavior” and partner uncertainty as being
19
present when there is “an inability to predict the other person’s attitudes and behaviors
within interaction.” On the other hand, relational uncertainty is defined as “doubt about
the status of the relationship apart from either self or partner” (Knobloch & Solomon,
1999, p. 262). Thus, the fundamental difference between general uncertainty and
relational uncertainty is that the latter focuses on the relationship as a unit, meaning that
relational uncertainty exists at a higher order of abstraction than general uncertainty
(Berger & Bradac, 1982).
General partner uncertainty and relational uncertainty will be focused upon and
compared in the present investigation. Although Knobloch and Solomon (1999) criticized
uncertainty research’s focus on general partner uncertainty, this type of uncertainty seems
germane to the situation of interest. Specifically, general partner uncertainty should be
primary to an individual when considering his or her partner’s direct expression of
jealousy. Further, uncertainty about the relationship should also be considered after
another communicates his or her jealousy to an individual because such a situation may
call the quality of the relationship into question. This focus on a situation where one’s
partner expresses jealousy is consistent with recent research (e.g., Afifi & Metts, 1998;
Knobloch & Solomon, 2002a) that has examined specific uncertainty-evoking events
within close relationships.
The relationship between uncertainty and jealousy has received robust support.
Smith and Clanton (1983) describe this association by stating that jealousy can lead to the
inability to predict one’s own behavior, or one’s relationship, including the relationship’s
future, how the partner will generally behave, and the partner’s specific reaction to
jealousy expression. In terms of empirical research findings, Afifi and Reichert (1996)
20
reported that a positive relationship between jealousy experience and relational state
uncertainty existed for dating partners. Further, according to Emmers and Canary (1996),
jealousy represented a situation that elicited moderate amounts of uncertainty in romantic
relationships. Relatedly, Planalp and Honeycutt (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp,
Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988) observed that competing relationships, including
romantic infidelity and new friendships, were uncertainty-increasing events for friends
and romantic partners.
Although Prisbell (1999) found that friends and intimates did not differ from one
another in their levels of general partner uncertainty, differences in relational uncertainty
levels across relational contexts have not yet been assessed. In the current investigation
where jealousy is the specific uncertainty-increasing event, differences in general partner
and relational uncertainty between the three relational contexts are expected. Specifically,
cross-sex friendships should logically possess the greatest uncertainty, followed by dating
relationships, with sibling relationships associated with the lowest uncertainty levels.
Cross-sex friendships are often defined by their ambiguity (Rawlins, 1982), and the
voluntary nature of this relational context suggests that friends – in response to another’s
jealousy expression – may be more uncertain about the other and insecure about the
continuation of the relationship compared with siblings and daters. For example, Afifi
and Burgoon (1998) observed greater levels of general partner and relational state
uncertainty in cross-sex friendships than in dating relationships. Because dating
relationships are characterized by high-to-moderate levels of relational and partner
uncertainty (e.g., Knobloch & Solomon, 2002a; Knobloch et al., 2001; Parks & Adelman,
1983), and are by no means certain or permanent, they should be associated with greater
21
partner and relational uncertainty compared with siblings. Further, siblings will likely
have dealt with their own and their sibling’s jealousy in their youth (Hill & Watts, 2000;
Leung & Robson, 1991) and discovering one’s sibling is jealous of them should not be an
uncertainty-arousing event.
Similar predictions for both general partner and relational uncertainty are
forwarded because previous research found no significant differences between the two
uncertainty types in their influence on jealousy experience and expression (Afifi &
Reichert, 1996). As such, the first two hypotheses predict significant differences between
each of the three relational contexts in the following order:
H1:
Individuals will experience the greatest levels of general partner
uncertainty when jealousy is expressed within relational contexts in the
following order: (a) cross-sex friend, (b) dating partner, (c) sibling.
H2:
Individuals will experience the greatest levels of relational uncertainty
when jealousy is expressed within relational contexts in the following
order: (a) cross-sex friend, (b) dating partner, (c) sibling.
The method of jealousy expression chosen by another should also be associated
with an individual’s level of general partner and relational uncertainty. From the three
modes of jealousy expression examined in the present study, the other’s use of
distributive communication seems more likely to be associated with higher levels of
general partner and relational uncertainty than either negative affect expression or
integrative communication. Distributive communication has been classified as negative
because it is typically destructive and damaging to one’s relationship (Guerrero &
Andersen, 1998b), and such a negative form of jealousy expression from another is likely
22
to make an individual question aspects of that person and of the relationship. Moreover,
previous research has found that the presence of general partner and relational state
uncertainty were both negatively associated with the use of integrative communication in
romantic relationships (Afifi & Reichert, 1996). In a similar vein, the goal of reducing
uncertainty about one’s primary romantic relationship was positively associated with his
or her use of integrative communication and negative affect expression (Guerrero &
Afifi, 1999).
In terms of the current project, greater levels of an individual’s general partner
and relational uncertainty should result from another’s use of distributive communication
to express jealousy compared with uncertainty levels resulting from another’s use of
integrative communication or negative affect expression. Because the meaning of
negative affect expression could change depending upon the jealousy interaction
(Andersen et al., 1995; Guerrero et al., 1995), such jealousy expression from another
person should be related to individuals’ uncertainty levels that fall between those
associated with distributive and integrative communication. Finally, integrative
communication from another should be associated with the lowest levels of uncertainty
within an individual, as constructive, open communication from the other is likely to
abate any general partner and relational uncertainty one might feel after the interaction.
Hypotheses three and four formally predict significant differences between each of the
jealousy expression strategies in the following order:
23
H3:
Individuals will experience the greatest levels of general partner
uncertainty according to jealousy expression type in the following order:
(a) distributive communication, (b) negative affect expression, (c)
integrative communication.
H4:
Individuals will experience the greatest levels of relational uncertainty
according to jealousy expression type in the following order: (a)
distributive communication, (b) negative affect expression, (c) integrative
communication.
Jealousy-Related Emotions
The second proposed consequence of another’s jealousy expression is the
elicitation of an individual’s jealousy-related emotions. Jealousy is a compound emotion
or affect blend, involving an “aggregate of primary emotions” (Hupka, 1984, p. 142).
These emotions, which are primarily negative, can include anxiety, fear, insecurity,
anger, sadness, envy, guilt, sexual arousal, and frustration (Bringle, 1991; White &
Mullen, 1989; Zammuner & Fischer, 1995). Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) widely used
measure of emotional jealousy includes the emotions of envy, anxiety, discomfort, anger,
jealousy, fear, insecurity, worry, and upset. These eight emotions consistently combine to
operationalize jealousy emotion.
Emotional reaction is thus one of the primary aspects of one’s own experience of
jealousy (e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), and it is assumed that similar emotions could
arise in an individual when another expresses jealousy to him or her. For the purposes of
this study, logical anecdotal evidence suggests that seven emotions are relevant and
particularly likely as one’s emotional reaction to another’s jealousy expression: sadness,
24
anger, frustration, guilt, fear, insecurity, and surprise. Further, these emotions will be
assessed as a single jealousy-related emotion construct because previous research has
determined that they share certain cognitive appraisals used to interpret specific
situations. Namely, Ellsworth and Smith (1988) found that the emotional experiences of
anger, sadness, fear, guilt, and surprise did not differ according to the cognitive appraisals
of certainty (which should be used to appraise the current jealousy expression situation)
and attentional activity. Further, the unpleasant emotions of anger, fear, guilt, and sadness
combined with at least one other unpleasant emotion more than 25% of the time that they
were experienced (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988).
In terms of comparisons between relational contexts, research has not provided a
clear-cut prediction as to whether cross-sex friends, dating partners, or siblings will
experience more intense emotions in relation to jealousy expression from another. Crosssex friends may have intense emotional reactions because they are not used to direct
jealousy expression within their relationships (e.g., Afifi & Burgoon, 1998). Dating
partners may possess strong emotions because a rival threatens the relationship that the
partners may have agreed was exclusive in nature (e.g., Ellis & Weinstein, 1986).
Conversely, siblings may experience strong jealous affect because they may have had to
deal with unresolved jealousy within their relationship throughout their lives (Leung &
Robson, 1991). As such, hypothesis five predicts that one’s intensity of jealousy-related
emotion will differ according to the relational context in which jealousy expression
occurs:
25
H5:
An individual’s intensity of jealousy-related emotion will differ according
to relational context (i.e., whether one’s cross-sex friend, dating partner or
sibling expresses jealousy).
Unlike relational context and jealousy-related emotions, the relationship between
jealousy-related emotion and jealousy expression is clearer. Guerrero et al. (1995) found
that distributive communication and negative affect expression are both strongly and
positively related to emotional jealousy. Integrative communication also shared a weak,
but significant, positive relationship with emotional jealousy. Further, negative affect
expression, which inherently involves the expression of emotion, served as a strong
predictor of emotional jealousy (Guerrero et al., 1995). As such, the sixth hypothesis
predicts that another’s use of negative affect expression and distributive communication
will both be more strongly related to an individual’s experience of jealousy-related
emotions than will integrative communication:
H6:
Another’s use of distributive communication or negative affect expression
will lead to more intense jealousy-related emotions than will another’s use
of integrative communication.
Rumination
The final proposed consequence of jealousy expression from another is an
individual’s rumination, or mulling, about the interaction. Thoughts become ruminative
when they automatically and unexpectedly control our awareness to a noticeable or
bothersome extent (Gold & Wegner, 1995). Specifically, ruminations are “conscious
thinking directed toward a given object for an extended period of time” and are said to
occur as the result of a traumatic or unpleasant situation (Gold & Wegner, 1995, p 1246).
26
Rumination may sometimes be useful in coping with stress and achieving goals, but more
often takes up attentional capacity and interferes with something an individual seeks to
achieve (Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999). Martin and Tesser
(1989) highlight three important features of rumination: (1) it occurs over relatively long
time periods, potentially involving years and a great deal of energy; (2) it is
counterproductive because it often happens after the individual’s best chance to discover
or work out a solution has passed; and (3) it involves both automatic and controlled
processes (such as adapting to a changed situation, considering alternatives, and
implementing problem-solving behaviors) and unwanted, intrusive thoughts that occur
without consciousness and are difficult to suppress.
Though generally negative, ruminations may be a part of humans’ need for
meaning within their lives, specifically with relation to the event causing the rumination.
In other words, ruminations can serve as “a way to attempt to find answers to life’s
difficult questions” (Gold & Wegner, 1995, p. 1250). In general, ruminations are often
caused by distressing events, the frustration of one’s goals or plans, the choice to not
share an event or information with others, and attempting to not think about the issue
(Gold & Wegner, 1995). Overall, rumination is an important area of study because such
cognitive activity is unintentional, difficult to eliminate, potentially long lasting and
dominant to an individual’s thinking, and is related to other cognitions, emotions, and
behaviors (Martin & Tesser, 1996a).
Research has examined rumination in relation to negative experiences and events.
For example, Johnson and Roloff (1998) report that mulling about a serial argument
occurred at a moderate frequency and was negatively related to the belief that the
27
argument could be resolved. Further, Cloven and Roloff (1991) found that mulling about
a major problem in one’s relationship increased perceptions of the seriousness of the
issue. In addition, McCullough and his colleagues found that rumination was positively
associated with feelings of vengefulness, negative affectivity, and revenge (McCullough,
Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001; McCullough et al., 1998).
To provide a cohesive theoretical explanation for rumination processes, Martin
and Tesser (1989) proposed a theory of goal-driven rumination. This theory assumes that
thoughts and actions are goal-directed and one’s inability to attain a certain goal will
stimulate rumination. Such rumination will be present until the individual either reaches
his or her frustrated goal or disengages from it (Martin & Tesser, 1989). The first two
assumptions of the theory are that people’s thoughts and actions are goal-directed, and
that these goals are hierarchically structured. The third assumption is that individuals
proceed through a relatively specific behavior sequence after an important goal is
frustrated. This sequence includes repetition, problem solving, end-state thinking,
negotiation, and learned helplessness. The third assumption also states that rumination
involves either attempting to discover alternatives to attaining frustrated goals or
realizing that the attempt to attain these goals has failed. Ideally, however, rumination
ceases when the frustrated goal is reached (Koole et al., 1999; Martin & Tesser, 1989).
Regarding the specific link between jealousy and rumination, Carson and Cupach
(2000) note that believing that there is a rival for one’s partner can be a perceived threat
to the ongoing goal of relationship continuation. As such, jealousy about a rival can
stimulate ruminative thoughts. Once jealousy occurs, “rumination reflects uncomfortable
mulling about the security of the relationship” and is distressing, aversive, and self-
28
perpetuating (Carson & Cupach, 2000, p. 322). Such a relationship between jealousy and
rumination is consistent with Martin and Tesser’s (1989) theory of goal-driven
rumination because it implicates jealousy as an example of a frustrated goal within
romantic relationships.
Extending the above reasoning to the current project and in accordance with the
theory of goal-driven rumination, it also seems viable that situations where one’s
relational partner expresses that he or she is jealous can be an unpleasant event that
threatens that individual’s goal of maintaining a satisfying relationship. More
specifically, it is likely that a cross-sex friend’s expression of jealousy will be related to
greater rumination compared with a sibling’s or dating partner’s communication of
jealous feelings. Because discussion of issues such as jealousy are often avoided by
cross-sex friends (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998; Aune & Comstock, 1991; Bevan, 1999), when
one’s cross-sex friend does directly express jealousy, it will likely be an uncomfortable
and distressing event that the individual will ruminate about. In contrast, siblings and
dating partners will likely be more acquainted with jealousy expression within their
relationship and thus may not need to mull about the event to the same degree as crosssex friends. Thus, it is assumed that siblings and dating partners will not significantly
differ in their amount of rumination, but that rumination levels for both contexts will be
significantly lower than will those for cross-sex friends. The seventh hypothesis considers
this relationship:
H7:
Expressions of jealousy from an individual’s cross-sex friend will lead to
more rumination than expressions of jealousy from an individual’s sibling
or dating partner.
29
In addition to the negative psychological and relational variables discussed above,
a number of communication tactics are also related to rumination. For example, Cloven
and Roloff (1991) found that distributive communication served to exacerbate the
repercussions of mulling about a major issue, whereas integrative communication
alleviated perceptions of problem seriousness. Further, Carson and Cupach (2000)
reported that ruminating about jealousy strongly predicted the usage of a variety of
negative techniques for expressing jealousy, including distributive communication,
avoidance/denial, possessiveness, and manipulation. Rumination also strongly predicted
one’s usage of negative affect expression to communicate jealousy (Carson & Cupach,
2000). Combining this finding with McCullough et al.’s (2001) observation that
rumination is positively associated with negative affectivity, it appears as if rumination
and negative affect expression should share a relationship as strong as the association
between distributive communication and rumination. In contrast, no relationship was
observed between jealousy rumination and integrative communication (Carson &
Cupach, 2000).
The above findings thus suggest that another’s use of either distributive
communication or negative affect expression will be associated with more rumination
within an individual compared with another who expresses jealousy by way of integrative
communication. As such, distributive communication and negative affect expression are
not predicted to significantly differ from one another, but both are expected to be
associated with higher rumination levels compared with integrative communication.
Hypothesis eight thus posits:
30
H8:
An individual will ruminate more if another expresses jealousy using
distributive communication or negative affect expression compared to
integrative communication.
The Proposed Reaction Model of Jealousy
One final consideration is the relationships between each of the proposed
cognitive and emotional consequences of jealousy expression. Examining these
associations allows for the creation of a model detailing the specific relationships among
each of these jealousy expression consequences that is both theoretically driven and
empirically supported. Testing and refining a reaction jealousy expression model will
hopefully provide greater theoretical insight into the consequences of jealousy expression
in close relationships.
General partner uncertainty is presumed to be the first reaction to another’s
expression of jealousy, followed by relational uncertainty. This prediction is based upon
Knobloch et al. (2001) and Knobloch and Solomon (2000), who determined that partner
uncertainty preceded relational uncertainty in four separate structural equation models.
Relational uncertainty is then proposed to lead to both jealousy-related emotions and
rumination about the situation. Knobloch and Solomon (2000) reported that relational
uncertainty was directly and positively related to the emotions of anger, sadness, and fear.
Further, relational uncertainty mediated the relationship between partner uncertainty and
each of these three emotions (Knobloch & Solomon, 2000). Knobloch et al. (2001) also
determined that emotional jealousy was related to relational uncertainty (though this
relationship was mediated by cognitive jealousy).
31
In terms of rumination, Carson and Cupach (2000) predicted a positive
association between uncertainty and rumination. Specifically, they stated that an
individual will “worry excessively about potential treats to the relationship,” implying
that uncertainty will precede ruminative thoughts (Carson & Cupach, 2000, p. 314).
