Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
Published online 9 December 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/cpp.668
An Inventory and Update of
Jealousy-Evoking Partner
Behaviours in Modern Society
Pieternel Dijkstra,1* Dick P. H. Barelds1 and
Hinke A. K. Groothof2
1
2
University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Dutch Open University
The goal of the present study was to identify the most important
jealousy-evoking partner behaviours and to examine the extent to
which these behaviours evoke jealousy. Based on the literature,
a questionnaire was constructed containing 42 jealousy-evoking
partner behaviours, including a partner’s extra-dyadic involvement
with someone else by means of modern communication devices,
such as the Internet. A second study examined the extent to which
undergraduates and a community sample experienced jealousy in
response to these partner behaviours. Results showed that explicit
unfaithful behaviours evoked most feelings of jealousy, followed
by a partner’s emotional or romantic involvement with someone
else by means of modern communication devices. In general, older
individuals responded with less jealousy in response to a partner’s
unfaithful and suspicious behaviours. Clinical implications are
discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key Practitioner Message:
• A partner’s involvement with someone else by means of modern
communication devices may evoke strong feelings of jealousy, in
particular among women.
• An individual’s age affects the extent to which he or she experiences
jealousy in response to specific extra-dyadic partner behaviours.
• In order to correctly diagnose and treat pathological jealousy, clinicians should pay attention to the extent to which partners (unintentionally) evoke and maintain feelings of jealousy.
• Identifying partner behaviours that evoke most jealousy may help
couples define the boundaries of their relationship.
Keywords: Jealousy, Partner Behaviours, Age, Internet
INTRODUCTION
Feelings of jealousy are experienced in response to
a threat to, or the actual loss of, a valued, mostly
sexual, relationship with another person, due to
* Correspondence to: Pieternel Dijkstra, Grote Kruisstraat
2/I, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail: dijkstrap@planet.nl
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
an actual or imagined rival for one’s partner’s
attention (e.g., Bringle & Buunk, 1985; DeSteno
& Salovey, 1996; Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998). This
definition of jealousy implies that the evocation of
jealousy requires a ‘triangle’ of three people (e.g.,
Pam & Pearson, 1996), i.e., oneself, one’s partner
and one’s rival. Consistent with this triangle, three
broad lines can be detected in jealousy research,
i.e., studies that have related jealousy to characteristics of the person, studies that have related
330
jealousy to characteristics of the rival and studies
that have related jealousy to behaviours of the
partner. With regard to the self in the triangle,
it has, for instance, consistently been found that
individuals high in neuroticism experience more
intense feelings of jealousy than individuals low
in neuroticism (e.g., Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008;
Melamed, 1991). With regard to rival characteristics, it has, for instance, been found that attractive
rivals evoke more jealousy than unattractive ones,
especially among women (e.g., Buunk & Dijkstra,
2001; Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998, 2002). The present
study focuses on the third line of jealousy research,
i.e., the relation between jealousy and partner
behaviours.
A Partner’s Jealousy-Evoking Behaviours
For several reasons, it is important to identify those
partner behaviours that evoke the most jealousy.
First, in general, marital infidelity and the feelings
of jealousy that result from it have been found to
be relatively difficult to treat, and therapists often
feel unprepared for this kind of work (Whisman,
Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). Information about what
partner behaviours, in general, evoke most jealousy and are perceived as most hurtful may help
therapists mobilize the best help for their clients.
Jealousy may not only be the focus of therapy when
couples struggle with the aftermath of infidelity; it
may also be the focus of therapy in the absence of
a partner’s sexual infidelity, that is when jealousy
is pathological or tends to become so (Buunk &
Dijkstra, 2000). Morbid jealousy is often seen, by
both the ‘healthy’ partner and the therapist, as a
problem of the morbidly jealous partner: he/she
suffers from a lack of self-esteem, irrational cognitions or some type of personality disorder (Bishay,
Tarrier, Dolan, & Beckett, 1996). Although this may
be indeed the case, morbid jealousy is often unintentionally evoked, strengthened or maintained
by a partner’s jealousy-evoking behaviours (Dijkstra, 2004). Behaviours that one partner may find
innocent, may be hurtful and jealousy evoking to
the other partner. Knowledge about the partner
behaviours that evoke jealousy may therefore help
therapists and clients to identify behaviour patterns of the ‘healthy’ partner that may worsen the
morbidly jealous partner’s jealousy.
Many different partner behaviours may give rise
to jealousy, such as a partner kissing (e.g., Barelds
& Dijkstra, 2007; Buunk & Hupka, 1987)or flirting with someone else (e.g., Dijkstra & Buunk,
1998; Salovey & Rodin, 1988). In the last decade,
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
jealousy research has in particular focused on
the distinction between a partner’s sexual infidelity and a partner’s emotional infidelity. Buss,
Larsen, Westen and Semmelroth (1992)developed
a research paradigm in which they presented participants with two dilemmas in which participants
had to chose between a partner’s sexual unfaithfulness and a partner’s emotional unfaithfulness
as the most upsetting event. In studying jealousy,
many authors have used the same paradigm (e.g.,
Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994; Dijkstra et
al., 2001), studying the same jealousy-provoking
partner behaviours, that is: (1) having passionate
sexual intercourse with someone else; (2) trying
different sexual positions with someone else; (3)
forming a deep emotional attachment to someone
else; and (4) falling in love with someone else.
However, many more jealousy-evoking partner
behaviours may be identified, such as a dancing
with someone else, flirting with someone else
(e.g., Bringle, Roach, Andler, & Evenbeck, 1979)
or having sexual fantasies about someone else
(DeSouza, Verderane, Taira, & Otta, 2006). It seems
that, although many studies have examined the
jealousy-evoking effect of specific partner behaviours, most studies have examined only a few isolated partner behaviours, allowing no definitive
conclusions about what partner behaviours evoke
the most jealousy. One of the goals of the present
study was therefore to identify the most important
partner behaviours that may evoke jealousy and to
examine the extent to which they do.
Media Use and Jealousy
When examining partner behaviours that may
evoke jealousy, it is necessary to take into account
the technological developments of the past few
decades. The growing influence of the media in
today’s society poses new challenges to couples
(e.g., Millner, 2008). By means of television, commercials, magazines and the Internet, men and
women are bombarded with attractive same-sex
and opposite sex individuals, and, thus, with
many potential rivals for their partner’s attentions.
Jealousy seems to be one of the most logical outcomes. Currently, however, very little is known
about the extent to which a partner’s involvement
with virtual and media rivals evokes feelings of
jealousy. What we do know is that sexuality is
one aspect of human social behaviour that is dramatically impacted by the media, especially by the
Internet, and that a partner’s involvement with the
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
331
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
media may have devastating consequences for the
quality of one’s relationship (Cooper, Delmonico,
& Burg, 2000). It has, for example, been reported
that in recent years, one-third of divorce litigation
in the USA is due to online affairs and/or cybersex
(c.f. Mileham, 2007).
Despite its importance, most previous studies
have neglected to study the impact of a partner’s
involvement with these media and the extent to
which these behaviours may evoke feelings of
jealousy. Another goal of the present study was
therefore to examine the extent to which a partner’s
Internet and media involvement evokes jealousy.
A Partner’s Internet Involvement
Due to the Internet, it has become very easy for
people to enjoy both the stability of a committed
pair bond and the advantages of infidelity at the
same time (Mileham, 2007). Indeed, sex is reported
to be the most frequently searched topic on the
Internet (Cooper et al., 2000; Freeman-Longo &
Blanchard, 1998), and married individuals may
use the Internet to meet strangers, flirt and engage
in sexualized conversations or sexual behaviours,
with or without a webcam (e.g., Young, GriffinShelley, Cooper, O’Mara, & Buchanan, 2000).