Further, although inconsistency exists as to whether or not negative affect (i.e., jealousyrelated emotion) and rumination covary (e.g., Klinger, 1996; Martin & Tesser, 1996a,
1996b) or if rumination leads to the experience of negative affect (e.g., McIntosh &
Martin, 1992), the bulk of this research suggests that these variables are merely
associated with one another. As such, it is proposed that jealousy-related emotion and
rumination are positively related. Although each of these research findings or suggestions
are made with regard to the person experiencing jealousy, the causal structure of these
variables can also logically apply to the jealous target as well. The final hypothesis and
the figure below detail this proposed model (see Figure 1):
H9:
Upon a close partner’s expression of jealousy, the causal structure of
jealousy expression consequence variables is as follows: General partner
uncertainty will precede relational uncertainty, which then leads to both
jealousy-related emotions and rumination about the situation.
32
(+)
(+)
Close Partner’s Expression
of Jealousy
General Partner Uncertainty
Jealousy-Related
Emotion
Relational Uncertainty
(+)
(+)
Ruminative
Thoughts
Figure 1. Proposed path-analytic reaction model of jealousy.
33
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
This chapter will describe the manner in which the dissertation’s eight proposed
hypotheses were tested. First, the purpose, procedures, and results of two pilot studies
intended to develop and refine the hypothetical scenarios and jealousy messages are
discussed. Next, the main investigation’s participants and research design are detailed.
Finally, the procedure for data collection, and the operationalization and measurement of
the independent and dependent variables in the main investigation are presented.
Pilot Studies
Pilot Study I
Purpose and participants. A pilot study was conducted with two distinct purposes:
(a) to determine if each of the three relational context conditions and the final three
jealousy strategies possessed statistically equivalent levels of realism and occurred at
similar frequencies in participants’ own relationships; and (b) to verify that the
distributive, integrative, and negative affect expression strategies were seen by
participants as negative, positive, and neutral in nature, respectively.
Sixty-seven students taking speech communication classes at a large, southern
university comprised the sample for the pilot study. Sixty three percent of these
respondents were female (n = 42). Eighty eight percent were seniors (n = 59; with 5
juniors, 1 sophomore, 1 graduate student, and 1 university employee) with a mean age of
22.4 years (SD = 2.14, range = 20 to 32 years). Finally, 87% of the sample classified
34
themselves as White (n = 58), 6% each indicated that they were either Black/African
American or a part of the other category (n = 4), and one individual was Asian.
Procedures. Respondents completed a questionnaire for a class research
requirement. Participants received one of three relational context conditions: the sibling
condition (n = 25), the cross-sex friend condition (n = 24), or the dating partner condition
(n = 18). After reading and signing consent forms, questionnaires were randomly
distributed to respondents, who were asked to read the definition of the relational context
before them and raise their hands if they were not currently involved in the relational
context condition that they received. Only four participants did so (all had received the
dating condition) and they were then provided with relational contexts in which they
were currently involved.
Participants then wrote down the initials of their relational partner. Next, they
read a scenario detailing an instance where their relational partners made it clear to them
that they were jealous. Participants were again asked to write down their relational
partner’s initials as they were reading the scenario. The directions then asked the
participants to carefully consider the situation and imagine that it had actually occurred in
their own relationship.
Next, participants answered three questions previously used by Bevan (1999)
about the realism of the relational context scenario on a 7-point, Likert-type scale with
higher values indicating more realism (e.g., “This situation is easy to imagine”).
Participants also responded to a three item, 7-point, Likert-type scale from Bevan (1999)
about how frequently such a situation occurred in their own lives (e.g., “I have often
experienced a situation like this one in my cross-sex friendship/dating/sibling
35
relationship”), with higher values indicating more frequency (see Appendix A for a full
version of pilot study I).
All scenarios used identical wording when operationalizing the jealousy message.
Because no known attempts have been made to utilize specific jealousy messages in
hypothetical scenarios, the exact wording for each jealousy expression condition was
developed by the author using Guerrero et al.’s (1995) and Guerrero and Andersen’s
(1998b) jealousy expression definitions and examples. For example, Guerrero and
Andersen’s (1998b, p. 171) definition states that distributive communication consists of
“direct, aggressive communication about jealousy with the partner,” examples of which
include “accusing the partner of being unfaithful, being sarcastic or rude toward the
partner, arguing with the partner, bringing up the issue over and over again to ‘bombard’
the partner.” From this information, the following distributive jealousy message was
constructed: Your dating partner/sibling/cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy to
you by accusing you, making rude comments, and arguing with you (see Appendix B for
the original definitions, examples, and the subsequent jealousy messages that were
created). Jealousy messages were written for Guerrero et al.’s (1995) six interactive
jealousy responses (i.e., integrative communication, distributive communication, negative
affect expression, avoidance/denial, active distancing, and violent
communication/threats) so that each could be pilot-tested and three jealousy strategies
could be selected that best represent positive, neutral, and negative messages.
Upon answering the six realism and frequency items for the relational context
scenario, participants then encountered each of Guerrero et al.’s (1995) six interactive
jealousy messages in randomized order. Specifically, participants were asked to consider
36
each message as something their relational partners might use to communicate jealousy.
After reading each message, respondents answered the same nine items. One semantic
differential item assessed how frequently each message was actually used by the
participants’ relational partners (1 = does not happen to me at all; 7 = happens to me a
lot). Two semantic differential items measured the realism of the jealousy message (e.g.,
1 = not at all realistic; 7 = completely realistic). Five semantic differential items assessed
how positive, negative, or neutral each jealousy message was (e.g., 1 = completely
negative, good, pleasant; 7 = not at all negative, bad, unpleasant) and were recoded such
that higher values indicate more positive valence. Finally, the respondents answered a
number of demographic items, turned in the instrument, were thanked, and provided with
a debriefing sheet.
Pilot study I results: Realism and frequency of the relational context scenarios.
For all analyses, a probability level for Type I errors of .05 was used. The three realism
items for the relational context scenario displayed reliability for each condition and
overall (sibling  = .89; dating partner  = .95; cross-sex friend  = .93; overall  = .92)
and a realism composite variable was created. Using ANOVA with the realism composite
measure as the dependent variable and relational context as the fixed factor, realism
levels (cross-sex friend M = 3.83, SD = 1.46; dating partner M = 3.56, SD = 2.14; sibling
M = 3.12, SD = 1.72) did not significantly differ across conditions [F (2, 64) = 1.02, p =
.37, power = .22] (see Table 1).
The three frequency of occurrence items were reliable within and across relational
contexts (sibling  = .89; dating partner  = .89; cross-sex friend  = .84; overall  =
.87) and a frequency of occurrence composite variable was computed. Results of an
37
ANOVA with relational context as the fixed factor and frequency of actual occurrence as
the dependent variable indicated that frequency levels (cross-sex friend M = 2.19, SD =
1.29; dating partner M = 1.91, SD = 1.26; sibling M = 1.96, SD = 1.39) did not
significantly differ across the three conditions [F (2, 64) = .298, p = .74, power = .10].
Thus, the results for realism and frequency in terms of the jealousy scenarios provide
preliminary evidence that each of the three relational contexts under investigation display
fairly equal levels of realism and frequency of occurrence in participants’ own lives.
Overall, participants found the jealousy scenarios to be moderately realistic (M = 3.45,
SD = 1.76); however, this jealousy did not occur frequently in their own lives (M = 2.03,
SD = 1.31).
Pilot study I results: Valence of the jealousy messages. The five-item valence
scale displayed strong internal consistency for all six jealousy messages that were tested
(integrative communication  = .92; violent communication/threats  = .95;
avoidance/denial  = .88; active distancing  = .92; distributive communication  = .95;
negative affect expression  = .90). As such, six separate composite valence variables for
each type of jealousy expression were computed for analysis. Integrative communication
was perceived as the most positive jealousy message (M = 5.36, SD = 1.42). Negative
38
Table 1
Realism, Frequency of Occurrence, and Ever Occurred Variable Means and Standard
Deviations for Relational Context Scenarios Examined in Pilot I and Pilot II
Jealousy Scenario
Realism
Pilot I
Pilot II
Frequency
Pilot I
Pilot II
Ever Occurred
Pilot II
Sibling
3.12
(1.72)
5.93
(.997)
1.96
(1.39)
4.04
(1.68)
4.31
(2.14)
Cross-Sex Friend
3.83
(1.46)
5.29
(1.33)
2.19
(1.29)
2.63
(1.35)
2.63
(1.35)
Dating Partner
3.56
(2.14)
5.71
(1.33)
1.91
(1.26)
3.45
(1.56)
4.14
(2.01)
Overall
3.45
5.65
2.03
3.40
3.69
(1.76)
(1.19)
(1.31)
(1.59)
(1.83)
Note. N = 67 for Pilot I; N = 24 for Pilot II. There were no significant differences at the
.05 level for Pilot I and at the .10 level for Pilot II. Values in parentheses are standard
deviations. The “ever occurred” variable was only employed in Pilot Study II.
39
affect expression was viewed as neutral (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24), whereas avoidance/denial
(M = 2.82. SD = 1.19) and active distancing (M = 2.36, SD = 1.33) were both perceived
as being between neutral and negative in valence. Distributive communication (M = 2.19,
SD = 1.35) and violent communication/threats (M = 1.80, SD = 1.38) were each viewed
as jealousy messages that were more negative in nature (see Table 2).
Visual examination of the valence means suggested that integrative
communication and negative affect expression are the strongest candidates to represent
the positive and neutral jealousy messages in the main investigation. To further explore
this possibility, a series of one-sample t-tests were computed. Results indicated that
integrative communication was significantly more positive than the other five jealousy
messages [violent communication threats t (65) = -20.89, p < .0001; avoidance/denial t
(66) = -17.39, p < .0001; active distancing t (66) = -18.45, p < .0001; distributive
communication t (66) = -19.28, p < .0001; negative affect expression t (66) = -12.64, p <
.0001]. Negative affect expression was significantly more neutral than any other jealousy
message [violent communication threats t (65) = -9.59, p < .0001; avoidance/denial t (66)
= -4.22, p < .0001; active distancing t (66) = -6.60, p < .0001; distributive communication
t (66) = -7.59, p < .0001; integrative communication t (66) = 11.06, p < .0001].
Next, visual inspection of the valence means suggests that either the distributive
communication or violent communication/threats messages would be likely candidates to
represent the negative jealousy expression condition in the main study. A series of onesample t-tests revealed that the distributive communication message was significantly
more negative than three of the jealousy messages [avoidance/denial t (66) = 4.33, p <
.0001; negative affect expression t (66) = 8.21, p < .0001; integrative communication t
40
(66) = 18.24, p < .0001] and did not significantly differ in valence from the active
distancing message [t (66) = 1.09, p = .28]. However, distributive communication was
significantly less negative than the violent communication/threat message [t (65) = -2.25,
p < .05]. Further, results suggested that all five jealousy messages were significantly less
negative than the violent communication/threat message [negative affect expression t (65)
= 10.72, p < .0001; avoidance/denial t (66) = 6.94, p < .0001; active distancing t (66) =
3.45, p < .01; distributive communication t (66) = 3.32, p < .05; integrative
communication t (66) = 20.44, p < .0001].
Pilot study I results: Realism of the jealousy messages. The two-item realism
scale displayed acceptable internal consistency for all six jealousy messages that were
tested (integrative communication  = .76; violent communication/threats  = .76;
avoidance/denial  = .89; active distancing  = .87; distributive communication  = .90;
negative affect expression  = .76). Realism composite variables for each jealousy
expression strategy were thus created for analysis. Integrative communication was
perceived as the most realistic jealousy message (M = 4.45, SD = 1.74). The
avoidance/denial (M = 3.45, SD = 1.95), active distancing (M = 2.84, SD = 1.84),
negative affect expression (M = 3.04, SD = 1.60), and distributive communication (M =
3.13, SD = 1.90) messages fall at the approximate midpoint of the realism scale and the
violent communication/threat message appears to be less realistic to participants (M =
1.67, SD = 1.16; see Table 2).
To further examine the potential differences in realism, a series of one-sample ttests were conducted. Specifically, integrative communication and negative affect
expression were focused upon because they would likely serve as the positive and neutral
41
jealousy messages in the main study. Results indicated that the integrative jealousy
message was judged by participants as more realistic than the other five jealousy
messages [negative affect expression t (65) = -7.25, p < .0001; avoidance/denial t (66) = 4.20, p < .0001; active distancing t (66) = -7.14, p < .0001; distributive communication t
(66) = -5.72, p < .0001; violent communication/threats t (65) = -19.54, p < .0001]. The
negative affect expression message was not significantly different in realism from the
distributive communication [t (66) = .39, p = .70], active distancing [t (66) = -.86, p =
.39], or avoidance/denial [t (66) = 1.74, p = .09] messages. However, it was significantly
less realistic than the integrative message [t (66) = 6.65, p < .0001] and significantly
more realistic than the violent communication/threat message [t (65) = -9.60, p < .0001].
Based upon the results for message valence, the violent communication/threat
message seemed the most likely choice for the negative jealousy message. However, the
results of a series of one-sample t-tests indicated that the violent communication/threat
message was significantly less realistic than the remaining five messages [integrative
communication t (66) = 13.07, p < .0001; avoidance/denial t (66) = 7.48, p < .0001;
active distancing t (66) = 5.21, p < .0001; distributive communication t (66) = 6.29, p <
.0001; negative affect expression t (66) = 7.01, p < .0001]. Thus, the realism score for
distributive communication was next tested against the other five jealousy messages. The
distributive communication message did not significantly differ in realism from the
42
Table 2
Valence and Realism Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Jealousy Expression
Types Examined in Pilot I
Jealousy Expression Type
Valence
Mean
SD
Realism
Mean
SD
Integrative Communication
5.36
1.42
4.45
1.74
Negative Affect Expression
3.43
1.24
3.04
1.60
Distributive Communication
2.19
1.35
3.13
1.90
Violent Communication/Threats
1.80
1.38
1.67
1.16
Active Distancing
2.36
1.33
2.84
1.84
Avoidance/Denial
2.82
1.19
3.45
1.95
Note. N = 67.
43
negative affect expression [t (66) = -.46, p = .65], active distancing [t (66) = -1.26, p =
.21], or avoidance/denial [t (66) = 1.36, p = .18] messages. Further, the distributive
message was significantly less realistic than the integrative message [t (66) = 6.23, p <
.0001] and significantly more realistic than the violent communication/threat message [t
(65) = -10.23, p < .0001].
Summary. To summarize, the first pilot study sought to confirm that the relational
context scenarios and jealousy messages created for the main investigation were not
viewed as having different levels of realism and frequency of actual occurrence. Results
showed that each relational context scenario did display statistically equivalent levels of
realism and frequency. Second, the pilot study examined which interactive jealousy
messages were viewed as positive, neutral, and negative in nature. Results for message
valence indicated that the integrative message was the most positive method of
expressing jealousy, negative affect expression best represented neutral jealousy
expression, and violent communication/threats was viewed as the most negative way to
express jealousy.
To ensure that the jealousy messages selected were both clearly positive,
negative, or neutral, and at least moderately realistic to participants, the message valence
results were compared to the results for message realism. For the neutral method of
jealousy expression, the negative affect expression message was chosen for two reasons.
First, the message was significantly more neutral (i.e., fell almost exactly at the scale’s
midpoint and was significantly different from all other jealousy messages in terms of
valence) than the other jealousy messages. Second, the message shared similar realism
levels with a number of other jealousy messages.
44
Integrative communication was significantly more realistic than the other jealousy
messages, whereas the violent communication/threat message was significantly less
realistic than the remaining messages. Though the optimal situation is obviously one
where each of the three messages possesses statistically equivalent levels of realism, the
finding for integrative communication is somewhat expected and logical. Integrative
communication has repeatedly been reported as the most frequent method individuals use
to express jealousy (e.g., Bevan, 1999; Bevan & Lannutti, 2002; Guerrero et al., 1995).
Further, because of its positive nature, it is likely that participants are best able to imagine
it occurring in their own close relationships. Due to these explanations, and because it so
clearly represented the most positive jealousy response, integrative communication was
selected as the positive jealousy message.
According to pilot study results, the violent communication/threat message was
significantly less realistic than all other jealousy messages. Further, violent
communication/threats occur very infrequently in close relationships (e.g., Bevan &
Samter, 2001; Guerrero et al., 1995; Guerrero & Andersen, 1998a) and participants
obviously had a difficult time envisioning their relational partners expressing jealousy in
that manner. As such, distributive communication was instead chosen as the negative
jealousy message, as it occurs more frequently than violent communication/threats
(Guerrero et al., 1995) but is also considered to be a negative choice when expressing
jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b). Further, the distributive communication
message was judged as more negative than both the integrative and negative affect
expression messages and was viewed to be as realistic as the negative affect expression
message (and more realistic than the violent communication/threats message).
45
Pilot Study II
Purpose. Though the results of the first pilot study were generally useful and
anticipated, one surprising and potentially problematic finding did emerge: The relational
context scenarios were judged to be only moderately realistic and very infrequent in
participants’ own relationships. A second pilot study was thus conducted to test improved
relational context scenarios that participants would view as easier to imagine and more
frequent than the scenarios in the first pilot study. First, more details were added to the
scenarios with an introductory sentence that describes more about the situation (e.g., for
the sibling jealousy scenario, the sentence “Your parents have recently been focusing on
you and giving you a lot of attention” was added). This change allowed participants to
receive more background about why their relational partners were upset.
Next, the wording “Your cross-sex friend/dating partner/sibling approaches you
and tells you that he/she is jealous. . .” was changed to “By the way your cross-sex
friend/dating partner/sibling is acting, it is obvious that he/she is hurt and bothered by. . .”
This alteration broadened the possible ways in which relational partners could
communicate jealousy (i.e., the partner can behave in a certain way in front of the
participant but does not necessarily have to tell the participant his or her feelings
outright). Further, in accordance with Wiederman, Allgeier, and Ragusa (1995), the word
“jealous” was replaced with “upset and bothered by.” These authors recommended using
the word upset instead of jealous because being jealous may have a socially undesirable
connotation and because “the term ‘upset’ may be construed as a general umbrella term
under which more specific emotional labels can be subsumed” (Wiederman et al., 1995,
p. 25).
46
Participants and procedure. The sample for the second pilot study consisted of 24
undergraduates taking speech communication classes at a large, southern university.
Forty-six percent of these respondents were female (n = 11). Fifty-eight percent were
either seniors or 5th year seniors (n = 14; with 4 juniors, 3 sophomores, and 1 freshmen)
with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD = 1.16, range = 18 to 23 years). Finally, 91% of the
sample classified themselves as White (n = 20), with 4% each indicating that they were
either Black (n = 1) or Asian (n = 1). Two individuals did not report their demographic
characteristics.
Respondents voluntarily completed one of three survey versions during class
time. As with the first pilot study, three relational context conditions were studied: the
sibling condition (n = 9), the cross-sex friend condition (n = 8), and the dating partner
condition (n = 7). Questionnaires were randomly distributed to participants after they had
read and signed consent forms and asked respondents to read a relational context
definition and raise their hands if they were not currently involved in that specific
relationship. Only two participants did so (one each for the dating and cross-sex friend
conditions); each were then provided with relational contexts in which they were
currently involved. Participants next wrote down the initials of their relational partner,
read one of the modified scenarios described above, and were again asked to write down
their relational partner’s initials while reading the scenario.
The directions following the scenario asked participants to carefully consider the
situation and envision that it had actually occurred between themselves and their partners
(identical to the first pilot study). Respondents next answered the same realism and
frequency items used in the first pilot study on 7-point, Likert-type scales with higher
47
values indicating more realism and frequency of occurrence (e.g., “This situation is easy
to imagine”; “I have often experienced a situation like this one in my cross-sex
friendship/dating/sibling relationship”). In addition, two 7-point, Likert-type items
assessing whether or not such a situation has ever occurred in the participants’ own
relationships were created and included (e.g., “I have encountered a situation like this at
least once in my own cross-sex friendship/dating relationship/sibling relationship”).
Participants were next asked to briefly describe a situation similar to the scenario that
actually happened between them and their relational partners. Finally, the respondents
answered a number of demographic items, handed the surveys in, were thanked, and
dismissed (see Appendix B for a full version of pilot study II).
Pilot study II results. Because of the small sample and cell sizes, a probability
level of .10 was selected. The three realism items were internally consistent across each
of the three relational context conditions and overall (sibling  = .75; dating partner  =
.82; cross-sex friend  = .78; all conditions  = .79). The mean for the realism composite
variable suggests that the modified scenario was moderate-to-high in realism (M = 5.65,
SD = 1.19). A one-sample t-test found that the scenario was judged to be significantly
more realistic than the 4.0 scale midpoint [t (23) = 6.81, p < .0001]. Further, the results of
a univariate ANOVA with the realism variable as the dependent variable and relational
context as the fixed factor revealed that realism level (cross-sex friend M = 5.29, SD =
1.33; dating partner M = 5.71, SD = 1.33; sibling M = 5.93, SD = .997) did not
significantly differ across relational contexts [F (2, 23) = .593, p = .56, power = .14].
The three frequency items were reliable within and across relational contexts
(sibling  = .83; dating partner  = .81; cross-sex friend  = .86; overall  = .84). The
48
composite variable that was computed was moderate in frequency of occurrence (M =
3.40, SD = 1.59). Results of a univariate ANOVA with relational context as the fixed
factor and frequency of actual occurrence as the dependent variable indicated that
frequency levels (cross-sex friend M = 2.63, SD = 1.35; dating partner M = 3.45, SD =
1.56; sibling M = 4.04, SD = 1.68) did not significantly differ across the three conditions
[F (2, 23) = 1.79, p = .19, power = .33].
The two items assessing whether each scenario had ever actually occurred were
internally consistent within and across relational contexts (sibling  = .75; dating partner
 = .76; cross-sex friend  = .90; overall  = .82). The composite variable indicated that
participants agreed that similar situations had happened in their own relationship to a
moderate degree (M = 4.85, SD = 1.92). A one-sample t-test found that the degree to
which a similar situation had ever occurred in participants’ own lives was significantly
higher than the 4.0 scale midpoint [t (23) = 2.18, p < .05]. Results of a univariate
ANOVA with relational context as the fixed factor and the degree to which the scenarios
ever occurred as the dependent variable indicated that frequency levels (cross-sex friend
M = 2.63, SD = 1.35; dating partner M = 4.14, SD = 2.01; sibling M = 4.31, SD = 2.14)
did not significantly differ across the three conditions [F (2, 23) = 2.36, p = .12, power =
.42].
The results of the second pilot study showed that the modified scenarios were
more realistic and frequent in participants’ own lives than the scenarios examined in pilot
study one (see Table 1). Further, situations similar to the modified scenarios have
occurred at least once in most participants’ own relationships and each of the three
relevant relational contexts display fairly equal levels of realism and frequency of
49
occurrence in participants’ own lives and have occurred at least once at a relatively equal
rate. As such, the modified scenarios were employed in the main investigation.
Main Investigation
Participants
Three hundred and sixty four participants taking undergraduate speech
communication courses at a large, southern university responded to a written
questionnaire. Although college undergraduates represent a convenience sample,
studying this population in the current study was appropriate for two reasons: (1) crosssex friendships are most common during young adulthood (Monsour, 2002; Reeder,
2000; Werking, 1997a); and (2) researchers have called for more sibling rivalry research
within this age group (Cicirelli, 1982; Dunn, 1985).
Of the original sample, six people incorrectly answered the manipulation check
item for relational context and were eliminated from further analysis. Five individuals
reported being either homosexual or bisexual, and one respondent indicated that he or she
was reporting on a bisexual partner. These participants were also eliminated from further
analysis because they were not a large enough group to compare with heterosexual
participants and partners. A sample size of 352 was thus employed for data analysis. The
final sample was predominantly female (n = 211, 60%) and averaged 20.87 years in age
(SD = 3.29, range = 18 to 57 years). The vast majority of the participants reported being
White (n = 314, 89.2%), 24 indicated that they were Black/African American (6.8%),
nine reported being of Asian descent (2.6%), three stated that they were a part of an
“other” category (.9%), and one each reported being Native American or Hispanic (.3%).
The final sample was comprised of freshmen (n = 26, 7.4%), sophomores (n = 80,
50
22.7%), juniors (n = 94, 26.7%), seniors (n = 150, 42.6%), and graduate students (n = 2,
.6%).
The partners that participants reported upon were predominantly male (n = 199,
56.5%) and averaged 21.23 years in age (SD = 3.98, range = 5 to 52 years). Overall, the
relationships participants reported on averaged eight years and 10 months in length (M =
106.72, SD = 104.53, range = two weeks to 684 months). Respondents indicated that they
were both close (M = 5.95, SD = 1.01) and satisfied with their relationships (M = 5.67,
SD = 1.29). Further, 153 participants (43.5%) indicated that they were in contact with
their partner daily, 135 contacted one another weekly (38.4%), 51 were in monthly
contact (14.5%), eight were in contact several times a year (2.3%), and three stated that
they contacted one another once a year or less (.9%).
One hundred twenty people responded to questionnaires on the sibling conditions,
114 answered dating partner surveys, and 118 completed the cross-sex friend instrument.
For respondents in the dating partner conditions, two indicated that they were single and
not dating (1.8%), one stated that he or she was single and dating many individuals (.9%),
nine reported that they were in a non-exclusive relationship (7.9%), 41 indicated that they
were in an exclusive relationship for less than one year (36%), 53 stated that they were in
an exclusive relationship of more than one year (46.5%), eight individuals reported being
engaged (7%), and three did not respond. The two individuals who reported being single
and not dating were retained for data analysis because the term “dating” was broadly
defined to participants as going on at least one date with another individual.
For the cross-sex friend condition respondents, 21 (18%) reported that their crosssex friends were former romantic partners, 83 (70%) stated that they were not former
51
romantic partners, and 14 (12%) were not sure about the former relational status.
Seventy-four cross-sex friends (63%) also reported never having engaged in sexual
behavior with their partners, nine (8%) reported that sexual behavior had occurred once,
18 (15%) indicated that sexual behavior had occurred two to four times, and 17 (14%)
stated that sexual behavior with a cross-sex friend occurred more than five times.
Participants in the sibling conditions reported that they had an average of 1.97
siblings (SD = 1.14, range = 1 to 6). Participants’ siblings averaged 21.48 years of age
(SD = 5.83, range = 5 to 47). One hundred eight participants (91%) reported on a full
sibling (i.e., sharing both parents biologically), five (4%) reported on a half sibling (i.e.,
sharing one parent biologically), four (3%) reported on an adopted sibling, and two (2%)
reported on a stepsibling (i.e., sharing both parents by marriage but not biologically).
When asked about their current living situations with their siblings, 59 respondents (49%)
lived with their siblings when they were not in school, 47 (39%) never lived with their
siblings, seven (6%) lived with their siblings year round, and seven (6%) indicated
‘other’ (see Tables 3 and 4).
Research Design
The project employed a 3 (relational context: cross-sex friend, sibling
relationship, dating relationship) X 3 (jealousy expression: distributive, integrative,
negative affect expression) factorial design. Participants were nested within one of the
nine experimental conditions. Because the nine conditions were distributed randomly to
participants, a relatively equal number of students responded to each condition. If the
participants received a questionnaire asking them to report on a relationship that they
were not currently involved in, they were instructed to raise their hands to receive a
52
different relational context instrument. The need to switch questionnaires in this manner
only occurred for approximately 10% of the participants, with the three dating partner
conditions most likely to be exchanged. Specifically, the questionnaire first asked
participants to consider either their closest present cross-sex friend, closest present dating
partner, or sibling closest in age to them (consistent with Bedford, 1989; Cicirelli, 1982;
Hapworth, Hapworth, & Heilman, 1994).
Cross-sex friend was defined as a member of the opposite sex to whom the
participant shares a close relationship and who is not either a family member or a current
romantic partner. Dating partner was defined as someone the participant has dated for
one week or more, including going on one or two dates with another person. Sibling was
defined as a full brother or sister of the sibling who shares the same biological mother
and father as the participant. If participants did not have full siblings, they were instructed
to think of half, step, or adopted siblings if they wished. Upon reading the description of
the relevant relationship, participants were asked to record the initials of the individuals
that they selected before and while reading the experimental manipulation (see Appendix
C for an example of one version of the full main instrument).
To avoid participant biases in the recall and memory of actual jealousy situations
that can often accompany retrospective recall techniques, hypothetical scenarios were
chosen as the method of examining the predictions and questions set forth in this project.
This methodological technique is consistent with previous jealousy research and is
preferable to simply asking participants how jealous they are (e.g., Bringle & Buunk,
1986; Mathes, Roter, & Joerger, 1982). Further, as Knobloch and Solomon (2002a) point
out, use of hypothetical scenarios allow both measurement of participants’ immediate and
53
Table 3
Demographic Variables Overall and by Relational Context
Demographic Variable
Overall
Sibling
Friend
Dating
Participant Gender
Male
Female
141
211
48
72
50
68
43
71
Participant Year of Age
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
20.87
3.29
18 - 57
21.00
4.37
18 - 57
20.84
3.23
18 - 48
20.77
1.66
18 - 27
Participant Ethnicity
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic
Native American
White/European American
Other
9
24
1
1
314
3
5
8
0
0
105
2
2
9
0
0
106
1
2
7
1
1
103
0
Participant Year in School
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Fifth Year Senior
Graduate Student
26
80
94
94
56
2
10
33
28
28
21
0
10
22
37
33
15
1
6
25
29
33
20
1
Partner Year of Age
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
21.23
3.98
5 - 52
21.18
5.62
5 - 52
21.03
3.07
18 - 48
21.50
2.48
18 - 35
199
153
62
58
66
52
71
43
Partner Gender
Male
Female
Note. N = 352.
54
Table 4
Relational Variables Overall and by Relational Context
Relational Variable
Overall
Sibling
Friend
Dating
Relationship Length*
Mean in Months
Standard Deviation
Range in Months
106.72
104.53
.5 – 684
233.50a
62.86
60 – 684
61.07b
51.95
2 – 264
20.59c
19.59
.5 – 96
Frequency of Contact with Partner*
Mean
Standard Deviation
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Several Times a Year
Once a Year or Less
1.78
.840
153
135
51
8
3
2.17b
.882
27
55
31
5
2
1.94b
.791
34
61
18
3
1
1.20a
.446
92
19
2
0
0
Relationship Closeness*
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
5.95
1.01
1–7
5.72a
1.05
1–7
5.75a
.991
3–7
6.38b
.849
3–7
Relationship Satisfaction
Mean
5.67
5.48
5.70
5.86
Standard Deviation
1.29
1.41
1.20
1.26
Range
1–7
1–7
1–7
1–7
________________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 352. * indicates that significant mean differences exist at p < .05; see subscript
letters within rows that differ to detect specific differences. Higher values indicate more
closeness and satisfaction; lower values indicate greater frequency of contact.
55
direct response to the relational event of interest and provide control over the specific
situations the participants are to consider. As such, the use of hypothetical scenarios was
deemed appropriate and useful for the purpose of this project.
The scenario for the sibling conditions stated that the participant’s close sibling
makes it clear to the participant that he or she is jealous because the participant seems to
be receiving more attention and affection from their parents. The scenario for the crosssex friend conditions detailed an instance where the participant’s close cross-sex friend
makes it clear to the participant that he or she is jealous because the participant is
showing interest in doing things with another friend of the opposite sex. The wordings for
both situations are adapted from similar ones used by Bringle (1991). The dating scenario
described a situation where the participant’s dating partner tells the participant that he/she
is jealous that the participant is showing interest in spending time with another potential
dating partner. This wording is adapted from numerous romantic jealousy scenarios (e.g.,
Bevan, 1999; Hansen, 1982).
According to the pilot test results described in an earlier section of this chapter,
each were moderately realistic and accurately represented the concept that they were
intended to measure. Two one-item manipulation checks within the main questionnaire
also ensured that participants correctly interpreted relational context and mode of
jealousy expression. Participants who incorrectly answered either manipulation check
were not included in the sample examined for data analysis.
Main Investigation Measures
Scenario realism, frequency, and likelihood of ever occurring. Upon reading and
considering the scenario, participants first answered items previously used in the first and
56
second pilot studies. Three items from Bevan (2002) each assessed situation realism and
frequency of occurrence (e.g., “How realistic do you think this situation is?”; “How often
has this situation occurred in your own relationship?”) by way of 7-point, Likert-type
scales (e.g., 1 = not at all realistic; 7 = very realistic). Both scales have demonstrated
strong reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s  = .91 for realism and .88 for frequency) in previous
research (Bevan, 2002). Similarly, these scales were found to have strong internal
consistency in the main investigation ( = .86 for realism and .89 for frequency). In
addition, as in the second pilot study, the two items assessing the degree to which each
scenario ever occurred in the participants’ own lives by way of a 7-point, Likert-type
scale were also included (e.g., “I have encountered a situation like this at least once in my
own cross-sex friendship/dating relationship/sibling relationship”; 1 = strongly disagree;
7 = strongly agree). As in pilot study two, this scale was also reliable ( = .90).
Composite variables created for analysis revealed that the jealousy situation was
moderate-to-high in realism (M = 5.12, SD = 1.52) and occurred at a low-to-moderate
frequency (M = 2.84, SD = 1.53). Further, there was moderate agreement that a similar
situation had occurred at least once in participants’ own relationships (M = 4.27, SD =
2.04).
Jealousy message realism and valence. Upon answering items about the situation
itself, a number of semantic differential items measured the realism and valence of the
jealousy message itself. Two items (1 = very difficult to imagine; not at all realistic; 7 =
very easy to imagine; completely realistic) assessed jealousy message realism. These
items were internally consistent ( = .87) and a composite variable was created for
analysis (M = 4.69, SD = 1.62). Six semantic differential items measured message
57
valence (e.g., 1 = completely negative; not at all positive; bad; unpleasant; 7 = not at all
negative; completely positive; good; pleasant) and formed a highly reliable scale ( =
.94). A composite valence variable was created for data analysis (M = 3.52, SD = 1.37).
General partner and relational uncertainty. General uncertainty about the partner
was measured by way of eight items previously used by Parks and Adelman (1983).