There are even chat rooms specifically geared to
married people who wish to engage in sexual
conversations and activities with someone else
(e.g., Yahoo’s Married And Flirting; MSN’s Married
But Flirting chat rooms). Scholars have applied
the ACE model to explain married individuals’
involvement in cybersex and online affairs. According to this model, Anonymity, Convenience and
Escape (ACE) make it incredibly easy and addictive to engage in virtual adultery (e.g., Ben-Zeev,
2004; Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, O’Mara, &
Buchanan, 2000). More specifically, Anonymity
refers to the facilitating effect of Internet on the
sharing of personal and/or sexual feelings, Convenience to the ease with which individuals can meet
others, for example, in chat rooms, and Escape to
the relatively low investments individuals have to
make in order to engage in cyber affairs. Although
those who participate in it often rationalize online
sexual acts as being OK, because there is no physical contact with someone else, Whitty (2003)found
that most people believe cybersex (describing the
sexual act while typically masturbating), hot chatting (a type of erotic talk that moves beyond lighthearted flirting) and viewing pornography on the
Internet are all acts of betrayal and adultery. In a
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
similar vein, in a study among partners of Internet addicts, Schneider (2003)found that women
consider online sexual activities the same as ‘real’
adultery. In addition to sexual acts, also emotional
disclosure with someone else through the Internet,
for example by means of email or chats, is often
seen as an act of infidelity. Illustrative is a study
by Whitty (2005), who presented participants with
a short scenario, describing a couple that had been
going out for over a year, after which one of them
realizes that the other has developed a relationship
with someone else over the Internet. Of the participants, 84% labelled the partner’s behaviour as an
act of infidelity. Thus, in making an inventory of
partner behaviours that may evoke jealousy, it is
of vital importance to include partner behaviours
with regard to the Internet. Treatment models of
Internet infidelity are still in the developmental
stages (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006; Millner, 2008), and
uncovering the patterns that characterize Internet
infidelity may help therapists develop more adequate treatment for couples who struggle with its
aftermath.
A Partner’s Involvement with Other Media
Besides the Internet, individuals are also flooded
by ideal images of same- and opposite-sex individuals in magazines and on television. Individuals
may perceive attractive models, actors, rock stars,
TV hosts and news readers as rivals for their partner’s attention, and, unconsciously, consider them
a threat to their relationship. Although these rivals
may be ‘distant’, and the likelihood of a partner
becoming sexually or emotionally involved with
that particular rival is extremely small, it is possible
that, in response to media rivals, the same jealousy
mechanism may be triggered as in response to real
rivals. The jealousy-evoking effect of a partner’s
involvement with media images of an attractive
opposite sex individual has, however, hardly been
addressed, besides briefly in a study by Wiederman and Allgeier (1993). As part of a larger questionnaire on jealousy, Wiederman and Allgeier
(1993)asked individuals to rank order six potentially upsetting partner behaviours, with the most
upsetting behaviour being ranked as number 1. Of
these six situations, three referred to jealousy as we
define it in this paper, that is, to the emotion that
is evoked by situations in which individuals perceive their relationship to be threatened by a real
or imaginary rival. One of these three situations
was a partner fantasizing about having sex with a
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
332
very attractive person he/she saw in a magazine.
The mean rank order for this partner behaviour,
for both men and women, was about 3.5. However,
because of the rank order paradigm, we cannot
know the intensity of the jealousy experience: it is
possible that the scenario only evoked few feelings
of jealousy. In addition, in a few case studies on
morbid jealousy, it has been observed that jealousy may be evoked in morbidly jealous people
when their partner watches an attractive member
of the opposite sex on television (e.g., Brekelmans,
Schaap, Cuisinier, Hoogduin, & Buunk, 1990).
Case studies such as these do not necessarily mean
that jealousy in response to a partner looking at
attractive members of the opposite sex depicted in
magazines or on television is pathological. Recent
research has shown that images of attractive men
and women may seriously affect the relationship
between partners. In response to the flood of ideal
images of members of the opposite sex, individuals
tend to overestimate the number of attractive,
alternative partners, and, in comparison, perceive
their own partner as less attractive and desirable
(Kenrick, Gutieres, & Goldberg, 1989). Research,
for instance, has found that, after looking at pictures of playmates, men tend to be less in love
with their wives (Kenrick et al., 1989). In addition,
Kenrick, Neuberg, Zierk and Krones (1994)found
that exposure to an attractive woman leads men
to rate their relationship less favourably, whereas
exposure to a socially dominant man leads women
to rate their relationship less favourably. Feeling
(somewhat) jealous in response to ideal pictures of
opposite sex members depicted on television or in
magazines may therefore be an adaptive response
aimed at protecting the relationship from harm.
Only when jealousy in response to such a rival
becomes excessive may jealousy become pathological in nature.
In sum, the media has dramatically enlarged
the number of rivals individuals are confronted
with. To date, no studies have examined the jealousy-evoking effect of a partner’s involvement
with these rivals. In making an inventory of the
most important partner behaviours that may evoke
jealousy, our study therefore included a partner’s
involvement with virtual and media-rivals and
investigated to what extent these partner behaviours evoke jealousy.
The Present Studies
Two studies were conducted to examine the jealousy-evoking nature of different partner behavCopyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
iours. On the basis of the literature, Study 1 set out
to make an inventory of the most important partner
behaviours that may evoke jealousy, including a
partner’s involvement with the media and Internet. For this purpose, the literature on jealousyevoking partner behaviours was systematically
reviewed. Next, on the basis of this review and the
literature on modern media use, a questionnaire
was constructed to assess the extent to which relevant partner behaviours may evoke jealousy. This
questionnaire was administered in two samples
(Study 2): a sample of undergraduates and a community sample. Studying these different groups is
relevant, since several studies have shown young
individuals to use the Internet more often than
older individuals, especially to meet strangers
and to maintain relationships with friends (e.g.,
Bernier & Laflamme, 2005; Thayer & Ray, 2006). As
a result, a partner’s involvement with the Internet
may pose a different type of relationship threat for
younger than for older individuals.
Study 2 examined the factor structure of the
list of jealousy-evoking partner behaviours generated in Study 1, and gender differences in the
jealousy-evoking effect of a partner’s behaviour.
Examining gender differences is relevant because
numerous studies have shown men and women
to differ in their experience of jealousy. Men and
women have, for instance, been found to respond
differently to different types of rivals: whereas
women report most jealousy in response to physically attractive rivals, men report most jealousy in
response to socially dominant rivals (e.g., Dijkstra
& Buunk, 1998). Moreover, men and women have
been found to evaluate different partner behaviours as the more upsetting. An especially recurrent finding is that women, more often than men,
find a partner’s emotional infidelity more upsetting than a partner’s sexual infidelity (e.g., Buss
et al., 1992, 1999; Fernandez, Sierra, Zubeidat, &
Vera-Villarroel, 2006). In addition to gender, Study
2 also studied the effect of age on the jealousyevoking effect of a partner’s behaviours. Age is a
relatively unstudied variable in jealousy research.
Except studies on delusional jealousy caused by
dementia, most studies on romantic jealousy have
been conducted among young people, especially
undergraduates. A few exceptions are studies
of Dijkstra and Buunk (2002), Green and Sabini
(2006), Shackelford et al. (2004), and Buunk and
Dijkstra (2005). These studies found no effects of
age on the choice between emotional and sexual
infidelity as the most upsetting event (Green &
Sabini, 2006; Shackelford et al., 2004), and found
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
333
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
that older people responded with less jealousy to
a rival’s social dominance, physical attractiveness
and shoulder-to-hip ratio than younger people
(Buunk & Dijkstra, 2005; Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002).
Nonetheless, we know relatively little about the
relationship between jealousy and age.
STUDY 1
Method
Literature Research
To arrive at a list of partner behaviours that may
evoke jealousy, we searched the literature using the
PsychInfo databases over the years 1954–2008. To
identify relevant articles, the search term ‘jealousy’
was used. This search yielded 2086 papers. After
scanning the electronic abstracts, we excluded
non-empirical papers, papers in which jealousy
was not a central concern, papers that focussed on
envy instead of jealousy and papers specifically
on morbid jealousy. We also excluded papers on
strategically induced jealousy, i.e., studies that
examined individuals’ attempts to purposely evoke
jealousy in their partner in order to make their
partner believe that they are desirable and that they
better keep their commitments. Although interesting, these papers examine individuals’ beliefs about
what makes their partner jealous, not what actually
makes a partner jealous. The remaining papers were
critically analysed. In addition, several questionnaires developed to assess jealousy were screened
for items referring to potentially jealousy-evoking
partner behaviours. As a result, 22 categories of
potentially jealousy-evoking partner behaviours
were identified (see Table 1). Table 1 consists of all
those (categories of) partner behaviours that were
found more than twice in the literature. Partner
behaviours that were reported only one or two
times were excluded from the present inventory
(e.g., ‘your partner disappears for a long time at a
party’, Mathes & Severa, 1981; ‘your partner goes
to a brothel’, Sabini & Silver, 2005). Table 1 does
not include papers that exclusively used a jealousy
measure or manipulation that was developed or
used before by someone else. Most notably in this
context are the numerous studies that have used
the paradigm developed by Buss et al. (1992). To
mention all those papers would be of no use, since
they all studied the same jealousy-evoking partner
behaviours, such as a partner falling in love with
someone else. In arriving at this inventory, we
followed the same procedure as Dijkstra and
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Buunk (2001)did in their categorization of rival
characteristics.