These items (e.g., “I can accurately predict what my sibling/cross-sex friend’s/dating
partner’s attitudes are”; “I can accurately predict how my sibling/cross-sex friend/dating
partner will respond to me in most situations”) were measured by way of 7-point, Likerttype scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Though Parks and Adelman
(1983) did not report the actual reliability value, they did state that the scale has
demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity. In the present study, these eight items
achieved strong internal consistency ( = .81) and a composite variable revealed that
participants were moderate in partner certainty in response to the hypothetical situation
(M = 4.61, SD = 1.09).
Relational uncertainty was assessed using two of the four relationship uncertainty
subscales developed by Knobloch and Solomon (1999). Specifically, uncertainty about
the relationship’s behavioral norms and mutuality of feelings were chosen because they
were deemed most appropriate and applicable to all three relational contexts. All
uncertainty items were revised to reflect the specific relational contexts under
investigation and to measure a participant’s reaction to a hypothetical scenario (e.g., “If
this situation actually occurred, I would be confident of my ability to accurately predict
my dating partner’s/cross-sex friend’s/sibling’s behavior”).
58
Four items each assessed behavioral norms (e.g., “I am certain about what I can or
cannot say to my sibling/cross-sex friend/dating partner in this relationship”; “I am
certain about the norms of this sibling/cross-sex friend/dating relationship”) and
mutuality of feelings (e.g., “I am certain about whether or not my sibling/cross-sex
friend/dating partner and I feel the same way about each other”; “I am certain about how
my sibling/cross-sex friend/dating partner and I view this relationship”). Each of these
items was measured using 7-point, Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly
agree). Knobloch and Solomon (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999; Solomon & Knobloch,
2001) previously reported a satisfactory internal consistency ( = .73) for the behavioral
norm subscale and a strong internal consistency for the mutuality subscale ( = .89). Two
additional behavioral norms items (“If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain
about how I can act in the presence of my dating partner/cross-sex friend/sibling”; “If this
situation actually occurred, I would be certain about the rules of this dating/cross-sex
friend/sibling relationship”) were created by the author in an attempt to bolster the
internal consistency of Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999) scale.
In terms of the present investigation, an exploratory factor analysis with varimax
rotation was conducted to ensure that the two relational uncertainty variables would
emerge as two separate factors. However, results of this factor analysis revealed a
unidimensional relational uncertainty factor (eigenvalue = 5.73, 57% of the variance
explained). A test of internal consistency also indicated that using the total number of
relational uncertainty items results in a highly reliable scale ( = .90). As such, a
composite relational uncertainty variable was created for data analysis (M = 4.58, SD =
1.22).
59
Jealousy-related emotion. The extent to which participants experienced emotions
commonly associated with jealousy after the partner expresses jealousy to them was
measured using seven semantic differential items (e.g., 1 = not sad at all; 7 = very sad):
sadness, anger, frustration, guilt, fear, insecurity, and surprise. These emotions have been
found to be relevant to the jealousy experience by previous researchers (Pfeiffer & Wong,
1989; White & Mullen, 1989; Zammuner & Fischer, 1995) and seem particularly
applicable as consequences of a partner’s jealousy expression.
To determine whether these emotions comprised a single jealousy-related emotion
factor or if they were actually multiple emotions, an exploratory factor analysis using
varimax rotation was conducted. This analysis revealed three separate emotion factors.
Factor one (eigenvalue = 2.52, 36% of the variance explained) included fear (.808) and
insecurity (.772). Factor two (eigenvalue = 1.26, 18% of the variance explained) was
comprised of anger (.885) and frustration (.735). The third factor (eigenvalue = 1.06, 15%
of the variance explained) included sadness (.777) and surprise (.674). Guilt cross-loaded
on both the first and third factors (.591 and .524 respectively). However, when these three
factors were examined separately for internal consistency, none displayed a Cronbach’s
alpha over .68. A reliability test was then conducted using all seven emotions together,
which revealed an alpha of .71 without the surprise item.
To further explore this potential single emotion factor, a factor analysis with a
varimax rotation that specified one factor with the six remaining emotion items was
conducted. From this test, an eigenvalue of 2.46 was observed and 41% of the variance
was explained by this single factor. In addition, factor loadings for each of the six
emotion items ranged from .539 to .687. Thus, to satisfy both the need for internal
60
consistency and the general specifications suggested by the factor analyses, the six
emotions of sadness, anger, frustration, guilt, fear, and insecurity were combined to
create a single jealousy-related emotion variable. Participants were moderate in their
emotional reaction to the hypothetical jealousy situation (M = 3.76, SD = 1.07).
Rumination. Cloven and Roloff’s (1991) mulling scale was used to assess
participants’ frequency of thinking about the jealousy interaction. Rumination was
measured using five 7-point, semantic differential scales and item wording was altered to
reflect the hypothetical nature of the jealousy situation (e.g., 1 = would not worry at all
about the interaction; no time would be spent reflecting on this interaction; would never
think about this interaction; 7 = would worry very much about the interaction; a lot of
time would be spent reflecting on this interaction; would think about this interaction all
the time). Strong internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s  ranging from .88 to .93) for this
measure has been reported by both Cloven and Roloff (1991) and Johnson and Roloff
(1998). Similar strong internal consistency was observed in the main investigation ( =
.88) and a composite rumination variable was computed for analysis. Respondents
indicated that they would ruminate about the situation to a moderate degree (M = 4.73,
SD = 1.22). Table 5 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the
main investigation’s dependent variables.
Relational and demographic information. All participants were then asked about a
number of relevant relational variables, including the length of their relationships in
months and the frequency of contact with their relational partners (daily, weekly,
monthly, several times a year, once a year or less). Further, closeness (i.e., “How close
would you say your sibling relationship/cross-sex friendship is?”) and satisfaction (i.e.,
61
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Main Investigation Dependent
Variables
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
1. PartUnc
4.61
1.10
2. RelUnc
4.58
1.22
3. Emotion
3.76
1.07
.74*
-.16*
-.17*
-.08
-12*
.47*
4. Ruminate
4.73
1.22
Note. All correlations are one-tailed. PartUnc = general partner uncertainty; RelUnc =
relational uncertainty, * p < .01.
62
“How satisfied are you with this sibling relationship/cross-sex friendship?”) was assessed
using one-item 7-point, Likert-type scales (1 = not at all close/satisfied; 7 = very
close/satisfied).
A number of items were particular to the sibling relationship. Specifically,
participants in the three sibling conditions were asked to indicate how many total siblings
they have, the type of siblings they have (natural, half, step, or adopted), the gender of
each sibling, the age difference between each sibling, their current living situation with
their siblings (i.e., live with them year round, live with them when not in school, never
live with them), and whether or not their parents are divorced and/or remarried.
Two items specifically applied to cross-sex friendships. Specifically, respondents
in the three cross-sex friendship conditions indicated how frequently they have engaged
in sexual behavior with their friend (more than five times, two to four times, once, never)
and whether or not the cross-sex friend is a former romantic partner. For the dating
partner conditions, participants were asked to describe the type of relationship they had
(single – not dating, single – dating many individuals, in a relationship that is not
exclusive, in an exclusive relationship for less than one year, in an exclusive relationship
for more than one year, engaged). Finally, participants were asked to provide both their
own and their relational partners’ age, gender, and sexual orientation. In addition,
participants indicated their ethnicity and year in school.
Procedures
Students received required research credit for their participation. Participants
either signed up for a time period outside of class where they completed one of nine
questionnaire versions in groups of ten to thirty or completed the instrument during class
63
time. The questionnaire versions contained identical information, except for situations
operationalizing the nine conditions of interest and a small number of questions specific
to each of the three relational contexts under examination. After reading and signing a
consent form, participants filled out the questionnaire (which took 10 to 15 minutes),
turned it in to the investigator, and were given an opportunity to ask questions about the
research. Then, debriefing forms were distributed and the participants were thanked and
dismissed.
64
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Differences between relational contexts. A multivariate analysis of variance that
examined potential differences in relationship length, closeness, satisfaction, and
frequency of contact with relation to relationship context detected a significant effect
[Wilks’  (8, 688) = .18, p < .0001, 2 = .58]; specifically, differences for relationship
length [F (2, 347) = 641.42, p < .0001, 2 = .79], frequency of contact [F (2, 347) =
54.11, p < .0001, 2 = .24], and closeness [F (2, 347) = 17.01, p < .0001, 2 = .09] were
observed (see Tables 3 and 4). Relationship satisfaction did not significantly differ by
relationship context [F (2, 347) = 2.60, p = .08, power = .52]. According to Tukey HSD
post hoc tests, the three relationship contexts each significantly differed from one another
in terms of relationship length (sibling M = 233.50, SD = 62.86; cross-sex friend M =
61.07, SD = 51.95; dating partner M = 20.59, SD = 19.59). Further, dating partners were
in significantly more frequent contact (M = 1.20, SD = .446) than either cross-sex friends
(M = 1.94, SD = .791) or siblings (M = 2.17, SD = .882) and were significantly closer to
their partners (M = 6.38, SD = .849) than were cross-sex friends (M = 5.75, SD = .991) or
siblings (M = 5.72, SD = 1.05). Satisfaction levels did not differ by context (dating
partner M = 5.86, SD = 1.26; cross-sex friend M = 5.70, SD = 1.20; sibling M = 5.48, SD
= 1.41).
65
Scenario realism, frequency, and likelihood of ever occurring. The composite
realism and the “ever occurred” variables were separately compared to the scale midpoint
(4.0) using two one-sample t-tests. These tests revealed that both realism level [t (351 ) =
13.88, p < .0001] and the rate at which the situation occurred at least once happened at a
rate that were significantly higher than the scale midpoint [t (351) = 2.47, p < .05].
In addition, results of a univariate ANOVA with scenario realism as the
dependent variable and experimental condition as the fixed factor detected a significant
effect for situation realism [F (8, 343) = 2.34, p < .05, 2 = .05]. Tukey HSD post hoc
tests found that the dating partner-integrative communication message situation (M =
5.81, SD = 1.03) was significantly more realistic than the cross-sex friend-negative affect
expression message situation (M = 4.63, SD = 1.51), with no other situations differing
from one another in terms of realism. Because of this unwanted significant difference in
scenario realism means across experimental conditions, the scenario realism variable was
entered as a covariate when conducting analyses.
Next, a univariate ANOVA examining the “ever occurred” variable in relation to
experimental condition revealed a significant effect [F (8, 343) = 2.42, p < .05, 2 = .05].
Post hoc tests using the Tukey HSD procedure showed that the sibling-distributive
communication message situation (M = 5.12, SD = 1.85) was significantly more likely to
have occurred at least once compared with the sibling-integrative communication
message situation (M = 3.69, SD = 2.08). No other situations differed significantly from
one another with regard to this variable. As such, “ever occurred” variable was entered as
a covariate when analyses were conducted. For the frequency of occurrence variable, a
univariate ANOVA examining it in terms of experimental condition did not find any
66
significant differences across situations [F (8, 343) = 1.49, p = .16, power = .67] (see
Table 6).
Jealousy message realism and valence. Using a one-sample t-test, it was
determined that the composite realism variable for jealousy message was significantly
more realistic than the 4.0 scale midpoint [t (344) = 8.03, p < .0001]. In addition, a
univariate ANOVA with jealousy message realism as the dependent variable and
experimental condition as the fixed factor revealed no significant differences for the
realism of the jealousy message used by another [F (8, 336) = 1.77, p = .08, power = .76].
A univariate analysis of variance conducted on the nine conditions to ensure that each
jealousy message significantly differed as expected in terms of message valence found a
significant main effect for message valence [F (8, 343) = 8.39, p < .0001, 2 = .16].
Tukey HSD post hoc analyses indicated that each of the distributive
communication conditions were significantly more negative than the three integrative
communication conditions (see Table 6). The three negative affect expression conditions
did not significantly differ in valence from one another, but also did not form a distinct
subset from the distributive and integrative communication conditions. This unexpected
“blending” of conditions was deemed acceptable for two reasons: (a) the neutrality
inherent in the negative affect expression condition could potentially lead to differential
interpretations for different individuals; and (b) a univariate ANOVA and Tukey HSD
post hoc analyses using composite variables for each of the three jealousy messages
revealed the anticipated significant message valence differences [F (2, 349) = 28.14, p <
67
Table 6
Realism, Frequency of Occurrence, and Ever Occurred Variable Means and Standard
Deviations for Jealousy Scenarios Examined in Main Investigation
Jealousy Scenario
Realism
Mean
SD
Frequency
Mean
SD
Ever Occurred
Mean
SD
Sibling-Integrative
4.75a,b
1.75
2.63
1.55
3.70a
2.08
Sibling-Negative Affect Exp 5.04a,b
1.55
2.75
1.53
4.15a,b
2.06
Sibling-Distributive
5.23a,b
1.57
3.32
1.61
5.12b
1.85
Friend-Integrative
4.83a,b
1.44
2.50
1.48
3.90a,b
2.24
1.51
2.68
1.49
3.88a,b
2.08
Friend-Negative Affect Exp 4.63a
Friend-Distributive
5.06a,b
1.37
3.27
1.62
4.50a,b
1.88
Dating-Integrative
5.81b
1.03
2.91
1.30
4.77a,b
1.86
Dating-Negative Affect Exp 5.37a,b
1.55
2.96
1.53
4.59a,b
1.97
Dating-Distributive
5.38a,b
1.59
2.58
1.51
3.79a,b
2.01
Overall
5.12
1.52
2.84
1.53
4.27
2.04
Note. N = 352. Within columns, means sharing superscript letters do not significantly
differ at p < .05. There were no significant differences at p < .05 for the frequency
variable. Higher values indicate more realism, more frequency of occurrence, and more
agreement that the situation has occurred at least once in participant’s own relationships.
68
.0001, 2 = .14; distributive communication composite variable M = 2.96, SD = 1.11;
negative affect expression composite variable M = 3.41, SD = 1.20; integrative
communication composite variable M = 4.20, SD = 1.50] (see Table 7).
Analysis Plan
Hypotheses one and two were analyzed using MANCOVA, with general partner
and relational uncertainty (which were highly correlated with one another) as the
dependent variables and relational context as the independent variable. Similarly,
hypotheses three and four were assessed using MANCOVA with jealousy message type
as the fixed factor and both general partner and relational uncertainty as the dependent
variables.
Hypotheses five and seven were examined using separate univariate ANCOVAs,
with relational context as the independent variable and the composite measure of
jealousy-related emotion intensity (H5) and amount of rumination (H7) as the dependent
variables. Hypotheses six and eight were also tested using separate univariate
ANCOVAs, with jealousy message type as the fixed factor and intensity of jealousyrelated emotion (H6) and amount of rumination (H8) as the dependent variables. For the
first eight hypotheses, the scenario realism and “ever occurred” variables were entered as
covariates because they unexpectedly varied according to experimental condition.
Planned polynomial contrasts were conducted to examine the specific differences
proposed by the first eight hypotheses. Though no predictions were specifically
forwarded, potential interactions between relational context and jealousy message used
by another were examined for hypotheses one through eight. The final hypothesis was
69
Table 7
Valence and Realism Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Jealousy Expression
Types Examined in Main Investigation
Jealousy Expression Type
Valence
Mean
SD
Realism
Mean
SD
Sibling-Integrative
4.25d,e
1.38
4.35
1.66
Sibling-Negative Affect Expression
3.29a,b,c
1.16
4.71
1.64
Sibling-Distributive
2.93a,b
.849
4.99
1.44
Cross-Sex Friend-Integrative
3.97c,d,e
1.45
4.57
1.59
Cross-Sex Friend-Negative Affect Express 3.39a,b,c,d 1.17
4.17
1.97
Cross-Sex Friend-Distributive
3.36a,b,c,d 3.36
4.64
1.63
Dating Partner-Integrative
4.39e
1.46
5.36
1.10
Dating Partner-Negative Affect Express
3.56b,c,d,e 1.28
4.80
1.47
Dating Partner-Distributive
2.60a
4.71
1.75
1.22
Overall
3.52
1.34
4.69
1.62
Note. N = 352. Within columns, means sharing superscript letters do not significantly
differ at p < .05 for the valence variable. There were no significant differences at p < .05
for the realism variable. Higher values indicate more realism and more positive valence.
70
tested using PATH (Hunter and Hamilton, 1993) (see Figure 1 for details about the paths
predicted).
Hypotheses One and Two
The first two hypotheses predicted that general partner uncertainty (H1) and
relational uncertainty (H2) would each be strongest when jealousy is expressed by a
cross-sex friend, followed in strength by a dating partner, then a sibling. Significant
differences between each of these three contexts were expected for both hypotheses.
MANCOVA results including both general partner and relational uncertainty revealed a
significant effect for relational context [Wilks’  (4, 692) = .92, p < .0001, partial 2 =
.04]. In addition, a significant effect was observed for the scenario realism covariate
[Wilks’  (2, 346) = .97, p < .01, partial 2 = .03]; specifically in relation to the general
partner uncertainty variable [F (1, 341) = 8.87, p < .01, 2 = .03]. No significant effects
were found for the “ever occurred” covariate.
Specifically, differences for both general partner uncertainty [F (2, 341) = 9.42, p
< .0001, 2 = .05] and relational uncertainty [F (2, 341) = 14.05, p < .0001, 2 = .08] were
revealed. Planned polynomial contrasts indicate that, as predicted, cross-sex friends
experience significantly more general partner uncertainty than either dating partners [t
(349) = -4.97, p < .0001] or siblings [t (349) = 3.09, p < .01]. However, the dating partner
and sibling relational contexts do not significantly differ from one another for general
partner uncertainty [t (349) = 1.93, p = .05].
For relational uncertainty, as predicted, cross-sex friends experienced
significantly more uncertainty than either siblings [t (349) = -3.36, p < .01] or dating
partners [t (349) = -5.68, p < .0001]. However, siblings experienced significantly more
71
uncertainty than did dating partners [t (349) = 2.37, p < .05], a finding opposite of that
predicted by H2. As such, H1 and H2 are each partially consistent with the data.
Hypotheses Three and Four
Hypotheses three and four predicted that general partner uncertainty (H3) and
relational uncertainty (H4) would be strongest when another expressed jealousy using
distributive communication, followed by negative affect expression and integrative
communication. Significant differences between each jealousy expression strategy were
anticipated for both hypotheses. MANCOVA results for both uncertainty types revealed a
significant effect for jealousy message [Wilks’  (4, 680) = 3.19, p < .05, partial 2 = .02].
A significant effect was observed for the scenario realism covariate [Wilks’  (2, 340) =
4.78, p < .01, partial 2 = .03] in relation to the general partner uncertainty variable [F (1,
341) = 7.65, p < .01, 2 = .02]. No significant effects were revealed for the “ever
occurred” covariate.
Specific differences were detected for both general partner uncertainty [F (2, 341)
= 5.94, p < .01, 2 = .03] and for relational uncertainty [F (2, 341) = 4.96, p < .01, 2 =
.03]. Planned polynomial contrasts suggest a consistent pattern for each uncertainty
variable. As predicted, another’s use of negative affect expression is associated with
significantly more general partner uncertainty [t (349) = 3.22, p < .001] and relational
uncertainty [t (349) = 2.85, p < .01) than another’s use of integrative communication.
Another’s use of distributive communication did not significantly differ from either
negative affect expression [general partner uncertainty t (349) = -1.69, p = .09, relational
uncertainty t (349) = -1.52, p = .13] or integrative communication [general partner
uncertainty t (349) = 1.55, p = .12, relational uncertainty t (349) = 1.35, p = .18] in terms
72
of either general partner or relational uncertainty. Thus, H3 and H4 are each partially
consistent with the data.
Hypothesis Five
Hypothesis five predicted that intensity of jealousy-related emotion would vary
according to the relational context another’s jealousy was expressed in. ANCOVA results
revealed a significant effect for jealousy-related emotion [F (2, 346) = 10.67, p < .0001,
2 = .06]. The realism and “ever occurred” covariates were not significant. Planned
polynomial contrasts suggest that both siblings [t (349) = -3.84, p < .0001] and dating
partners [t (349) = -4.52, p < .0001] experience significantly more intense emotions in
response to another’s jealousy expression compared with cross-sex friends. Siblings and
dating partners do not differ in their intensity of jealousy-related emotion [t (349) = .726,
p = .47]. Thus, H5 is consistent with the data.
Hypothesis Six
The sixth hypothesis proposed that another’s use of either distributive
communication or negative affect expression to express jealousy to an individual would
be associated with that individual’s more intense experience of jealousy-related emotions
than another’s use of integrative jealousy expression. Significant differences for jealousyrelated emotion were not detected using ANCOVA [F (2, 340) = 1.74, p = .18, power =
.36]. The realism and “ever occurred” covariates were not significant. Another’s use of
distributive jealousy expression, negative affect expression, or integrative jealousy
expression did not significantly differ in relation to the individual’s jealousy-related
emotion intensity. Hypothesis six was thus not consistent with the data.
73
Hypothesis Seven
Hypothesis seven predicted that jealousy expression from one’s cross-sex friend
would be associated with that individual’s increased rumination compared with jealousy
expression from a sibling or from a dating partner. ANCOVA results detected no
significant differences for amount of rumination [F (2, 340) = 1.08, p = .34, power = .24].
The realism and “ever occurred” covariates were not significant. Specifically, jealousy
expressed by cross-sex friends, dating partners, and siblings did not relate to significant
differences in an individual’s amount of rumination about the situation. As such, the
seventh hypothesis was not consistent with the data.
Hypothesis Eight
The eighth hypothesis stated that another’s use of both distributive
communication and negative affect expression when expressing jealousy would be
related to more rumination by an individual compared with another’s use of integrative
jealousy expression. Using ANCOVA, a significant main effect was observed [F (2, 340)
= 3.08, p < .05, 2 = .02]. The realism and “ever occurred” covariates were not
significant. Planned polynomial contrasts suggest that another’s use of distributive
communication and negative affect expression do not significantly differ from one
another with regard to rumination [t (349) = -.113, p = .91]. Further, as predicted,
another’s use of distributive communication [t (349) = -2.10, p < .05] and negative affect
expression [t (349) = -1.99, p < .05] result in significantly greater rumination than
another’s use of integrative communication. As such, hypothesis eight was consistent
with the data. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small
effect size.
74
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations for the Relationship Between Relational Context and the
Dependent Variables
Relational Context
GPUnc
RelUnc
Emotion
Ruminate
Sibling
4.69b
(1.11)
4.65b
(1.21)
3.90b
(1.03)
4.62
(1.33)
Cross-Sex Friend
4.29a
(1.12)
4.16a
(1.19)
3.41a
(1.03)
4.84
(1.12)
4.87b
4.94b
3.97b
4.74
(.966)
(1.12)
(1.07)
(1.19)
Note. N = 352. GPUnc = general partner uncertainty; RelUnc = relational uncertainty.
Dating Partner
Means reported here are from t-test conducted without the realism and “ever occurred”
covariates used to test hypotheses one through eight. Within columns, means sharing
superscript letters do not significantly differ at p < .05. There were no significant
differences at p < .05 for the ruminate variable. Higher values indicate more certainty,
stronger emotion, and more rumination about the situation.
75
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for the Relationship between Jealousy Expression Type
and the Dependent Variables
Jealousy Expression Type
GPUnc
RelUnc
Emotion
Ruminate
Integrative Communication 4.86b
(1.03)
4.90b
(1.18)
3.62
(1.19)
4.51a
(1.25)
Negative Affect Expression 4.39a
(1.11)
4.39a
(1.29)
3.78
(.995)
4.84b
(1.24)
Distributive Communication 4.60a,b
(1.11)
4.59a,b
(1.15)
3.88
(1.01)
4.85b
(1.13)
Note. N = 352. GPUnc = general partner uncertainty; RelUnc = relational uncertainty.
Means reported here are from t-test conducted without the realism and “ever occurred”
covariates used to test hypotheses one through eight. Within columns, means sharing
superscript letters do not significantly differ at p < .05. There were no significant
differences at p < .05 for the emotion variable. Higher values indicate more certainty,
stronger emotion, and more rumination about the situation.
76
Hypothesis Nine
The final hypothesis tested a proposed reaction model of jealousy in close relationships
wherein, after one’s close partner expresses jealousy to him or her, he or she first
experiences general partner uncertainty, then relational uncertainty, which then leads to
both ruminative thoughts and jealousy-related emotions. PATH results (Hunter &
Hamilton, 1993) indicated that the proposed relationships between the variables were
present with the exception of the association between relational uncertainty and jealousyrelated emotion. The chi-square goodness of fit test using ordinary least squares indicated
that the proposed model did not fit the data based upon the path coefficients corrected for
error of measurement using the reliability coefficients [2 (3) = 24.89, p < .0001].
Further, there was one error (obtained r – predicted r) greater than sampling error for the
link between rumination and emotion (r = .46, z = 4.81, p < .0001). Based upon these
analyses, the data were not consistent with the path model proposed by H9.
Supplementary model testing results. Although the proposed reaction model of
jealousy in close relationships was not consistent with the data, a number of predicted
relationships were detected and an attempt to find a model that did fit the data seemed
reasonable. Because a significant relationship was not observed between relational
uncertainty and jealousy-related emotion and the individual link analysis suggested
rumination and jealousy-related emotion should be linked, rumination was tested as a
mediator between relational uncertainty and jealousy-related emotion. Consistent with
this idea, McIntosh & Martin (1992) noted that rumination leads to negative affect
because rumination is aversive and can cause individuals to polarize the unpleasant
emotions that they associate with their inability to attain goals. This potential relationship
77
is in contrast to Martin and Tesser (1996a), who claim that rumination and affect only
covary with one another (as tested by the model examined by H8).
To determine if rumination does indeed result in jealousy-related emotion (which
is operationalized as negative in this investigation), a model where general partner
uncertainty leads to relational uncertainty, which then results in rumination, which then
leads to jealousy-related emotion was tested. All relationships were significant as
predicted and the chi-square goodness of fit test using ordinary least squares indicated
that this model fit the data based upon the path coefficients corrected for error of
measurement using the reliability coefficients [2 (3) = 2.06, p = .56]. Further, there were
no errors (obtained r – predicted r) that were greater than sampling error.
To further test the usefulness of the model, six separate replications were
conducted using the three relational context conditions and the three jealousy message
conditions. For each replication, no errors (obtained r – predicted r) greater than
sampling error were found. In addition, the chi-square goodness of fit test using ordinary
least squares indicated that each model fit the data based upon the path coefficients
corrected for error of measurement using the reliability coefficients: sibling conditions
[2 (3) = .53, p = .91], cross-sex friend conditions [2 (3) = 4.22, p = .24], dating partner
conditions [2 (3) = 2.80, p = .42], distributive jealousy message conditions [2 (3) =
1.37, p = .71], integrative jealousy message conditions [2 (3) = 2.24, p = .52], and
negative affect expression jealousy message conditions [2 (3) = .30, p = .96]. Finally, all
predicted relationships were observed except for the association between relational
uncertainty and rumination, which was not significant in the integrative jealousy message
conditions ( = -.01), the distributive message conditions ( = -.10), the dating partner
78
conditions ( = -.09), and the cross-sex friend conditions ( = -.11). Despite these
nonsignificant relationships, there is enough evidence that this model can represent the
preliminary reactional model of jealousy in close relationships (see Figure 2).
79
(.74)
Close Partner’s
Expression of Jealousy
General Partner
Uncertainty
(-.13)
Relational
Uncertainty
(.47)
Ruminative
Thoughts
Jealousy-Related
Emotion
Figure 2. Final path-analytic reaction model of jealousy with path coefficients.
80
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
This project was executed in an attempt to learn about the consequences of
jealousy expression in close relationships. To this end, two specific goals motivated the
current investigation: (a) to determine the effects of different relational contexts and
jealousy expression strategies on four proposed consequences of another’s jealousy
expression – general partner uncertainty, relational uncertainty, rumination, and jealousyrelated emotion; and (b) to assess the interrelationships between these four proposed
consequences by proposing and testing a reaction model of jealousy in close
relationships. Two pilot studies and one main study using hypothetical scenarios and
experimental conditions were conducted to assess the relationships proposed.
Overall, general partner uncertainty, relational uncertainty, rumination, and
jealousy-related emotion each represented consequences to another’s jealousy expression
and the experience of these variables differed according to either the relational context in
which the jealousy expression occurred or the way in which such jealousy was expressed.
Further, a reactional model of jealousy delineating the relationships between these
jealousy expression consequences was specified. The final section of this dissertation
summarizes and discusses the implications of these findings, suggests avenues for future
research, presents limitations to the project, and reports general conclusions about
jealousy expression within close relationships.
81
Consequences of Another’s Jealousy Expression
General Partner and Relational Uncertainty
Because a robust relationship between uncertainty and jealousy has been
demonstrated in previous research (e.g., Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Guerrero & Afifi, 1999;
Knobloch et al., 2001), the first two proposed consequences of partner jealousy
expression were general partner and relational uncertainty. Overall, the means for the two
uncertainty variables indicated that participants reacted to another’s jealousy expression
with low-to-moderate general partner and relational uncertainty. Further, general partner
and relational uncertainty were the only proposed consequences where both relational
context and jealousy expression led to differing uncertainty levels, suggesting that a
series of complex relationships exist between uncertainty, relational context, and jealousy
expression.
According to the findings for H1 and H2, individuals whose cross-sex friends
expressed jealousy experienced greater uncertainty than those whose siblings or dating
partners communicated that they were jealous. These findings are consistent with Afifi
and Burgoon (1998), who established that general partner and relational state uncertainty
did occur in cross-sex friendships. However, although cross-sex friends experienced more
uncertainty than did dating partners or siblings, it is important to emphasize that cross-sex
friendships are not constantly plagued by uncertainty. Indeed, both this study and Afifi
and Burgoon (1998) reported low-to-moderate uncertainty levels between cross-sex
friends. Thus, globally characterizing cross-sex friendships by the ambiguity and
uncertainty present between the partners may be inaccurate. Instead, as suggested by
Afifi and Burgoon (1998), uncertainty between cross-sex friends may constitute an
82
additional “challenge” (Monsour, 2002; O’Meara, 1989) with which cross-sex friends
must occasionally contend. Specifically, jealousy expression from one’s cross-sex friend
seems to be one such occasion where uncertainty is elicited.
Another notable implication of the first two hypotheses is that daters and siblings
did not significantly differ in their uncertainty levels following another’s jealousy
expression. No known research has employed the uncertainty construct in family
relationships, perhaps because researchers assume that uncertainty is not present between
family members. However, research on topic avoidance between parents and children
(e.g., Golish & Caughlin, 2002; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995) certainly suggests that family
members are not completely open with one another, especially about sensitive topics such
as sex and money. Topic avoidance also very likely exists between siblings, and could
give rise to uncertainty about one’s sibling and about the relationship. Further, topic
avoidance and uncertainty both seem especially likely when at least one sibling is in
college because the siblings might be geographically separated. Overall, the current
findings introduce the presence of uncertainty in sibling relationships and create an
interesting avenue of future research on uncertainty within families.
As predicted, another’s use of negative affect expression to express jealousy
resulted in greater levels of general partner (H3) and relational (H4) uncertainty
compared with integrative communication. However, uncertainty levels in response to
another’s use of distributive communication did not significantly differ from either of the
other two jealousy expression strategies. Although negative and fairly uncommon as a
choice for jealousy expression (e.g., Aylor & Dainton, 2001; Bevan & Lannutti, 2002),
distributive communication only elicited low-to-moderate levels of partner and relational
83
uncertainty from an individual. Perhaps a partner’s use of distributive communication to
express jealousy occurs more frequently than was previously believed and participants do
not react with strong partner and relational uncertainty because such a situation has
already taken place.
Alternately, the hypothetical nature of the distributive communication scenarios
might have tempered uncertain reactions to another’s jealousy expression. Actual
instances where one’s partner uses distributive communication may result in higher
uncertainty than what was presently observed. Overall, however, implications for H3 and
H4 should be considered in light of the small effect sizes that were obtained.
Though negative affect expression was not predicted to be the jealousy expression
method that elicited the most partner and relational uncertainty, this finding makes sense
for two reasons. First, the nonverbal display of jealousy-related emotions is consistently
viewed as the most ambiguous method of expressing jealousy (Andersen et al., 1993;
Guerrero et al., 1995). Thus, another’s use of negative affect expression could very likely
result in an individual’s insecurity or uncertainty about what the partner is trying to say
and what the interaction might mean for the relationship. Second, because one’s goal of
reducing uncertainty about the primary relationship predicted the use of negative affect
expression to express jealousy (Guerrero & Afifi, 1999), an inverse relationship where
another’s use of negative affect expression results in an individual’s uncertainty about the
partner and the relationship may also be likely.
In general, the findings related to uncertainty and jealousy generate a number of
interesting theoretical implications. First, unlike previous research examining uncertainty
between dating partners (Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Knobloch et al., 2001) and cross-sex
84
friends (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998), findings for relational uncertainty and general partner
uncertainty were found to differ from one another. That is, general partner uncertainty
and relational uncertainty differed from one another in terms of relational context (H1
and H2). These findings support the argument that these two uncertainty types are
conceptually discrete from one another (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). However, because
findings for H3 and H4 as well as other research have detected similarities between the
two uncertainty types, it would be worthwhile to continue examining the similarities and
differences between general partner and relational uncertainty to determine the degree to
which they should be considered distinct.
These findings also contribute to the body of research that highlights uncertainty
negotiation and reduction across a variety of close relationships (e.g., Emmers & Canary,
1996; Knobloch & Solomon, 2002a; 2002b; Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp et al.,
1988; Turner, 1990). Namely, as Knobloch and Solomon (2002b) propose, the present
results support the importance and usefulness of moving away from an uncertainty model
where the reduction of uncertainty is primary (e.g., Berger & Calabrese, 1975).
Specifically, this study contributes to knowledge about uncertainty negotiation across
close relationships by highlighting general partner and relational uncertainty as integral
aspects of a sequence of behaviors, cognitions, and emotions associated with jealousy
expression and its immediate intrapersonal consequences.
Overall, uncertainty not only serves as an antecedent or correlate of jealousy
expression, but also represents an individual’s reaction to another’s jealousy expression.