Questionnaire Construction
On the basis of the literature and the (categories of) behaviours distinguished in Table 1, we
developed a questionnaire. Participants were
asked how jealous they would feel if their partner
would engage in the behaviours mentioned in the
left column of Table 2. These partner behaviours
were all based on the partner behaviour categories in Table 1, with some partner behaviour categories being specified into more than one item.
For instance, the category ‘partner has sex with
someone else without having intercourse, e.g., oral
sex’ was split into the items ‘Your partner has sex
with someone else without having intercourse’ and
‘Your partner has oral sex with someone else’. In
a similar vein, the category referring to a partner’s
phone-related behaviours was captured in three
items, i.e., ‘Your partner SMS-es with someone of
the opposite sex on a regular basis’, ‘Your partner
phones someone of the opposite sex’ and ‘Your
partner has phone sex with someone else’. In
addition, we added items concerning a partner’s
involvement with media rivals. On the basis of
several studies on Internet infidelity, the following items were added: ‘Your partner has cybersex with someone else’ (Schneider, 2003; Whitty,
2003), ‘Your partner undresses for someone else
in front of the webcam’ (Ross, Rosser, & Stanton,
2004; Schneider, 2003), ‘Your partner sends sexrelated chats or emails to someone of the opposite
sex’ (Schneider, 2003; Whitty, 2003), ‘Your partner
visits a chat box on sex’ (Mileham, 2007; Ross et
al., 2004; Schneider, 2003), ‘Your partner watches
pornographic pictures or movies on the Internet’
(e.g. Schneider, 2003; Whitty, 2003), ‘Your partner
shares a strong emotional bond with someone
he/she communicates with through the Internet’
(Whitty, 2003, 2005), ‘Your partner shares his/her
feelings and secrets with someone of the opposite
sex by chat or email’ (Whitty, 2003, 2005), ‘Your
partner has sex with someone else in a virtual community, such as Second Life’ (Menon, 1998)and
‘Your partner falls in love with someone whit
whom he/she communicates through the Internet. In addition, the following items concerning
the partner’s involvement with other media rivals
were added: ‘Your partner looks at pornographic
pictures in a magazine’(Kenrick et al., 1989),
‘Your partner watches a porn movie without you’
(Schneider, 2003; Whitty, 2003), ‘Your partner
looks at (non-pornographic) pictures of an
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
334
P. Dijkstra et al.
Table 1. An inventory of potentially jealousy-evoking partner behaviours on the basis of literature research
Jealousy-evoking partner
behaviour
Partner has sex with
someone else
Partner spends much of his/
her time with someone of
the opposite sex
Partner is flirting with
someone else
Partner has an interesting
conversation with
someone of the opposite
sex (during which they
touch or laugh)
Partner kisses someone else
Partner feels attracted to
someone else
Partner has a sexual affair
with someone else
Partner works intensively
together with someone of
the opposite sex
Partner embraces someone
of the opposite sex
Partner shares a strong
emotional bond with
someone of the opposite
sex
Partner dances with
someone of the opposite
sex
Partner gives someone
of the opposite sex a
present/love letter/
postcard
Studies
Archer and Webb (2006), Buss et al. (1992, 1999), DeWeerth and Kalma (1993),
Buunk (1997), Buunk and Dijkstra (2004), Buunk and Hupka (1987), Hansen
(1982, 1987), Mathes and Verstraete (1993), Murphy, Vallacher, Shackelford,
Bjorklund and Yunger (2006), Paul, Foss and Galloway (1993), Paul and
Galloway (1994), Sabini and Green (2004), Sabini and Silver (2005), Strout, Laird,
Shafer and Thompson (2005), Thissen, Steinberg, Pyszczynski and Greenberg
(1983), Wiederman and Allgeier (1993), Wiederman and LaMar (1998), Yarab,
Allgeier and Sensibaugh (1999)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bauerle, Amirkhan and Hupka (2002), Bringle et al.
(1979), Bringle, Renner, Terry and Davis (1983), Bush, Bush and Jennings (1988),
DeWeerth and Kalma (1993), Hansen (1982), Mathes and Severa (1981), Sabini
and Green (2004), Salovey and Rodin (1986, 1988), Strout et al. (2005), Sheets,
Fredendall and Claypool (1997), Sharpsteen (1995), Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick
(1997), Thissen et al. (1983), Wiederman and Allgeier (1993), Yarab et al. (1999)
Bauerle et al. (2002), Bringle et al. (1979), Buunk (1997), Buunk and Dijkstra
(2001), Buunk and Hupka (1987), DeSouza et al. (2006), DeSteno and Salovey
(1996), Dijkstra and Buunk (1998), Mathes and Severa (1981), Moore, Eisler and
Franchina, (2000), Eisler, Franchina, Moore, Honeycutt and Rhatigan (2000),
McIntosh and Tate (1992), Parrott and Smith (1993), Paul, Foss and Galoway
(1993), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Pines and Aronson (1983), Russell and Harton
(2005), Sagarin and Guadagno (2004), Salovey and Rodin (1986, 1988), Sheets et
al. (1997), Yarab et al. (1999), Zammuner and Fischer (1995)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bauerle et al. (2002), Buunk and Dijkstra (2004), DeSteno
and Salovey (2006), DeWeerth and Kalma (1993), Dijkstra and Buunk (1998),
Holtzworth-Munroe and Anglin (1991), Knox, Zusman, Mabon and Shriver
(1999), Marazziti et al. (2003), Marelich (2002), Mathes and Severa (1981), Pfeiffer
and Wong (1989), Pines and Aronson (1983), Puente and Cohen (2003), Thissen
et al. (1983), Russell and Harton (2005), Rydell, McConnell and Bringle (2004),
Salovey and Rodin (1986), Sheets et al. (1997), Strout et al. (2005)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bauerle et al. (2002), Bringle et al. (1979), Buunk (1997),
Buunk and Hupka (1987), Hansen (1987), Hupka and Eshett (1988), Marelich
(2002), Mathes and Severa (1981), Parrott and Smith (1993), Pfeiffer and Wong
(1989), Puente and Cohen (2003), Roscoe, Cavanaugh and Kennedy (1988),
Salovey and Rodin (1986), Yarab et al., (1999), Zammuner and Fisher (1995)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bush et al. (1988), Bringle et al. (1979, 1983), DeWeerth
and Kalma (1993), Fitness and Fletcher (1993), Hawkins (1987), Mathes and
Severa (1981), Mullen and Martin (1994), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Schmitt
(1988), Sharpsteen (1993), Sheets et al. (1997), Thissen et al. (1983)
Bringle et al. (1979), Hansen (1982), Hupka (1984), Nadler and Dotan (1992), Pines
and Aronson (1983), Salovey and Rodin (1986, 1988), Yarab and Allgeier (1999)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bauerle et al. (2002), Bringle et al. (1979, 1983), DeSteno,
Valdesolo and Bartlett (2006), DeWeerth and Kalma (1993), Hansen (1982),
Mathes and Severa (1981), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Sharpsteen (1995), Thissen
et al. (1983)
Bringle et al. (1979), Buunk and Hupka (1987), DeSouza et al. (2006), Mathes and
Severa (1981), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Rydell et al. (2004)
Bush et al. (1988), Buss et al. (1992, 1999), Buunk and Dijkstra (2004), DeSouza
et al. (2006), Hansen (1982), Mathes and Severa (1981), Strout et al. (2005),
Wiederman and Allgeier (1993), Yarab et al. (1999)
Bringle et al. (1979), Buunk (1997), Buunk and Hupka (1987), DeSouza et al. (2006),
Knox et al. (1999), Pines and Aronson (1983), Rydell et al. (2004), Salovey and
Rodin (1986, 1988), Sheets et al. (1997), Yarab et al. (1999)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bauerle et al. (2002), DeWeerth and Kalma (1993),
Thissen et al. (1983)
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
335
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
Table 1.
(Continued)
Jealousy-evoking partner
behaviour
Partner phones someone of
the opposite sex
Partner shares his/her
feelings and secrets with
someone of the opposite
sex
Partner goes out without
you
Partner has sexual fantasies
about someone else
Partner looks interested at
someone of the opposite
sex
Partner has sex with
someone else without
having intercourse
Partner tells you how nice
he/she thinks someone of
the opposite sex is
Partner leaves for someone
else
Partner has a romantic date
with someone else
Partner falls in love with
someone else
Studies
Eisler et al. (2000), Pines and Aronson (1983), Rotenberg, Shewchuk and Kimberley
(2001), Sheets et al. (1997), Salovey and Rodin (1986), Sharpsteen (1995)
Buunk (1997), Murphy et al. (2006), Strout et al. (2005)
Bringle et al. (1979), Hansen (1982), Mathes and Severa (1981), Melamed (1991),
Sheets et al. (1997), Wiederman and Allgeier (1993)
Buunk and Hupka (1987), DeSouza et al. (2006), Wiederman and Allgeier (1993),
Yarab and Allgeier (1998), Yarab et al. (1999)
Archer and Webb (2006), Bush et al. (1988), Bringle et al. (1979, 1983), DeWeerth
and Kalma (1993), Fitness and Fletcher (1993), Hawkins (1987), Mathes and
Severa (1981), Mullen and Martin (1994), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Schmitt
(1988), Sharpsteen (1993), Sheets et al. (1997), Thissen et al. (1983)
Hansen (1987), Wiederman and LaMar (1998), Yarab et al. (1999)
Bringle et al. (1979), Knox et al. (1999), Mathes and Severa (1981), Pfeiffer and
Wing (1989), Pines and Aronson (1983), Bush et al. (1988), Salovey and Rodin
(1986, 1988), Sharpsteen (1995), Sheets et al. (1997), Thissen et al. (1983)
Hupka (1984), Mathes, Adams and Davies (1985), Mullen and Martin (1994), Pines
and Friedman (1998)
Bringle et al. (1979), Broemer and Diehl (2004), Mathes and Severa (1981), Parrott
and Smith (1993), Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), Sagarin and Guadagno (2004),
Salovey and Rodin (1986, 1988), Sharpsteen (1995), Sheets et al. (1997), Thissen
et al. (1983)
Buss et al. (1992), Strout et al. (2005), Wiederman and Allgeier (1993)
attractive opposite sex model in a magazine’
(Duran & Prusank, 1997; Kenrick et al., 1994), ‘Your
partner idolizes a famous person of the opposite
sex’ (based on Karniol, 2001)and ‘Your partner
looks with interest at an attractive opposite sex
individual on TV’ (Brekelmans et al., 1990). As a
consequence, the questionnaire, in total, consisted
of 42 items (see Table 2). Answers were assessed on
five-point scales (1 = not jealous, 5 = very jealous).
The construction of this questionnaire followed the
same procedure as followed by Dijkstra and Buunk
(2001).
involved in an intimate heterosexual relationship
could participate in the study. On average, relationship duration was 18 months (SD = 17.07, range 2
months to 11.5 years). Sample 2 is a representative
community sample, recruited by a professional
research agency, and consists of 241 women and
242 men, varying in age from 20 to 84, with a mean
age of 48.51 years (SD = 15.47). Only participants
who were involved in an intimate heterosexual
relationship could participate in the study. On
average, relationship duration was 21.84 years
(SD = 14.99, range 10 months to 60.92 years).
Materials
STUDY 2
Procedure and Participants
Two samples were recruited. Sample 1 consists
of 254 undergraduate students, 201 women and
53 men of the University of Groningen. These students participated in an online study on jealousy.
Mean age was 19.85 (standard deviation [SD] =
1.86, range 17–35). Only participants who were
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Jealousy-evoking partner behaviours. Participants
in both samples filled in the questionnaire constructed in Study 1, consisting of the 42 potentially jealousy-evoking partner behaviours. The
questionnaire was administered online in both
samples. Before each item the question was put:
‘How jealous would you feel if . . .’. Answers
were assessed on five-point scales (1 = not jealous,
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
Your partner has a sexual affair with someone else
Your partner has sex with someone else without having intercourse
Your partner has sex with someone else
Your partner has oral sex with someone else
Your partner falls in love with someone else
Your partner undresses for someone else in front of the webcam
Your partner kisses someone else
Your partner sends sex-related chats or emails to someone of the opposite sex
Your partner leaves you for someone else
Your partner has a romantic date with someone else
Your partner falls in love with someone with whom he/she communicates through the Internet
Your partner has phone sex with someone else
Your partner sends a romantic letter or postcard to someone of the opposite sex
Your partner is attracted to someone else
Your partner has cybersex with someone else
Your partner visits a chat box on sex
Your partner has sex with someone else in a virtual community, such as Second Life
Your partner has sexual fantasies about someone else
During a conversation your partner touches someone of the opposite sex
Your partner has an interesting conversation with someone of the opposite sex
Your partner dances with someone of the opposite sex
Your partner embraces someone of the opposite sex
Your partner works intensively together with someone of the opposite sex
Your partner phones someone of the opposite sex
Your partner spends much of his/her time with someone of the opposite sex
Your partner looks interested at someone of the opposite sex
Your partner looks with interest at an attractive opposite sex individual on TV
Your partner goes out without you
Your partner gives a present to someone of the opposite sex
Your partner shares a strong emotional bond with someone of the opposite sex
Your partner tells you how nice he/she thinks someone of the opposite sex is
Your partner flirts with someone else
Your partner watches a porn movie without you
Your partner watches pornographic pictures or movies on the Internet
Your partner looks at pornographic pictures in a magazine
Your partner looks at (non-pornographic) pictures of an attractive opposite sex model in a magazine
Your partner idolizes a famous person of the opposite sex
Your partner shares his/her feelings and secrets with someone of the opposite sex by chat or email
Your partner shares a strong emotional bond with someone he/she communicates with through the Internet
Your partner sends a romantic email or chat to someone of the opposite sex
Your partner SMS-es with someone of the opposite sex on a regular basis
Your partner shares his/her feelings and secrets with someone of the opposite sex
% explained variance
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
24.77
0.43
0.36
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.78
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.66
0.61
0.55
0.46
0.46
I
0.43
0.48
18.89
0.34
0.42
0.37
0.34
0.41
0.32
0.76
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.65
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.54
0.30
II
11.23
0.81
0.78
0.76
0.71
0.55
0.33
0.52
0.37
0.41
0.51
0.39
0.38
0.32
0.34
III
Component
0.74
0.68
0.60
0.54
0.52
9.75
0.43
0.39
0.38
0.34
0.35
0.44
0.31
0.40
0.36
0.37
0.37
IV
Varimax-rotated simultaneous components analysis solution with four components (only absolute loadings ≥0.30; primary loadings in italic)
Partner behaviour
Table 2.
0.46
0.81
0.57
0.63
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.45
0.59
0.64
0.67
0.69
0.81
0.58
0.56
0.62
0.59
0.69
0.55
0.57
0.80
0.82
0.52
0.52
0.61
0.68
0.70
0.60
0.75
0.76
0.69
0.71
0.74
0.76
0.67
0.73
0.77
0.74
0.60
0.57
0.51
0.69
h2
336
P. Dijkstra et al.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
5 = very jealous). Note that we explicitly asked
participants how ‘jealous’ they would feel. Some
authors (e.g., Bringle, 1991)have cautioned against
this because, according to these authors, in our
culture, jealousy often has a negative connotation and
may be underreported as a consequence. However,
previous research (Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998)of one of
the authors of this manuscript has shown that, in
the Netherlands, people do not under-report ‘jealousy’ compared with other emotions. Moreover,
the alternative item ‘upset’ that previous research
has sometimes used to avoid the problem of negativity associated with jealousy, is, when translated
in Dutch (‘overstuur’), in our opinion too broad to
study the specific emotion of jealousy. Therefore,
consistent with previous studies on jealousy in the
Netherlands (e.g., Buunk & Dijkstra, 2001; Dijkstra
& Buunk, 1998, 2002), we explicitly asked people
how ‘jealous’ they would feel.
Trait jealousy. To examine the validity of the scale
assessing jealousy evoking partner behaviours,
individuals filled in a short trait jealousy scale
(Melamed, 1991). This trait jealousy scale consists
of five items derived from a jealousy scale developed by Melamed (1991)that were assessed on
five-point scales (1 = never, 5 = often). Example
items are: ‘How often do you experience mild jealousy in your relationship?’ and ‘How often are you
troubled by jealous thoughts?’ Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was 0.90.
RESULTS
Principal components analyses (PCAs) using
Varimax rotation were conducted in both samples
separately to determine the appropriate number
of principal components underlying the 42 items
assessing a partner’s jealousy-evoking behaviours.
In the student sample (Sample 1), both the Scree
plot and psychological interpretation favoured a
four-factor solution that explained 59.64% of the
variance. The first factor included partner behaviours that do not openly convey infidelity, but that
may raise suspicion, such as a partner embracing
someone of the opposite sex or sharing an emotional bond with someone of the opposite sex.