Thus, the importance of uncertainty in jealousy expression is again underscored and can
85
be extended to include an individual’s level of uncertainty as a potent consequence of
another’s jealousy expression.
Jealousy-Related Emotion
The third proposed consequence of another’s jealousy expression was the
elicitation of jealousy-related emotion. Jealousy is commonly characterized as an affect
blend comprised primarily of negative emotions (Hupka, 1984) and an individual’s
jealousy experience involves an emotional component (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Thus, it
seems logical that emotions culled from previous literature (Bringle, 1991; White &
Mullen, 1989; Zammuner & Fischer, 1995) as frequent components of jealousy-related
emotion might also arise in response to another’s jealousy expression. The final jealousyrelated emotion variable examined in data analyses included sadness, anger, frustration,
guilt, fear, and insecurity. Findings for jealousy-related emotion revealed that participants
experienced moderate emotional intensity after another’s jealousy expression, suggesting
that experiencing negative jealousy-related emotions does seem to be a consequence of
another’s jealousy expression.
Findings for hypothesis five revealed that jealousy expressed by siblings and
dating partners resulted in individuals’ more intense emotional experience compared with
jealousy communicated by cross-sex friends. Because previous research did not provide a
definitive prediction for the relationship between relational context and the intensity of
jealousy-related emotions, H5’s findings could tentatively be explained in one of two
ways. First, as H1 and H3 found, the cross-sex friend relational context involved greater
uncertainty compared with the sibling and dating partner relational contexts. Because the
reaction model of jealousy examined in this project states that uncertainty leads to
86
jealousy-related emotion, perhaps individuals whose cross-sex friends express jealousy
are more concerned with their uncertainty and thus experience less intense jealousyrelated emotions than the other relational contexts.
A second explanation is that siblings and daters may generally have stronger
emotional reactions than do cross-sex friends. For example, Davies (2002) notes that
shared history and common bonds can result in intense emotional experiences between
siblings. In a similar vein, Dunn and McGuire (1992) found that children experience
more anger in their sibling relationships then in their peer relationships. Further,
individuals may experience strong negative emotional reactions when a dating partner
expresses jealousy because, as Ellis and Weinstein (1986) suggested, the partner is
implying that the individual is being dishonest or deceiving.
Although Gaines et al. (1998) note that friendships involve moderate-to-high
levels of emotional intimacy, little is known about situations that cause negative
emotional reactions in cross-sex friendships. Further, comparisons between relational
contexts in terms of emotional intensity have escaped empirical scrutiny. Clearly, these
issues deserve further attention in future research on emotional reactions in close
relationships.
The sixth hypothesis revealed that no differences existed for an individual’s
emotional intensity based upon how another communicated jealousy. This finding is
particularly puzzling, as Guerrero et al. (1995) found that the three expression strategies
examined were related to emotional jealousy (a construct very similar to jealousy-related
emotion). Further, Guerrero and Afifi (1999) found that one’s intensity of jealous
emotion predicted his or her use of distributive communication. However, these
87
relationships between jealousy-related emotion intensity and jealousy expression did not
extend to one’s emotional reaction to another’s jealousy expression.
One explanation for the failure to detect differences in emotional intensity with
regard to another’s choice of jealousy expression is the conceptualization and
measurement of the jealousy-related emotion variable. The difficulty in creating an
internally consistent and unidimensional jealousy-related emotion scale provides
evidence that multiple and separate negative emotions might occur within an individual
when another expresses jealousy. Perhaps certain discrete emotions emerge as a
consequence of another’s jealousy expression method. For example, the emotions of
anger or frustration seem more likely to arise when another uses distributive
communication compared with sadness or insecurity.
An alternate explanation involves Ellsworth and Smith’s (1988) research on
emotions and cognitive appraisals. Whereas the experience of emotions such as anger,
sadness, fear, guilt, and surprise did not differ according to some cognitive appraisals
such as certainty and attentional activity, they did vary in experience for the human
agency appraisal (i.e., whether self or other was responsible or in control). Specifically,
other-agency situations were associated with higher levels of anger and lower levels of
guilt compared with self-agency situations. Perhaps the current jealousy situation was
cognitively appraised in terms of human agency, and conceptualizing jealousy-related
emotion unidimensionally would not account for the differential emotional experiences
that might be present. Overall, to gain a broader understanding of emotional reactions to
another’s jealousy expression, future research should examine jealousy-related emotion
as both unidimensional and multidimensional concepts.
88
In general, an individual’s intensity of jealousy-related emotion can be viewed as
a consequence of another’s jealousy expression. Further, findings for jealousy-related
emotion suggest two things: (a) siblings and daters react with more emotional intensity
than cross-sex friends when jealousy is expressed within their relationships; and (b)
although another’s choice of jealousy expression method did not relate to levels of
emotional intensity, a broader conceptualization of emotional reaction might allow
significant differences to emerge. Overall, future research should attempt to learn more
about emotional reactions to another’s jealousy expression by eliciting specific emotions
experienced by individuals after others communicate jealousy to them.
Rumination
The final proposed consequence of another’s jealousy expression was rumination
about the situation. Rumination was presumed to occur in a jealousy situation because it
involves a reaction to a negative occurrence (e.g., Gold & Wegner, 1995). More
specifically, rumination has been related to serial arguments (Johnson & Roloff, 1998),
conflict (Cloven & Roloff, 1991), and, most importantly, romantic jealousy (Carson &
Cupach, 2000). In terms of the present investigation, rumination could be considered the
strongest consequence to another’s jealousy expression. Specifically, the rumination
variable mean was significantly higher than the 4.0 scale midpoint [t (350) = 11.27, p <
.0001]. As such, the link between jealousy expression and rumination can be extended to
include rumination as a consequence of another’s jealousy expression.
The seventh hypothesis found that relational context did not lead to differing
amounts of rumination about another’s jealousy expression. Because cross-sex friends
often avoid the expression of jealousy (Aune & Comstock, 1991; Bevan, 1999), it was
89
assumed that individuals would react to a cross-sex friend’s jealousy expression by
ruminating about the situation to a greater degree than do siblings or daters. However,
findings for H7 instead revealed that individuals across relational contexts consistently
possessed moderate-to-high amounts of rumination after jealousy was expressed.
Combining H7’s findings with those for the eighth hypothesis suggests that the
communicative quality of the interaction, rather than the type of relationship it occurs in,
plays a more significant role in how much an individual ruminates after his or her partner
expresses jealousy.
Though not significant, the H7’s results are of value because the vast majority of
research on rumination either focuses upon a single relationship (e.g., Cloven & Roloff,
1991; Johnson & Roloff, 1998) or does not examine rumination that arises from a
relational situation (e.g., Koole et al., 1999; Nolen-Hoeksema & Jackson, 2001). Thus,
little is known about the effect that relational context has on one’s rumination about a
partner’s behavior. As such, H7’s findings suggest that, across a variety of close
relationships, a situation where one’s partner expresses jealousy leads to rumination.
Thus, in terms of jealousy expression, relational context does not seem to exert a strong
influence upon the amount to which an individual ruminates about a specific relational
event.
Despite a lack of support for the seventh hypothesis’s prediction, future research
should continue to explore rumination and relational context. Conceivably, other
relational situations previously linked to rumination such as serial arguments (Johnson &
Roloff, 1998) and conflict episodes (Cloven & Roloff, 1991) might vary in the amount of
rumination based upon relational context. Further, how relational contexts might differ in
90
other specific aspects of the rumination process might be of research value. For example,
the extent to which close relational partners engage in Martin and Tesser’s (1989) goaldriven theory of rumination behavior sequence might provide increased insight into the
role of relational context in the rumination process.
As predicted, the eighth hypothesis found that, when another used distributive
communication to express jealousy, an individual ruminated more compared with
another’s use of integrative communication or negative affect expression. As stated
above, the findings for rumination provide evidence that how one’s partner
communicates jealousy plays a fairly important role in how much an individual ruminates
about an event. The influence that communicative quality seems to have on rumination is
consistent with Cloven and Roloff (1991), who made similar claims about roommates in
conflict situations. Further, the results for H8 provide additional support for the
consistently evidenced relationship between distributive communication and rumination.
These two variables are strongly related both when distributive communication is
predicted by (e.g., Carson & Cupach, 2000) and associated with (e.g., Cloven & Roloff,
1991) rumination. However, these implications and conclusions must be considered in
light of the weak effect size observed.
Overall, two theoretical implications for rumination are evident. First, the present
results support Carson and Cupach’s (2000) argument that jealousy within romantic
relationships constitutes a frustrated goal that stimulates rumination in Martin and
Tesser’s (1989) goal-driven theory of rumination. Specifically, the current study broadens
Carson and Cupach (2000) to include another’s expression of jealousy as a frustrated goal
across platonic, romantic, and familial relationship contexts. Second, the current results
91
inform the debate over the relationship between rumination and negative affect. Some
scholars (e.g., Martin & Tesser, 1996a, 1996b) believe that rumination and negative
affect covary, whereas others (e.g., McIntosh & Martin, 1992) believe that rumination
leads to negative affect. According to the reaction model of jealousy, rumination occurs
before negative affect (i.e., jealousy-related emotion) is experienced, which is consistent
with McIntosh (1996; McIntosh & Martin, 1992) and provides more insight into the
variables relevant to the rumination process.
Overall, the findings for rumination replicate the relationship between jealousy
and rumination recently established by Carson and Cupach (2000). Further, the
relationship between rumination and jealousy expression can be extended to include
jealousy expression as an antecedent of rumination in a reactional situation. Future
research should continue to explore the relationship between rumination and jealousy,
perhaps by examining the impact of other relevant variables related to rumination or
mulling, including controllability of negative emotions (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema &
Jackson, 2001), perceived resolvability of the issue (e.g., Johnson & Roloff, 1998), or
perception of problem seriousness (e.g., Cloven & Roloff, 1991).
The Reaction Model of Jealousy in Close Relationships
The final hypothesis examined a proposed path model that included the four
proposed consequences of jealousy expression. The original model, which began with
close partners’ jealousy expression, stated that general partner uncertainty occurred first,
followed by relational uncertainty, which then led to both rumination and jealousy-related
emotions. This path model did not fit the data because the predicted path from relational
uncertainty to jealousy-related emotion was not significant. Thus, based upon previous
92
research (McIntosh & Martin, 1992), an alternative model where rumination led to
jealousy-related emotion was tested. The alternative model did fit the data and was
replicated within each relational context and jealousy message conditions. As such, it
serves as the reactional model of jealousy in close relationships (see Figure 2).
The lack of relationship between relational uncertainty and jealousy-related
emotion contrasts Knobloch and Solomon (2000), whose structural equation models
examining various uncertainty-increasing events in close relationships found that
relational uncertainty was directly and positively related to the experiences of anger,
sadness, and fear. However, the mediating nature of rumination is consistent with
Knobloch et al. (2001), who found that cognitive jealousy mediated the relationship
between relational uncertainty and emotional jealousy. Overall, the inconsistency of the
findings for relational uncertainty and jealousy-related emotion suggests that different
uncertainty-provoking situations may result in differing experiences for individuals, at
least where emotional experience is concerned. In jealousy situations, both cognitive
jealousy and rumination serve as mediators between relational uncertainty and jealousyrelated emotion. Why this mediating relationship seems to exist only with regard to
jealousy – as opposed to the other positive and negative uncertainty-increasing situations
studied by Knobloch and Solomon (2002a) – is unknown. Continued examination of
specific cognitive mediators between relational uncertainty and negative emotions would
be fruitful for understanding how individuals interpret and process uncomfortable
relational situations.
As previous research found (Knobloch et al., 2001; Knobloch & Solomon, 2000),
general partner uncertainty preceded relational uncertainty in the reaction model of
93
jealousy. Unlike the relationship between relational uncertainty and jealousy-related
emotion, the association between partner and relational uncertainty spans relational
contexts and situations. For example, one’s own jealousy (Knobloch et al., 2001), the
possibility of a new romantic relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002a), or a best friend
pointing out that an individual is too busy with a romantic partner to spend time with
friends (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002a) each result first in uncertainty about one’s partner,
followed by uncertainty about the relationship. The present study also confirmed this
association when one’s sibling, cross-sex friend, or dating partner expresses jealousy.
Overall, the consistency of these findings informs the process of uncertainty arousal and
the associations between partner and relational uncertainty introduced by Knobloch and
Solomon (1999). Future research should also include self uncertainty as a potential
consequence of another’s jealousy expression (i.e., “Did I do something wrong to make
my partner act that way?”) to provide increased insight into uncertainty and jealousy
expression processes.
As predicted, relational uncertainty preceded rumination about another’s jealousy
expression. Although Carson and Cupach (2000) predicted such a link, no known
empirical research has studied the association between uncertainty and rumination.
Because both are cognitive variables that arise in response to unpleasant situations, it is
logical that a positive relationship exists between them. However, because only two of
the six internal replications detected a significant path between these two variables, this
relationship is the most tenuous of the model. One potential explanation for this weak
link is that there is a restriction of range for the rumination variable, meaning that most
participants experienced moderate-to-high amounts of rumination across experimental
94
conditions. Thus, the relationship between relational uncertainty and rumination may
actually be stronger than what was observed. Overall, the relationship between
uncertainty and rumination should continue to be examined in response to other
unpleasant instances to determine if it emerges consistently.
The final link established as part of the reaction model of jealousy is that
rumination leads to the experience of jealousy-related emotion. As discussed previously,
rumination researchers have contested the nature of the relationship between rumination
and negative affect (which is similar to jealousy-related emotion). For example, Martin
and Tesser (1996a, 1996b) argue that rumination and negative affect covary because both
variables are influenced by similar factors and because rumination influences individuals’
existing affect instead of creating new affect. In contrast, McIntosh (McIntosh, 1996;
McIntosh & Martin, 1992) believes that rumination does lead to negative affect for two
reasons: (a) rumination itself is aversive; and (b) rumination can cause individuals to
polarize the unpleasant emotions they associate with their inability to attain goals.
Findings for the reaction model of jealousy support McIntosh’s argument and help to
clarify the rumination process.
Overall, the results for the reaction model of jealousy provide increased
understanding of the processes individuals go through when their close relational partners
express jealousy. No known research has attempted to elucidate a model that explains
intrapersonal consequences of another’s jealousy expression, but attempting to
understand these cognitive and emotional reactions is important for two reasons. First,
this model provides insight into the impact of jealousy expression within close
relationships. Second, the model underscores the importance of considering the
95
consequences of another’s jealousy expression. Determining the relationships between
the consequences of another’s jealousy expression moves the study of jealousy
expression from one that merely identifies the antecedents and correlates of jealousy
expression strategies to one that delineates the short- and long-term outcomes of such
strategies. Such a characterization rightly broadens the scope of jealousy research to one
where jealousy expression is a situation that cognitively and emotionally impacts the
jealous target.
Limitations and Conclusions
Limitations
The findings of this dissertation provide interesting and significant implications
for the study of jealousy expression in close relationships. Further, they contribute to
knowledge about jealousy-related emotion and the theoretical concepts of uncertainty and
rumination. However, a number of limitations to the generalizability and usefulness of
the findings presented here do exist. Three such limitations are presented below.
The first limitation to the current investigation’s findings is the use of
hypothetical scenarios. Asking participants to imagine specific events, even if they are to
consider actual relational partners, can reduce the external validity of the results.
Specifically, the degree to which individuals would naturally react to another’s jealousy
expression cannot be definitively ascertained from the data reported here. Further, the
possibility that different jealousy expression situations might produce somewhat different
results is present.
Though utilizing hypothetical scenarios involves external validity limitations,
there are three arguments as to why this is not a serious limitation. First, each of the
96
scenarios examined was deemed as significantly more realistic than average and
participants agreed that similar situations had occurred in their own relationships at a
significantly higher than average rate. Second, as stated previously, there are numerous
benefits to hypothetical scenarios, including findings that are not complicated by recall
and memory biases, the ability to control the situations participants react to, and the
measurement of initial and direct reactions to the situations (Knobloch & Solomon,
2002a). Finally, according to self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), one does not need to be
specifically involved in a situation to be able to infer how he or she would react, meaning
that participants should be able to accurately surmise their reaction to a hypothetical
situation. Overall, however, the findings are meaningful and generalizable only to the
extent that the content of the hypothetical situations and the responses provided by
participants are representative and accurate.
A second limitation involves the difficulty in creating a unidimensional and
reliable jealousy-related emotion scale. Though previous research (e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong,
1989; Guerrero et al., 1993; Zammuner & Fischer, 1995) determined the emotions used
to conceptualize the scale, internal consistency tests and exploratory factor analyses did
little to clarify whether jealousy-related emotion was a unidimensional or
multidimensional concept. In this investigation, jealousy-related emotion was a single
factor comprised of six related emotions; however, the internal consistency was not
strong ( = .71). As such, future research should consider jealousy-related emotion as
both a single factor and as multiple factors of distinct emotions (e.g., sadness could be
measured using the terms sad, gloomy, and depressed, as in Knobloch & Solomon,
2002a).