This factor was labelled Suspicious Behaviour.
High loading items on the second factor were, for
example, ‘Your partner has sex with someone else’
and ‘Your partner falls in love with someone else’.
This factor was labelled Unfaithful Behaviour.
The third factor was labelled Internet Infidelity.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
337
Except for, for instance, a partner having phone
sex, almost all of the items that loaded high on
this factor referred to a partner’s sexual involvement with someone else through the Internet.
Finally, the fourth factor was labelled Pornography, because the items that loaded highest on this
factor all referred to a partner’s involvement with
pornography.
In the community sample (Sample 2), both
the Scree plot and psychological interpretation
favoured a three-factor solution that explained
65.12% of the variance. The first factor included
partner behaviours that reflected direct acts of
emotional or sexual infidelity, such as a partner
having oral sex with someone else or sending
a romantic letter or postcard to someone of the
opposite sex. This factor was therefore labelled
Unfaithful Behaviour. The second factor was characterized by high loadings of items that did not
openly convey infidelity, but that may raise suspicion, such as a partner spending much of his/
her time with someone of the opposite sex and
a partner dancing with someone of the opposite
sex. We labelled this factor Suspicious Behaviour.
Finally, the third factor was labelled Pornography,
because the items that loaded highest on this factor
all referred to a partner’s involvement with porn.
To examine the extent to which the factor structures in the two samples may be considered equal,
we calculated congruence coefficients between the
three- and four-factor solutions in the two samples.
In order to optimize the opportunity for corresponding factors to be identified as equivalents,
the three- and four-factor solutions were orthogonally rotated, using first the student sample structure, then the adult sample structure as the target
structure (see Kiers & Groenen, 1996). For the
three-factor solution, the mean congruence coefficients after rotation were 0.98, 0.97 and 0.93. These
coefficients indicate a high level of correspondence
between factors (e.g., Haven & ten Berge, 1977).
For the four-factor solution, the mean congruence
coefficients after rotation were 0.98, 0.96, 0.93 and
0.90. Again, these coefficients indicate a high level
of correspondence between factors (e.g., Haven &
ten Berge, 1977), and thereby indicate that the factor
structures of the student sample and the adult
sample resemble each other to a great extent.
To arrive at a communal structure of jealousyevoking partner behaviours, we next conducted
simultaneous components analyses (SCAs; Kiers
& Ten Berge, 1989; see also Millsap & Meredith,
1988). In PCA, components are determined for
a single population (in the present study for the
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
338
student sample respectively the adult sample).
SCA aims at finding components that have much
in common, and that are based on the same set of
weights, for the variables in all populations (two
populations in the present study). As in PCA, the
components in SCA are constructed in such a way
that they explain as much variance as possible,
but in all populations simultaneously. SCAs were
conducted extracting three, respectively, four components. It turned out that for both the three- and
four-component solutions, the separate PCAs were
hardly any better, in terms of explained variance,
than the SCA, which implies that in both samples,
the single sets of weight obtained by the SCAs
defines components that are practically as good as
the best there are (i.e., those found by PCA). For the
three-component solution, PCA explained 54.96%
of the variance in the student sample and 65.12%
in the adult sample, whereas the SCA explained
54.79 and 64.96%, respectively, in the two samples.
For the four-component solution, PCA explained
59.64% of the variance in the student sample and
68.28% in the adult sample, whereas SCA explained
59.42 and 67.99% of the variance, respectively. In
terms of explained variance, the largest difference
found between the PCA and the SCA solutions
was for the four-component solution in the adult
sample, and was equal to just 0.29% explained
variance. These results indicate that the SCA solution can be confidently used to obtain a communal
structure of jealousy evoking partner behaviours.
Based on psychological interpretation, we favoured
the four-component SCA solution, which is listed
in Table 2 (samples combined).
The first two components closely resemble the
Unfaithful Behaviour and Suspicious Behaviour
components that were found in the two samples
using PCA. The majority of the partner behaviours
associated with the third component deal with
viewing pornographic material. This component
was therefore labelled Pornography. The fourth
component consists of items that in a slightly different form also appeared in the first two components (e.g., ‘Your partner sends a romantic letter
or postcard to someone of the opposite sex’ versus
‘Your partner sends a romantic email or chat to
someone of the opposite sex’; ‘Your partner shares
a strong emotional bond with someone of the opposite sex’ versus ‘Your partner shares a strong emotional bond with someone he/she communicates
with through the Internet’). An important feature
of this fourth component is that, with the exception
of one item, all items describe partner behaviours
that involve the use of modern communication
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
media (computers and telephone). Moreover, all
items refer primarily to an emotional (i.e., nonsexual) investment. This fourth component was
therefore labelled Technological Investment. The
components Unfaithful Behaviour and Pornography also contained some items that referred to the
use of, for example, the Internet, but were assigned
to these components probably as a result of their
explicitly unfaithful or pornographic content.
On the basis of these four components, scales were
constructed. Excluded were items with an absolute
factor loading <0.50 and items with a secondary absolute loading that differed ≤0.10 from their primary
absolute loading (four items: ‘Your partner visits a
chat box on sex’; ‘Your partner has sex with someone
else in a virtual community, such as Second Life’;
‘Your partner has sexual fantasies about someone
else’; ‘Your partner shares his/her feelings and
secrets with someone of the opposite sex’). The
remaining behaviours classified under each of the
components were used to obtain the following four
scales: Unfaithful Behaviour (15 items, alpha = 0.96),
Suspicious Behaviours (14 items, alpha = 0.93), Pornography (5 items, alpha = 0.89), and Technological
Investment (4 items, alpha = 0.89). Table 3 shows the
correlations between these scales. To examine the
validity of the scales, correlations were computed
between the four scales and the trait jealousy scale.
Correlations between trait jealousy and the four
scales were r = 0.27 for Unfaithful Behaviour, r =
0.57 for Suspicious Behaviour, r = 0.25 for Pornography and r = 0.31 for Technological Investment (all
ps < 0.01; see Table 3).
Table 4 lists the mean item scores for these scales
for the two samples separately for men and women.
To examine differences between the two samples,
as well as potential sex differences, a MANOVA
was conducted using Participant Sex and Sample
as grouping variables and the four scales as depen-
Table 3. Correlations between clusters of jealousyevoking partner behaviours and trait jealousy
SB
Suspicious Behaviour
(SB)
Unfaithful Behaviour
(UB)
Pornography (P)
Technological
Investment (TI)
Trait Jealousy (TJ)
UB
P
TI
TJ
0.46
0.57
0.69
0.57
0.36
0.63
0.27
0.57
0.25
0.31
0.46
0.57
0.69
0.36
0.63
0.57
0.57
0.27
0.25
0.31
Correlations are all significant (ps < 0.01).
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
339
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
Table 4.
Mean jealousy scores as a function of sample and gender (standard deviation between brackets)
Adults
Men
Suspicious Behaviour
Unfaithful Behaviour
Pornography
Technological Investment
1.94a1 (.76)
3.89a2 (1.02)
2.12ac3 (.99)
2.94ac4 (1.16)
Students
Women
2.30b1
4.19b2
2.53b3
3.55b4
(.87)
(.97)
(1.22)
(1.20)
Men
Women
2.52b1 (.60)
3.99ab2 (1.11)
1.78c3 (.89)
2.39a1(1.16)
2.46b1 (.60)
4.23b2 (.90)
1.79c3 (.90)
3.00c4(1.03)
Superscript letters refer to differences between columns. An a–b combination, for example, refers to a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01), and an a–a combination to a non-statistical difference. Superscript numbers refer to differences within columns.
Means with different superscript numbers differ significantly (p < 0.01).
dent variables. A significant multivariate effect of
Participant Sex emerged (F[4, 730] = 3.50, p < 0.01),
which univariately could be attributed to Technological Investment (F[1, 643] = 12.14, p < 0.001):
women experienced more jealousy than men in
response to investments in someone else through
modern communication media. In addition, a significant multivariate sample effect was found (F[4,
730] = 19.03, p < 0.001), which could be univariately
attributed to Unfaithful Behaviour (F = 19.71, p <
0.001) and Suspicious Behaviour (F = 18.50, p <
0.001), with students reporting higher levels of jealousy. The multivariate interaction between Sample
and Participant Sex was not significant (F[4, 730])
= 1.78, p = 0.13).
To further examine the main effect for sample,
an additional MANCOVA was conducted using
the same dependent and independent variables,
but now also entering age as a covariate. The
mean age of the two samples differs substantially
(mean ages are 20 for the student sample, and 49
for the community sample, see Method section;
t = 40.17, p < 0.001), and might therefore be the
reason behind the main sample effect that was
found. When entering age as a covariate in the
MANCOVA, multivariate significant effects were
found for Participant Sex (F[4, 729] = 4.24, p < 0.01)
and for Participant Age (F[4, 729] = 22.22, p < 0.001),
but not for Sample (F[4, 729] = 1.19, p = 0.31). This
suggests that indeed the significant main effect for
sample might be attributed primarily to the large
age difference between the two samples.
Finally, t-tests showed that, across samples and
sexes, a partner’s unfaithful behaviour evoked
more jealousy than the other three types of partner
behaviours (see Table 4). Among both adult men
and women, a partner’s technological investments
evoked the second most feelings of jealousy, followed by a partner’s involvement with pornography and a partner’s suspicious behaviours. Among
students, men and women differed somewhat.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Among women, a partner’s Technological Investments evoked more jealousy than a partner’s suspicious behaviours, whereas among men, these two
partner behaviours evoke about equal intensities
of jealousy. Among students, a partner’s involvement with pornography evoked the least feelings
of jealousy (see Table 4).
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to make a finegrained inventory of partner behaviours that may
evoke romantic jealousy and the extent to which
they do. In addition, the present study examined the influence of gender and age on the jealousy-evoking effect of these partner behaviours.
Although, initially, in our two samples, different
factor structures emerged, congruencies between
these two-factor solutions were high, indicating
that the two factor structures were highly comparable. A four-factor solution, distinguishing
the factors Technological Investments, Suspicious
Behaviours, Unfaithful Behaviours and Pornography, appeared to be the most satisfactory structure
in both samples. In both of our samples, clearly
a partner’s unfaithful behaviours, containing acts
such as having sex with someone else and falling
in love with someone else, evoked most jealousy,
in both men and women. This finding is consistent
with those of previous studies that have shown
clear acts of infidelity to evoke strong feelings of
‘fait-accompli’ (e.g., Parrott, 1991) or ‘reactive’ jealousy (e.g., Buunk, 1997), i.e., a type of jealousy that
is characterized by strong feelings of anger, hurt
and betrayal (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2005). These feelings are presumed to protect the relationship from
further harm by communicating to the unfaithful
partner that one does not accept his/her infidelity
(e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007).
An important finding of our study is that a
partner’s involvement with someone else by
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
340
means of technological equipment is perceived to
be relatively jealousy evoking as well. Except for
male undergraduates, the emotional or romantic
sharing of feelings by means of the mobile telephone and Internet generally evoked more feelings
of jealousy than ‘non-virtual’ suspicious behaviours, such as fantasizing about someone else or
dancing with someone else. A possible explanation
is that suspicious behaviours displayed through
modern communication devices are often difficult
to check by the partner and have a relatively high
chance of remaining secretive. Women especially
found a partner’s technological involvement with
someone else distressing. A possible explanation
is that women generally have worse computer
skills than men, and, as a consequence, may feel
they have less control over their partner’s activities on the Internet. For instance, in the Netherlands, 62% of women report having no or only
little computer skills, compared with 48% of men
(Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006). Consistent
with Whitty’s (2005)findings our studies indicate
that even though people cannot physically touch
each other, extra-dyadic involvement over the
Internet is perceived as a severe act of infidelity
and a break of trust that evokes jealousy and that
may severely undermine relationship functioning.
In contrast, a partner’s involvement in pornography evoked least jealousy in our participants. A
possible explanation is that, for intense feelings of
jealousy to occur, some type of interaction has to
take place between one’s partner and a rival. As a
result, although looking at pornographic pictures
in magazines or on the Internet may be considered
a sexual behaviour, it may not be perceived as a
threat to relationship stability.
Interesting were also our findings with respect
to age and jealousy. In our older sample, we
found that, with age, individuals felt less jealous
in response to a partner’s suspicious behaviour
and unfaithful behaviours. This finding is consistent with findings of Dijkstra and Buunk (2002)that
with age, individuals responded with less jealousy
to rival’s characteristics, such as physical attractiveness and intelligence. A likely explanation is that,
with age, individuals have longer relationships
and experience less relationship insecurity and
higher trust. Perhaps, in the past, their relationship has already suffered from extra-dyadic sex,
and couples may have learned how to overcome
problems of infidelity. As a result, they may feel
less jealous in response to both suspicious as well
as explicit extra-dyadic behaviours on the part of
their partner. It must be noted, however, that, in our
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
sample of older adults, the reverse was found for
a partner’s involvement with porn: these partner
behaviours tended to evoke more jealousy as individuals were older, especially among women. This
finding may be explained by the fact that pornographic pictures usually feature young and highly
physically attractive men and women. As people
become older, they generally become less physically attractive (e.g., Teuscher & Teuscher, 2007).
As a result, they may feel that they cannot compete
with the physically attractive actors or models in
pornographic movies or pictures.
Theoretical and Clinical Implications
Although virtual acts of infidelity are often experienced as extremely hurtful by the betrayed
partner, in many cases leading couples to separate
or divorce (e.g., Schneider, 2003), Internet infidelity
has only recently been adopted as a topic of scientific research. From a theoretical point of view,
studying virtual infidelity is interesting because
it helps understand the nature of virtual infidelity. Our findings show that a partner’s suspicious
behaviours by means of modern communication
devices such as the Internet evoke as much jealousy as other, life acts of (potential) infidelity,
suggesting that, in both cases, the same psychological mechanism of jealousy is triggered. A possible explanation is that our brain registers virtual
events as ‘real’ ones and responds accordingly (e.g.,
Mathiak & Weber, 2006). Thus, from a cognitive
point of view, individuals may become involved
in cyber affairs as if they were real-life affairs.
This may also be true for the betrayed partner:
when the infidelity is uncovered, the partner may
respond as if the affair were a real life one. Support
for this explanation has, for instance, been found
by studies on violent videogames. In response
to violent video games, the brain responds as if
the threat and violence are real, stimulating the
body to produce more testosterone and cortisol
(e.g., Mazur, Susman, & Edelbrock, 1997). In line
with this explanation is also a study by Groothof,
Dijkstra and Barelds (in press) that showed that
men and women tended to respond similarly to
a partner’s sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity, whether offline or online. An alternative
explanation is that infidelity over the Internet,
either sexual or emotional, often leads to offline
infidelity. Schneider (2003), for instance, found that
about 18% of her sample of married individuals
involved in cyber sex activities had progressed
from virtual affaires to life sexual encounters with
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
341
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
other people. This 18% contained, however, only
those people who admitted their real life infidelity
to their partner. It is, therefore, likely that for much
more individuals, Internet infidelity is the first step
towards real life infidelity. As a result, although
physical contact though the Internet is impossible,
a partner’s virtual infidelity may evoke so much
jealousy because it is perceived as an antecedent
of ‘real’ infidelity.
In general, marital infidelity has been found to
be one of the most difficult problems to treat, and
therapists often feel unprepared for this kind of
work (Whisman et al., 1997). The present study may
help therapist identify those partner behaviours
that are perceived as most hurtful by the betrayed
partner and that should be the focus of therapy.
Identifying jealousy-evoking partner behaviours
may also prevent (further) infidelity from occurring, by helping partners define the boundaries of
their relationship: which partner behaviours are
acceptable and which are not (Dijkstra, 2004)? This
is an important issue, because partners often disagree about what behaviours should be considered
unfaithful, especially with regard to activities on
the Internet. Whitty (2005), for instance, found that
whereas some people consider a secret friendship
with a person of the opposite sex that is maintained
over the internet a clear act of infidelity, others
view this behaviour as acceptable, because no
extra-dyadic physical contact is involved. In addition, defining what partner behaviours evoke most
jealousy is important when diagnosing pathological forms of jealousy. When a client responds with
excessive jealousy in response to those partner
behaviours our study found to evoke relatively
few feelings of jealousy, such as a partner looking
at attractive models in a magazine or on television,
jealousy may no longer be reasonable, and a client
may suffer from pathological jealousy. Finally, our
findings clearly show that attention should be paid
to a partner’s extra-dyadic behaviours by means of
modern communication devices. In this context, it
seems wise for therapists also to assess the possibility of compulsive online use (Millner, 2008;
Young et al., 2000). If infidelity is accompanied by
sexually compulsive behaviours, couples counselling is best run concurrently with addiction counselling (Bird, 2006). In addition, for those people
suffering from symptoms of sexual compulsivity,
external Internet censors such as CyberPatrol and
NetNanny may be helpful (Millner, 2008).