97
A final limitation is one that occurs frequently in social science research – the use
of a fairly homogenous college undergraduate convenience sample. Indeed, personal
relationship research has been criticized for its focus upon younger adults at the expense
of the perspective of older individuals (Fingerman & Hay, 2002). Despite this criticism,
the current investigation exclusively examined college undergraduates with a mean age
of 20.91 years who were from one region of the country and predominantly European
American. Thus, findings for the present study can only extrapolated to individuals who
share similar demographic characteristics.
Though the convenience sample limitation is important, the decision to study
college undergraduates was made for two specific reasons. First, cross-sex friendships are
widely believed to be the most prevalent during individuals’ college years (e.g., Monsour,
2002; Reeder, 2000; Werking, 1997a), meaning that studying college undergraduates
increases the likelihood that most of the sample will have a close, cross-sex friend.
Second, sibling research has not extensively studied rivalry patterns between individuals
who are in late adolescence or young adulthood. As such, researchers (e.g., Cicirelli,
1982; Dunn, 1985) have expressed the need for sibling rivalry research on an age group
that comprises college undergraduates. Thus, a college undergraduate sample for the
current study is both appropriate and informative for the cross-sex friend and sibling
literature. However, to confidently generalize these findings to other age groups, this
research should be extended to younger and older individuals, as well as those who are
more ethnically and regionally heterogeneous.
98
Conclusions
Findings support the idea that general partner uncertainty, relational uncertainty,
rumination, and jealousy-related emotion each arise in response to another’s jealousy
expression. For uncertainty, results confirm the importance and robustness of the
relationship between uncertainty and jealousy expression and extend previous findings to
include uncertainty as a consequence or reaction to jealousy expression. Rumination
findings provide additional evidence that a strong relationship between rumination and
jealousy expression is present, with jealousy expression serving as both an antecedent
and consequence of rumination. In terms of jealousy-related emotion, findings indicate
that negative emotions do seem to occur after another expresses jealousy, but
understanding the composition of these emotions and their specific relationships to
jealousy expression will require continued research.
The current findings give rise to several directions for future research. First, how
each of the consequences of jealousy expression might differ as a result of another’s use
of the remaining eleven jealousy expression strategies (Guerrero et al., 1995; Guerrero &
Andersen, 1998b) would be fruitful for continuing to understand the consequences of
jealousy expression. For example, previous research has found that using
avoidance/denial to express jealousy was positively related to both partner and relational
state uncertainty (Afifi & Reichert, 1996). Further, Guerrero and Afifi (1999) reported
that the intensity of an individual’s jealousy emotion predicted his or her use of
surveillance/restriction and rival contacts. Finally, Carson and Cupach (2000) noted that
rumination predicted a number of jealousy expression strategies, including rival contact,
compensatory restoration, signs of possession, active distancing, and avoidance/denial.
99
Thus, it is conceivable that another’s use of a jealousy expression method not examined
in the current project could also predict an individual’s partner and relational uncertainty,
intensity of emotion, and rumination about the situation.
In addition, how the consequences of another’s jealousy expression are each
managed and communicated by the jealous target would be of interest to jealousy
researchers. In other words, the current project’s findings must be extended to include not
just the intrapersonal reaction of the individual, but also the way in which he or she
communicates this reaction. Such an endeavor will provide more insight into the
reactional nature of jealousy expression between close relational partners. Further, it will
ultimately extend the reaction model of jealousy to include communicative reactions
from both relational partners.
In sum, the current project provides valuable insight into the effects of jealousy
expression within cross-sex friend, dating, and sibling relationships. In addition, the
reaction model of jealousy in close relationships is introduced as a preliminary step
toward understanding the process of jealousy expression between both partners in close
relationships. Because this model withstood the first stages of empirical scrutiny across
multiple conditions, it will hopefully continue to inform the jealousy literature as a useful
foundation for building theory about jealousy across close relationships.
100
REFERENCES
Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk about that”: A comparison of
cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance.
Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.
Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being ‘just friends’: The frequency and impact
of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 205-222.
Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation
violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
365-392.
Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy
experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9, 93-103.
Allan, G. (1977). Sibling solidarity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 177-184.
Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Romantic
jealousy and relational satisfaction: A look at the impact of jealousy experience
and expression. Communication Reports, 8, 77-85.
Arnold, L. B. (1995). Through the narrow pass: Experiencing same-sex friendship in
heterosexual(ist) settings. Communication Studies, 46, 234-244.
Aune, K. S., & Comstock, J. (1997). Effect of relationship length on the experience,
expression, and perceived appropriateness of jealousy. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 137, 23-31.
101
Aune, K. S., & Comstock, J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: Comparison
between friends and romantics. Psychological Reports, 69, 315-319.
Aylor, B., & Dainton, M. (2001). Antecedents in romantic jealousy experience,
expression, and goals. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 370-391.
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1997). The sibling bond. New York: BasicBooks.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New
York: Guilford.
Bedford, V. H. (1989). A comparison of thematic perceptions of sibling affiliation,
conflict, and separation at two periods of adulthood. International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, 28, 53-66.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, vol. 6 (pp. 2-67). New York: Academic Press.
Berger, C.R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M.E. Roloff & G.R. Miller
(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp.
39-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in
interpersonal relations. London: Edward Arnold.
Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
Beske, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal
Relationships, 7, 131-151.
102
Bevan, J. L. (1999, November). Understanding the role of intrapersonal uncertainty in
the experience and expression of jealousy in cross-sex friendships. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association,
Chicago, IL.
Bevan, J. L. (2002, November). Expectation violations, predicted outcome value, and
sexual resistance in close, cross-sex relationships. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bevan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2002). The experience and expression of romantic
jealousy in homosexual and heterosexual dating relationships. Communication
Research Reports, 19, 258-268.
Bevan, J. L., & Samter, W. (2001, April). Toward a broader conceptualization of
jealousy in close relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southern States Communication Association, Lexington, KY.
Bradac, J. J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration,
uncertainty management, and other curious constructs. Journal of
Communication, 51, 456-476.
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of
Communication, 51, 477-497.
Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In
P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103-131). New York:
Guilford.
Bringle, R. G. (1995). Romantic jealousy. In M. G. Flaherty & C. Ellis (Eds.), Social
perspectives on emotion (pp. 225-251). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
103
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1991). Extradyadic relationships and sexual jealousy. In K.
McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135-153).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1986). Examining the causes and consequences of jealousy:
Some recent findings and issues. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging
field of personal relationships (pp. 225-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, G. H. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and consequences. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 1-24.
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult
friendship. Communication Monographs, 64, 25-46.
Bryson, J. B. (1991). Modes of responses to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey
(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178-207). New York: Guilford.
Buhrmeister, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and
intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101-1113.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as important as love and
sex. New York: Free Press.
Buunk, B., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S.
Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration
(pp. 209-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buunk, B., & Dijkstra, P. (2001). Evidence from a homosexual sample for a sex-specific
rival-oriented mechanism: Jealousy as a function of a rival’s physical
attractiveness and dominance. Personal Relationships, 8, 391-406.
104
Carson, C. L., & Cupach, W. R. (2000). Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster:
The role of ruminative thought in reaction to romantic jealousy. Western Journal
of Communication, 64, 308-329.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1982). Sibling influence throughout the lifespan. In M. E. Lamb & B.
Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across
the lifespan (pp. 267-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1985). Sibling relationships throughout the life cycle. In L. L’Abate
(Ed.), The handbook of family psychology and therapy, vol. 1 (pp. 177-214).
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Cicirelli, V. G., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1989). Relationships with siblings in later life. In J.
F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Life-span communication: Normative processes (pp. 283299). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clanton, G. (1981). Frontiers of jealousy research. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 259-273.
Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal
conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 134-158.
Constantine, L. L. (1976). Jealousy: From theory to intervention. In D. H. E. Olson (Ed.),
Treating relationships (pp. 383-398). Lakeview, IL: Graphic.
Dance, F. E. X. (1967). Toward a theory of human communication. In F. E. X. Dance
(Ed.), Human communication theory: Original essays (pp. 288-309). New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Davies, B. (2002). The grief of siblings. In N. B. Webb (Ed.), Helping bereaved children:
A handbook for practitioners (2nd ed.) (pp. 94-127). New York: Guilford.
105
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and
relationship description. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding
personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17-38). London: Sage.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendships and love relationships. In K. E. Davis
& T. Mitchell (Eds.), Advances in descriptive psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 79-122).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dunn, J. (1985). Sisters and brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and understanding. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunn, J., & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and peer relationships in childhood. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 67-105.
Ellis, C., & Weinstein, E. (1986). Jealousy and the social psychology of emotional
experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 337-357.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). From appraisal to emotion: Differences among
unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 271-302.
Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J. (1996). The effects of uncertainty reducing strategies on
young couples’ relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44,
166-182.
Fingerman, K. L., & Hay, E. L. (2002). Searching under the streetlight? Age biases in the
personal and family relationships literature. Personal Relationships, 9, 415-433.
106
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Badzinski, D. M. (1994). All in the family: Interpersonal
communication in kin relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal communication, 2nd ed. (pp. 726-771). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furman, W., & Buhrmeister, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of
sibling relationships. Child Development, 56, 448-461.
Gaines, S. O., Bledsoe, K. L., Farris, K. R., Henderson, M. C., Kurland, G. J., Lara, J. K.,
Marelich, W. D., Page, M. S., Palucki, L. J., Steers, W. N., & West, A. M. (1998).
Communication of emotion in friendships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero
(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications,
and contexts (pp. 507-531). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology. International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, 28, 37-51.
Gold, D.B., & Wegner, D.M. (1995). Origins of ruminative thought: Trauma,
incompleteness, nondisclosure, and suppression. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 1245-1261.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2001). A normative approach to the study of uncertainty and
communication. Journal of Communication, 51, 514-533.
Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). ‘I’d rather not talk about it:’ Adolescents’ and
young adults use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 30, 78-106.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of
romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273-291.
107
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1999). Toward a goal-oriented approach for
understanding communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of
Communication, 63, 216-248.
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., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in
parent-child relationships. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children,
and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 219-245). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V.
(1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring
communicative responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of
Communication, 59, 270-304.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998a). 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 close relationships (pp. 33-70). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998b). Jealousy experience and expression in
romantic relationships. In P.A. Andersen & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp.
155-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
108
Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., Jorgensen, P F., & Andersen, P. A. (1993). Hers or his? Sex
differences in the communication of jealousy in close relationships. In P.
Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal
relationships (pp. 109-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hansen, G. L. (1982). Reactions to hypothetical, jealousy producing events. Family
Relations, 31, 513-518.
Hansen, G. L. (1985). Dating jealousy among college students. Sex Roles, 12, 713-721.
Hansen, G. L. (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration with
family stress theory. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy
(pp. 211-230). New York: Guilford.
Hapworth, W., Hapworth, M., & Heilman, J.R. (1994). “Mom loved you best”:
Understanding rivalry and enriching your adult sibling relationships.
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Hetherington, E. M. (1988). Parents, children, and siblings: Six years after divorce. In
R.A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual
influences (pp. 311-331). Oxford: Clarendon.
Hill, R., & Davis, P. (2000). ‘Platonic jealousy’: A conceptualization and review of the
literature on non-romantic pathological jealousy. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 73, 505-517.
Hunter, J., & Hamilton, M. (1993). PATH software. Unpublished software, Michigan
State University.
Hupka, R. B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular situation?
Motivation and Emotion, 8, 141-155.
109
Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality:
Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication
Research, 25, 327-343.
Kaplan, D. K., & Keys, C. B. (1997). Sex and relationship variables as predictors of
sexual attraction in cross-sex platonic friendships between young and
heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 191-206.
Klinger, E. (1996). Theories of thought flow: Points of kinship and fertile contrasts. In
R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition: Ruminative thoughts (pp. 107120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002a). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience
of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 9, 457-478.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002b). Information seeking beyond initial
interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human
Communication Research, 28, 243-257.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2000, November). A developmental model of the
magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic
relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of
relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261-278.
110
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.
Koole, S. L., Smeets, K., van Knippenberg, A., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). The cessation
of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 111-125.
Leung, A. K. D., & Robson, W. L. M. (1991). Sibling rivalry. Clinical Pediatrics, 30,
314-317.
Mander, G. (1991). Some thoughts on sibling rivalry and competitiveness. British
Journal of Psychotherapy, 7, 368-379.
Marelich, W. D., Gaines, S. O., & Banzet, M. R. (in press). Commitment, insecurity, and
arousability: Testing a transactional model of jealousy. Representative
Research in Social Psychology.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996a). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.),
Advances in social cognition: Ruminative thoughts (pp. 1-47). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996b). Clarifying our thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.),
Advances in social cognition: Ruminative thoughts (pp. 189-208). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and structural theory of
ruminative thought. In J. S. Uleman (Ed.), Unintended thought (pp. 306-326).
New York: Guilford.
111
Masiuch, S., & Kienapple, K. (1993). The emergence of jealousy in children 4 months to
7 years of age. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 421-435.
Mathes, E. W., Roter, P. M., & Joerger, S. M. (1982). A convergent validity study of six
jealousy scales. Psychological Reports, 50, 1143-1147.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001).
Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big
five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical
elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586-1603.
McIntosh, W. D. (1996). When does goal nonattainment lead to negative emotional
reactions and when doesn’t it? The role of linking and rumination. In L. L. Martin
& A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and
self-regulation (pp. 53-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McIntosh, W. D., & Martin, L. L. (1992). The cybernetics of happiness: The relation of
goal attainment, rumination, and affect. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and social
behavior (pp. 222-246). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, A. L., Volling, B. L., & McElwain, N. L. (2000). Sibling jealousy in a triadic
context with mothers and fathers. Social Development, 9, 433-457.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in
the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
112
Monsour, M. (1997). Communication and cross-sex friendships across the life cycle: A
review of the literature. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp.
375-414). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mullen, P. E., & Martin, J. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 164, 35-43.
Myers, S. A., Black, J., Bukaty, A., Callin, A., Davis, L. A., Fairbanks, S.L., Gieron,
M. E., Ferry, M. F., Kappenman, K., King, M., McGuire, M., Nix, F. D., Saniuk,
J., Tracy, M. M., Triolo, T. N., & Valentino, T. (2001). Relational maintenance
behaviors in the sibling relationship. Communication Quarterly, 49, 19-34.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Jackson, B. (2001). Mediators of the gender difference in
rumination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 37-47.
O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored
relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525-543.
Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development
of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human
Communication Research, 10, 55-79.
Patford, J. L. (2000). Partners and cross-sex friends: A preliminary study of the way
marital and defacto partnerships affect verbal intimacy with cross-sex friends.
Journal of Family Studies, 6, 106-119.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual
jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108-136.
113
Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural processes.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal
relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase
uncertainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human
Communication Research, 14, 516-547.
Ponzetti, J. J., & James, C. M. (1997). Loneliness and sibling relationships. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 103-112.
Prisbell, M. (1999). Differences in perceptions of communication across types of
relationships. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 275-278.
Pulakos, J. (1988). Young adult relationships: Siblings and friends. Journal of
Psychology, 123, 237-244.
Raffaelli, M. (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 652-663.
Rawlins, W. K. (1982). Cross-sex friendship and the communicative management of sexrole expectations. Communication Quarterly, 30, 343-353.
Reeder, H. M. (2000). ‘I like you…as a friend’: The role of attraction in cross-sex
friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 329-348.
114
Ross, H. G., & Milgram, J. I. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: A
qualitative study. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships:
Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 225-249). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rotenberg, K. J., Shewchuk, V. A., & Kimberley, T. (2001). Loneliness, sex, romantic
jealousy, and powerlessness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18,
55-79.
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner
reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of
jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 387-402.
Smith, L. G., & Clanton, G. (1983). The self-inflicted pain of jealousy. In O. Pocs & R.
H. Walsh, (Eds.), Marriage and Family – 1983/84 (pp. 46-49). Dushkin: Guilford,
CT.
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner
interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 18, 804-820.
Staske, S. A. (1999). Creating relational ties in talk: The collaborative construction of
relational jealousy. Symbolic Interaction, 22, 213-246.
Stocker, C. M., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature of family correlates of
preadolescents’ perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 9, 179-195.
115
Turner, L. H. (1990). The relationship between communication and marital uncertainty:
Is “her” marriage different from “his” marriage? Women’s Studies in
Communication, 13, 57-83.
Werking, K. J. (1997a). Cross-sex friendship as ideological practice. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp.
391-410). New York: John Wiley.
Werking, K. J. (1997b). We’re just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic
relationships. New York: Guilford.
White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 295-310.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies.
New York: Guilford.
Wiederman, M. W., Allgeier, E. R., & Ragusa, D. M. (1995). Empirical investigation of
the use of the term “jealousy” in survey research. Representative Research in
Social Psychology, 20, 15-29.
Yareb, P. E., Allgeier, E. R., & Sensibaugh, C. C. (1999). Looking deeper: Extradyadic
behaviors, jealousy, and perceived unfaithfulness in hypothetical dating
relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 305-316.
Yoshimura, S. M., Guerrero, L. K., & Trost, M. R. (1999, November). Toward a model of
jealousy experience and expression: Associations between threat, emotion,
cognition, goals, communication, and relational consequences. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Zammuner, V. L., & Fischer, A. H. (1995). The social regulation of emotions in jealousy
situations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 189-208.
116
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF INSTRUMENT USED IN PILOT STUDY I
(CROSS-SEX FRIEND CONDITION)
In this study, you will be asked to read a number of messages and scenarios and then
respond to questions about each message. It is CRITICAL that you read each message
carefully, and answer all questions thoroughly and completely. Please provide answers to
ALL sections of the questionnaire. As you answer the questions following a given
message, you may feel free to look back at the message that you just read.
Think of your present closest friend of the opposite sex (called a cross-sex friend) when
completing this questionnaire. Think of a friend when answering these questions, not a
romantic partner unless you were friends first; if you do this, recall the friendship, not the
romantic relationship. However, you may think of a cross-sex friendship that has a
physical or romantic component, but the relationship is not considered to be “boyfriend”
and “girlfriend.”
Remember — think of only ONE opposite sex friend as you answer these questions!!
Write your cross-sex friend’s initials here: ________
Please read the following situation carefully. As you read it, imagine that a similar
situation has occurred in between you and your own cross-sex friend.
Your cross-sex friend __________ (write initials here) approaches you and tells you
that he/she is jealous that you are showing interest in doing things with another
friend of the opposite sex.
Now we would like you to answer the following questions as if the situation you have
just read has actually happened between you and your cross-sex friend. Genuinely think
about how you would feel if this scenario occurred between you and the cross-sex friend
that you have chosen.
How realistic do you think this situation is?
1
Very
Realistic
2
3
4
Somewhat
Realistic
5
6
7
Not At All
Realistic
117
Can you imagine that this situation would actually occur?
1
2
3
Yes
4
5
6
7
Maybe
No
This situation is easy to imagine.
1
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
5
6
Neutral
7
Strongly
Disagree
How often has this situation occurred in your own cross-sex friendship?
1
2
3
Never
4
5
6
Sometimes
7
Frequently
How frequently does a situation like this occur in your own cross-sex friendship?
1
2
3
Not At All
Frequently
4
5
6
Somewhat
Frequently
7
Very
Frequently
I have often experienced a situation like this one in my cross-sex friendship.
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
Neutral
**Please continue to the next page of the questionnaire**
6
7
Strongly
Disagree
118
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy by
calmly disclosing his/her feelings to you, trying to reach an understanding
with you, and openly discussing the situation.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
4
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
6
not at all
realistic
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
bad
7
5
6
unpleasant
7
6
does not happen
to me at all
7
good
1
2
3
neutral
4
pleasant
1
2
3
neutral
4
happens
to me a lot
1
5
completely
positive
7
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
119
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy by acting anxious,
looking hurt, and crying in front of you.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
pleasant
1
happens
to me a lot
1
5
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
not at all
realistic
7
2
3
neutral
4
5
6
bad
7
3
neutral
4
6
unpleasant
7
6
does not happen
to me at all
7
good
1
4
completely
positive
7
2
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
120
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy by accusing you,
making rude comments, and arguing with you.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
pleasant
1
happens
to me a lot
1
5
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
not at all
realistic
7
2
3
neutral
4
5
6
bad
7
3
neutral
4
6
unpleasant
7
6
does not happen
to me at all
7
good
1
4
completely
positive
7
2
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
121
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy by giving you
the silent treatment, storming out of the room, and giving you dirty looks.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
pleasant
1
happens
to me a lot
1
5
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
not at all
realistic
7
2
3
neutral
4
5
6
bad
7
3
neutral
4
6
unpleasant
7
6
does not happen
to me at all
7
good
1
4
completely
positive
7
2
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
122
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy
by avoiding contact with you and denying that he/she is jealous.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
pleasant
1
happens
to me a lot
1
5
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
not at all
realistic
7
2
3
neutral
4
5
6
bad
7
3
neutral
4
6
unpleasant
7
good
1
4
completely
positive
7
2
5
neutral
2
3
4
does not happen
to me at all
5
6
123
Please now read the following message that your cross-sex friend might use to
communicate his/her jealousy to you and answer the questions that follow.
Your cross-sex friend communicates this jealousy
by threatening to harm you, scaring you, and being rough with you.
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my cross-sex friend communicated his/her jealousy is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very easy
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
completely
realistic
1
neutral
2
3
4
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very difficult
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
6
not at all
realistic
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
6
bad
7
5
6
unpleasant
7
good
1
2
3
neutral
4
pleasant
1
2
3
neutral
4
happens
to me a lot
1
5
completely
positive
7
5
neutral
2
3
4
does not happen
to me at all
5
6
124
Finally, please answer some questions about yourself.
How old are you?
_________________ (in years)
What is your gender?
(please circle one)
Male
Female
What is your ethnic background or race?
(circle number)
1 Asian
3 Hispanic
5 White
2 Black/African American
4 Native American
6 Other (please specify): ____________________________
What is your year in school? (circle number)
1 Freshman
3 Junior
5 5th Year Senior
2 Sophomore
4 Senior
6 Graduate Student
Please place your completed survey facedown in the box by the door.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
125
APPENDIX B
ORIGINAL DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES FROM GUERRERO ET AL. (1995)
AND JEALOUSY EXPRESSION MESSAGES TESTED IN PILOT STUDY I
Jealousy Expression
Strategy and Definition
Examples
Pilot-Tested Message
Specifically, your
relational partner
communicates this
jealousy by…
Integrative Communication:
Direct, prosocial, nonthreatening
responses to jealousy
Negative Affect Expression:
Nonverbal expression of
jealousy-related emotion
Distributive Communication:
Direct, negative, antisocial
jealousy responses
Violent Communication/Threats:
Direct, threatening responses to
jealousy involving threats or
actually hurting the partner
Explaining, disclosing,
discussing, trying to
reach an understanding
calmly disclosing
his/her feelings to
you, trying to reach
an understanding with
you, and openly
discussing the
situation.
Displaying insecurity,
appearing hurt, sad,
or depressed, crying or
sulking
acting anxious,
looking hurt, and
crying in front of you.
Yelling, cursing, acting
accusing you, making
rude, quarreling or arguing, rude comments, and
making hurtful comments
arguing with you.
Using physical force,
threatening to harm
threatening to harm partner, you, scaring you, and
pushing, shoving, hitting
being rough with you.
partner
126
Active Distancing:
Indirect and threatening
jealousy responses
Avoidance/Denial:
Indirect, nonthreatening jealousy
responses
Giving partner cold or dirty
looks, physically pulling
away, ignoring partner,
giving partner silent
treatment
giving you the silent
treatment, storming
out of the room, and
giving you dirty
looks.
Becoming silent, denying
jealousy, pretending
nothing is wrong
avoiding contact with
you and denying that
he/she is jealous.
127
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF INSTRUMENT USED IN PILOT STUDY II
(DATING PARTNER CONDITION)
In this study, you will be asked to read a scenario about a close relationship in your life
and then respond to questions it. It is CRITICAL that you read the scenario carefully,
and answer all questions thoroughly and completely. Please provide answers to ALL
sections of the questionnaire.
Think of your present dating partner when completing this questionnaire. A dating
partner is someone you have dated for one week or more – going on one or two dates
with another person would constitute a dating relationship for this questionnaire. Do not
think of an opposite-sex friend when completing this questionnaire.
Remember — think of only ONE dating partner as you answer these questions!!
Write your dating partner’s initials here: ________
Please read the following situation carefully. As you read it, imagine that a similar
situation has occurred between you and your own dating partner.
Because of circumstances beyond your control (for example, work or a school
project), you have been spending a lot of time with someone that you recently met –
who is just the type of person that you would date. By the way your dating partner
__________ (write initials here) is acting, it is obvious that he/she is upset and
bothered by the fact that you are showing interest in spending time with this person.
Your dating partner obviously sees this person as a potential dating partner for you.
Now we would like you to answer the following questions as if the situation you have
just read has actually happened between you and your dating partner. Genuinely think
about how you would feel if this scenario occurred between you and the dating partner
that you have chosen.
How realistic do you think this situation is?
1
Very
Realistic
2
3
4
Somewhat
Realistic
5
6
7
Not At All
Realistic
128
How often has this situation occurred in your own dating relationship?
1
2
3
Never
4
5
6
Sometimes
7
Frequently
A similar situation has occurred at some point in my own dating relationship.
1
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
5
6
Neutral
7
Strongly
Disagree
This situation is easy to imagine.
1
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
5
6
Neutral
7
Strongly
Disagree
How frequently does a situation like this occur in your own dating relationship?
1
2
3
Not At All
Frequently
4
5
6
Somewhat
Frequently
7
Very
Frequently
I have encountered a situation like this at least once in my own dating relationship.
1
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
5
6
Neutral
7
Strongly
Disagree
Can you imagine that this situation would actually occur?
1
2
3
Yes
4
5
6
Maybe
7
No
I have often experienced a situation like this one in my dating relationship.
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Disagree
Now, please briefly describe a situation similar to the one on the previous page that
actually occurred between you and your dating partner. If you have never experienced a
situation like this, please write about any time when your dating partner made it clear to
you that he/she was upset with you about something. You may continue on the back of
this page if you wish.
129
Finally, please answer some questions about yourself.
How old are you?
_________________ (in years)
What is your gender?
(please circle one)
Male
Female
What is your ethnic background or race?
(circle number)
1 Asian
3 Hispanic
5 White
2 Black/African American
4 Native American
6 Other (please specify): ____________________________
What is your year in school? (circle number)
1 Freshman
3 Junior
5 5th Year Senior
2 Sophomore
4 Senior
6 Graduate Student
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
130
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE OF INSTRUMENT USED IN MAIN INVESTIGATION (SIBLINGNEGATIVE AFFECT EXPRESSION CONDITION)
Think of the brother or sister who is closest in age to you (either older or younger) when
completing this questionnaire. You and your sibling should share the same mother and
father. If you do not have a sibling who shares the same biological parents as you do, you
may think of an adopted sibling, a step-sibling, or a half-sibling who is closest in age to
you.
Remember — think of only ONE sibling as you answer these questions!!
Write your sibling’s initials here: ________
Please read the following situation carefully. As you read it, imagine that a similar
situation has occurred between you and your own sibling.
Your parents have recently been focusing on you and giving you a lot of attention.
By the way your sibling __________ (write initials here) is acting, it is obvious that
he/she is hurt and bothered by the fact that you are receiving more attention and
affection from your parents. Your sibling obviously believes that your parents
prefer you to him/her.
Specifically, your sibling communicates this jealousy by acting anxious, looking
hurt, and crying in front of you.
PART 1: The Situation
Now we would like you to answer the following questions as if the situation you have
just read has actually happened between you and sibling. Genuinely think about how you
would feel if this scenario occurred between you and sibling that you have chosen.
How realistic do you think this situation is?
1
2
Not At All
Realistic
3
4
Somewhat
Realistic
5
6
7
Very
Realistic
131
How often has this situation occurred in your own sibling relationship?
1
Never
2
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
7
Frequently
A similar situation has occurred at some point in my own sibling relationship.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Agree
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Agree
This situation is easy to imagine.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
How frequently does a situation like this occur in your own sibling relationship?
1
2
Not At All
Frequently
3
4
Somewhat
Frequently
5
6
7
Very
Frequently
I have encountered a situation like this at least once in my own sibling relationship.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Agree
6
7
Yes
Can you imagine that this situation would actually occur?
1
No
2
3
4
Maybe
5
I have often experienced a situation like this one in my sibling relationship.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Agree
132
PART 2: The Communication Message Used by Your Sibling
Now, please consider the specific way that your sibling expressed to you that he or she
was upset or bothered when answering the following questions. You may look back at the
message you just read if you wish.
The way my sibling communicated that he/she was upset or bothered is:
Circle one of the three options directly below:
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
The way my sibling communicated that he/she was upset or bothered is:
completely
negative
1
completely
negative
1
very difficult
to imagine
1
completely
positive
1
not at all
realistic
1
neutral
2
unpleasant
1
4
5
6
6
not at all
negative
7
6
very easy
to imagine
7
6
not at all
positive
7
6
completely
realistic
7
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
4
5
neutral
2
3
2
neutral
3
2
3
bad
1
3
completely
positive
7
4
5
4
5
6
good
7
neutral
4
5
6
pleasant
7
133
Part 3: Your Thoughts and Feelings about the Situation:
Now, please report about how uncertain or unsure you might feel about your sibling if
this situation actually occurred in your own relationship.
If this situation actually occurred, I would feel as if I did not know my sibling very well.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about what I can or cannot say to my
sibling in this relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be confident of my ability to accurately predict
my sibling’s behavior.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about whether or not my sibling and
I feel the same way about each other.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, my sibling would have said or done something which
surprised me.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about the boundaries for appropriate
and/or inappropriate behavior in this sibling relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would have a very good idea of what my sibling’s
values and preferences were.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
134
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about how I can act in the presence
of my sibling.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about how my sibling and I view
this relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would have trouble understanding why my sibling did
what he or she did.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about the norms for this sibling
relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be able to accurately predict what my sibling’s
attitudes are.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about whether or not my sibling
likes me as much as I like him or her.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be able to tell what my sibling was feeling
inside.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about how I could or could not
behave around my sibling.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
135
If this situation actually occurred, I would be able to accurately predict how my sibling
would respond to me in most situations.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about the current status of this
sibling relationship.
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
If this situation actually occurred, I would be certain about the rules of this sibling
relationship
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Agree
Please indicate the extent to which you would you experience the following emotions if
this situation actually occurred in your own sibling relationship by putting an X or a
check mark on the line that best represents how you would feel.
If this situation occurred between my sibling and I, I would feel:
Not sad at all ______ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very sad
Not angry at all ______ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very angry
Not frustrated at all _____ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very frustrated
Not guilty at all ______ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very guilty
Not fearful at all ______ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very fearful
Not insecure at all ______ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very insecure
Not surprised at all _____ : ______ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ Very surprised
136
We are next interested in how frequently you would think about the situation you just
read had it actually occurred in your own sibling relationship. Please circle the number
that best represents how frequently you would think about or worry about the situation.
1
Would not worry
at all about the
situation
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Would worry very much
about the situation
1
2
Thoughts of the
situation would not
interfere with
daily activity
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Thoughts of the
situation would interfere
a lot with daily activity
1
2
Would put no effort
into mentally appraising
the situation
3
4
Neutral
5
6
1
2
No time would be
spent reflecting on
this problem
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
A lot of time would be
spent reflecting on this
problem
1
2
Would not worry
at all about the
situation
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Would worry very much
about the situation
1
2
Would never think
about this situation
3
4
Neutral
5
6
The situation that I read involved my:
Cross-sex friend
(circle one)
Sibling
Sibling
7
Would put very much
effort into mentally
appraising the situation
7
Would think about
this situation all the time
137
Part 4: Your Own Sibling Relationship
Please answer the following questions about your sibling and your relationship with
him/her.
My sibling is: Female
Male
How old is your sibling? _____________ (in years)
The category that best your sibling is:
_________Gay
_________Lesbian
__________Bisexual ___________Straight
_________Transgendered __________Other (Please specify)_____________________
How long have you known your sibling? ______________
How frequently are you in contact with your sibling? (circle number)
1 Daily
2 Weekly
4 Several times a year
3 Monthly
5 Once a year or less
How close are you to your sibling?
1
Not Close
At All
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Very Close
6
7
Very Satisfied
How satisfied are you with your sibling relationship?
1
2
Not Satisfied
At All
3
4
Neutral
5
How many adopted siblings do you have? __________
How many half-siblings do you have (i.e., you biologically share one parent)?
__________
How many step-siblings do you have (i.e., your parents are remarried to one another but
you do not biologically share them with your siblings)? _____________
138
Please write how old each of your siblings are and their genders (you may write on the
back of this sheet if you need more room):
Age: ___________________________
Age: ___________________________
Age: ___________________________
Age: ___________________________
Gender: __________________________
Gender: __________________________
Gender: __________________________
Gender: __________________________
Please indicate which type of sibling you reported on in this questionnaire:
Full
Half
Adopted
Step
What best describes your current living situation with the sibling that you reported on?
1
3
Live with him/her year round
Never live with him/her
_____________________
2 Live with him/her when not in school
4 Other (describe):
What best describes your parents’ current relationship with one another? Please consider
the set of parents that you and the sibling you reported on are both associated with. (circle
number)
1
3
4
6
Married
2 Unmarried but romantically involved with each other
Separated
4 Divorced, neither parent remarried
Divorced, one parent remarried
5 Divorced, both parents remarried
Other (please describe): ________________________________
Part 5: Information about You
Please answer the following questions about yourself.
I am:
Female
Male
The category that best describes me is:
_________Gay
_________Lesbian
__________Bisexual ___________Straight
_________Transgendered __________Other (Please specify)_____________________
How old are you? __________ (in years)
139
Which ethnic background or race best describes you? (circle number)
1 Asian
3 Hispanic
5 White
2 Black/African American
4 Native American
6 Other (please specify): ____________________________
What is your year in school? (circle number)
1 Freshman
3 Junior
5 5th Year Senior
2 Sophomore
4 Senior
6 Graduate Student
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!