Regardless of the type of unfaithful partner
behaviour, secrecy in the marriage associated with
the (Internet) affair must be reversed by helping
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
the unfaithful partner construct openness in
his/her behaviour (Glass, 2003; Millner, 2008).
With regard to Internet infidelity, this process may
be facilitated by helping individuals—especially
women—whose partner has been unfaithful, to
develop adequate computer skills. Adequate computer skills—knowing how to email, visit chat boxes
or porn sites—may help the betrayed partner to
regain a sense of control. Also, to help restore trust,
partners have to agree on new boundaries, also
with regard to Internet use (e.g., Snyder, Baucom,
& Gordon, 2007). The relatively high levels of jealousy that are evoked by partner behaviours on the
Internet also suggest that, to best help their clients,
therapists themselves should develop adequate
computer skills (see also Millner, 2008).
Limitations and Strengths
Although it is the most commonly used method
in jealousy-research, asking participants how they
would respond in the hypothetical situation that
their partner would be unfaithful may not generate responses that reliably reflect how individuals
would behave if infidelity would actually occur to
them. Nonetheless, these responses may provide
an index of how subjects tend to react to a comparable situation in ‘real’ life (Shettel-Neuber, Bryson,
& Young, 1978). Other methods carry with them
a great deal of risk: attempts to create jealousy
in existing relationships carry with them a great
ethical risk that may be difficult to justify, whereas
attempts to observe naturally occurring incidents
of jealousy suffer from a lack of adequate experimental control.
In addition, the present study’s focus was
relatively narrow. We focused our study on
jealousy-evoking partner behaviours, neglecting
the interplay between these behaviours, and, for
instance, rival characteristics or personality characteristics of the jealous partner. Nonetheless, we
feel that, for several reasons, the present research
contributes to the literature. First, in contrast to
previous studies, the present paper investigated
the most important partner behaviours that may
evoke jealousy, rather than a few isolated or intuitively chosen partner behaviours. Second, in contrast to most previous studies, the present paper
studied jealousy in a sample of older individuals.
Third, the present study contributes to the literature for a more practical reason. Therapists are
still struggling with the issue of Internet infidelity
and the jealousy that results from it (Zola, 2007),
and treatment models for Internet infidelity and its
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
342
aftermath are still in its developing stages (Hertlein
& Piercy, 2006). The present study, one of the few
on the topic of jealousy in response to a partner’s
involvement with media and Internet rivals, may
help therapists develop such treatment models.
Finally, the growing number of people involved
in Internet infidelity necessitates both researchers
and therapists to learn more about the impact and
aftermath of virtual affairs. We hope our study
contributes to this goal and invites future studies
to further elaborate on the jealousy-evoking effect
of partner behaviours, especially those regarding
a partner’s involvement with media and Internet
rivals.
REFERENCES
Archer, J., & Webb, I.A. (2006). The relation between
scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire
and aggressive acts, impulsiveness, competitiveness,
dominance, and sexual jealousy. Aggressive Behavior,
32, 464–473.
Bailey, J.M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B.A. (1994).
Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–
1093.
Barelds, D.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between
different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188.
Bauerle, S.Y., Amirkhan, J.H., & Hupka, R.B. (2002).
An attribution theory analysis of romantic jealousy.
Motivation and Emotion, 26, 297–319.
Ben-Zeev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bernier, C., & Laflamme, S. (2005). Usages d’Internet
selon le genre et l’âge: une double différenciation.
Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 42, 301–323.
Bird, M.H. (2006). Sexual addiction and marriage and
family therapy: Facilitating individual and relationship healing through couple therapy. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 32(3), 297–311.
Bishay, N.R., Tarrier, N., Dolan, M., & Beckett, R. (1996).
Morbid jealousy: A cognitive outlook. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(1), 9–22.
Brekelmans, D., Schaap, C., Cuisinier, M., Hoogduin, K.,
& Buunk, B.P. (1990). Over de behandeling van pathologische jaloezie: vier gevalsbeschrijvingen. Directieve
Therapie, 3(10), 211–225.
Bringle, R. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A
transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103–131). New York, US:
Guilford Press.
Bringle, R.C., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. (1979).
Measuring the intensity of jealousy. Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 9, 23–24.
Bringle, R.G., & Buunk, B.P. (1985). Jealousy and social
behaviour: A review of person, relationship and
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
situational determinants. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of
personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 241–264).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bringle, R.G., Renner, P., Terry, R.L., & Davis, S. (1983).
An analysis of situation and person components of
jealousy. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 354–
368.
Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2004). Romantic jealousy as a
social comparison outcome: When similarity stings.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 393–400.
Bush, C.R., Bush, J.P., & Jennings, J. (1988). Effects of jealousy threats on relationship perceptions and emotions.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 285–303.
Buss, D.M., Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J.
(1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K., Kirkpatrick, L.A., Choe,
J.C., Lim, H.K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., &
Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs
about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about
sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan.
Personal Relationships, 6, 125–150.
Buunk, A.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Extramarital sex and
jealousy. In C. Hendrick, & S.S. Hendrick (Eds), Close
relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 317–330). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buunk, B.P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of jealousy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997–1006.
Buunk, B.P., & Dijkstra, P. (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.
Buunk, B.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in
rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to
emotional versus sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 395–408.
Buunk, B.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2005). A narrow waist versus
broad shoulders: Sex and age differences in jealousyevoking characteristics of a rival’s body build. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 379–389.
Buunk, B.P., & Hupka, R.B. (1987). Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. Journal of Sex
Research, 23, 12–22.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2006). De digitale economie/
The digital economy. Voorburg: CBS.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D.L., & Burg, R. (2000). Cybersex users, abusers, and compulsives: New findings
and implications. Sexual Addictions and Compulsivity,
7, 5–29.
DeSouza, A.A.L., Verderane, M.P., Taira, J.T., & Otta, E.
(2006). Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function
of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample.
Psychological Reports, 98, 529–535.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M.Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to the heart of
the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(4), 626–641.
DeSteno, D.A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins
of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the fitness
of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367–372.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
DeWeerth, C., & Kalma, A.P. (1993). Female aggression
as a response to sexual jealousy: A sex role reversal?
Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265–279.
Dijkstra, P. (2004). Omgaan met ziekelijke jaloezie [Coping
with pathological jealousy]. Houten, the Netherlands:
Bohn, Stafleu & Van Loghum.
Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D.P.H. (2008). Self and partner
personality and responses to relationship threats.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1500–1511.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B.P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of
rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–1166.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B.P. (2001). Sex differences in the
jealousy-evoking nature of rival’s body build. Evolution and. Human Behavior, 22, 335–341.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B.P. (2002). Sex differences in
jealousy-evoking effects of rival characteristics.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829–852.
Dijkstra, P., Groothof, H.A.K., Poel, G.A., Laverman,
T.T.G., Schrier, M., & Buunk, B.P. (2001). Sex differences in the events that elicit jealousy among homosexuals. Personal Relationships, 8, 41–54.
Duran, R.L., & Prusank, D.T. (1997). Relational themes
in men’s and women’s popular nonfiction magazine
articles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
14(2), 165–189.
Eisler, R.M., Franchina, J.J., Moore, T.M., Honeycutt,
H.G., & Rhatigan, D.L. (2000). Masculine gender role
stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender relevance
of conflict situations on men’s attributions and affective
responses. Journal of Men and Masculinity, 1, 30–36.
Fernandez, A.M., Sierra, J.C., Zubeidat, I., & Vera-Villarroel, P. (2006). Sex differences in response to sexual
and emotional infidelity among Spanish and Chilean
students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 359–
365.
Fitness, J., & Fletcher, G.I.O. (1993). Love, hate, anger,
and jealousy in close relationships: A prototype and
cognitive appraisal analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65(5), 942–958.
Freeman-Longo R.E., & Blanchard, G.T. (1998). Sexual
abuse in America: Epidemic of the 21st century. Brandon,
VT: Safer Society Press.
Glass, S.P. (2003). Not ‘just friends’: Protect your relationship from infidelity and heal the trauma of betrayal. New
York: The Free Press.
Green, M.C., & Sabini, J. (2006). Gender, socioeconomic
status, age, and jealousy: Emotional responses to infidelity in a national sample. Emotion, 6, 330–334.
Groothof, H.A.K., Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D.P.H. (in
press). Sex differences in jealousy in response to
Internet infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships.
Hansen, G.L. (1982). Reactions to hypothetical, jealousy
producing events. Family Relations, 31, 513–518.
Hansen, G.L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 382–390.
Haven, S., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (1977). Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence as a measure of factorial invariance: An empirical study (Heymans Bulletin 290 EX). Unpublished
report by the Department of Psychology, University
of Groningen.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
343
Hawkins, R.O. (1987). Comparative study of three measures of sexual jealousy. Psychological Reports, 61(2),
539–544.
Hertlein, K.M., & Piercy, F.P. (2006). Internet infidelity:
A critical review of the literature. The Family. Journal,
14, 366–371.
Holzworth-Munroe, A., & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by martially violent versus
nonviolent men to problematic martial situations.
Violence and Victims, 6, 257–269.
Hupka, R.B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or
label for a particular situation? Motivation and Emotion,
8(2), 141–155.
Hupka, R.B., & Eshett, C. (1988). Cognitive organization
of emotion: Differences between labels and descriptors
of emotion in jealousy situations. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 66, 935–949.
Karniol, R. (2001). Adolescent females’ idolization of
male media stars as a transition into sexuality. Sex
Roles, 44(1–2), 61–77.
Kenrick, D.T., Gutierres, S.E., & Goldberg, L.L. (1989).
Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers
and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25,
159–167.
Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., Zierk, K.L., & Krones, J.M.
(1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects
as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Personality Bulletin, 20,
210–217.
Kiers, H.A., & Groenen, P. (1996). A monotonically convergent algorithm for orthogonal congruence rotation.
Psychometrika, 61(2), 375–389.
Kiers, H.A., & Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1989). Alternating least
squares algorithms for simultaneous components
analysis with equal component weight matrices in
two or more populations. Psychometrika, 54(3), 467–
473.
Knox, D., Zusman, M.E., Mabon, L., & Shriver, L. (1999).
Jealousy in college student relationships. College
Student Journal, 33, 328–329.
Marazziti, D., Di Nasso, E., Masala, I., Baroni, S., Abelli,
M., Mengali, F., Mungai, F., & Rucci, P. (2003). Normal
and obsessional jealousy: A study of a population of
young adults. European Psychiatry, 18, 106–111.
Marelich, W.D. (2002). Effects of behavior setting,
extradyadic behaviors, and interloper characteristics
on romantic jealousy. Social Behavior and Personality,
30, 785–794.
Mathes, E.W., Adams, H.E., & Davies, R.M. (1985). Jealousy: Loss of relationship rewards, loss of self-esteem,
depression, anxiety, and anger. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1552–1561.
Mathes, E.W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic
love, and liking: Theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49,
23–31.
Mathes, E.W., & Verstraete, C. (1993). Jealous aggression:
Who is the target, the beloved or the rival? Psychological Reports, 72, 1071–1074.
Mathiak, K., & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural behaviour: fMRI during violent video
games. Human Brain Mapping, 27, 948–956.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
344
Mazur, A., Susman, E.J., & Edelbrock, S. (1997). Sex
differences in testosterone response to a video game
contest. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 317–
326.
McIntosh, E.G., & Tate, D.T. (1992). Characteristics of the
rival and experience of jealousy. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 74, 369–370.
Melamed, T. (1991). Individual differences in romantic
jealous: The moderating effect of relationship characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21,
455–461.
Menon, G.M. (1998). Gender encounters in a virtual community: Identity formation and acceptance. Computers
in Human Services, 15(1), 55–69.
Mileham, B.L.A. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet
chat rooms: An ethnographic exploration. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 11–31.
Millner, V.S. (2008). Internet infidelity: A case of intimacy
with detachment. The Family Journal, 16(1), 78–82.
Millsap, R.E., & Meredith, W. (1988). Component analysis
in cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Psychometrika,
53(1), 123–134.
Moore, T.M., Eisler, R.M., & Franchina, J.J. (2000). Causal
attributions and affective responses to provocative
female partner behavior by abusive and nonabusive
males. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 69–80.
Mullen, P.E., & Martin, J.L. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 35–43.
Murphy, S.M., Vallacher, R.R., Shackelford, T.K.,
Bjorklund, D.F., & Yunger, J.L. (2006). Relationship
experience as a predictor of romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 761–769.
Nadler, A., & Dotan, I. (1992). Commitment and rival
attractiveness: Their effects on male and female reactions to jealousy arousing situations. Sex Roles, 26,
293–310.
Pam, A., & Pearson, J. (1996). When marriage ends in
a love triangle: Jealousy, family polarization, effects
on children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 25, 175–
199.
Parrott, W.G. (1991). The emotional experience of envy
and jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–30). New York: Guilford Press.
Parrott, G.W., & Smith, R.H. (1993). Distinguishing the
experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906–920.
Paul, L., Foss, M.A., & Galloway, J. (1993). Sexual jealousy in young women and men: Aggressive responsiveness to partner and rival. Aggressive Behavior, 19,
401–420.
Paul, L., & Galloway, J. (1994). Sexual jealousy: Gender
differences in response to partner and rival. Aggressive
Behavior, 20, 203–211.
Pfeiffer, S.M., & Wong, P.T. (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.
Pines, A.M., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences
in romantic jealousy. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1),
54–71.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. Dijkstra et al.
Puente, S., & Cohen, D. (2003). Jealousy and the meaning
(or nonmeaning) of violence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 449–460.
Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L.E., & Kennedy, D.R. (1988).
Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and consequences. Adolescence, 23(89), 35–43.
Ross, M.W., Rosser, B.R., & Stanton, J. (2004). Beliefs
about cybersex and Internet-mediated sex of Latino
men who have Internet sex with men: Relationships
with sexual practices in cybersex and in real life. AIDS
Care, 16(8), 1002–1011.
Rotenberg, K.J., Shewchuk, V.A., & Kimberley, T. (2001).
Loneliness, sex, romantic jealousy, and powerlessness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1),
55–79.
Russell, E.B., & Harton, H.C. (2005). The ‘other factors’:
Using individual and relationship characteristics to
predict sexual and emotional jealousy. Current Psychology, 24, 242–257.
Rydell, R.J., McConnell, A.L., & Bringle, R.G. (2004).
Jealousy and commitment: Perceived threat and the
effect of relationship alternatives. Personal Relationships, 11, 451–468.
Sabini, J., & Green, M.C. (2004). Emotional responses to
sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1375–1388.
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (2005). Gender and jealousy: Stories
of infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 713–727.
Sagarin, B.J., & Guadagno, R.E. (2004). Sex differences in
the contexts of extreme jealousy. Personal Relationships,
11, 319–328.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1986). The differentiation of
social-comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100–
1112.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1988). Coping with envy and
jealousy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7,
15–33.
Schmitt, B.H. (1988). Social comparison in romantic
jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,
374–387.
Schneider, J.P. (2003). The impact of compulsive cybersex behaviours on the family. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy, 18, 329–354.
Shackelford, T.K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D.P., Buss, D.M.,
Weekes-Shackelford, V.A., & Michalski, R.L. (2004).
Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life.
Human Nature, 15, 238–300.
Sharpsteen, D.J. (1993). Romantic jealousy as an emotion
concept: A prototype analysis. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10(1), 69–82.
Sharpsteen, D.J. (1995). The effects of relationship and
self-esteem threats on the likelihood of romantic jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
89–101.
Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 627–
640.
Sheets, V.L., Fredendall, L.L., & Claypool, H.M. (1997).
Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance and relation-
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp
Jealousy-Evoking Partner Behaviours
ship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits
of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 387–
402.
Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J.B., & Young, L.E. (1978).
Physical attractiveness of the ‘other person’ and
jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(4),
612–615.
Snyder, D.K., Baucom, D.H., & Gordon, K.C. (2007).
Treating infidelity: An integrative approach to resolving trauma and promoting forgiveness. In P.R. Peluso
(Ed.), Infidelity: A practitioner’s guide to working with
couples in crisis (pp. 99–125). New York: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.
Strout, S.L., Laird, J.D., Shafer, A., & Thompson, N.S.
(2005). The effect of vividness of experiences on sex
differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 3,
263–274.
Teuscher, U., & Teuscher, C. (2007). Reconsidering the
double standard of aging: Effects of gender and sexual
orientation on facial attractiveness ratings. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42, 631–639.
Thayer, S.E., & Ray, S. (2006). Online communication preferences across age, gender, and duration of
Internet use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9, 432–
440.
Thissen, D.M., Steinberg, L., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). An item response theory for personality and attitude scales; Item analysis using restricted
factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7,
211–226.
Whisman, M.A., Dixon, A.E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple problems and treatment
issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology,
11(3), 361–366.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
345
Whitty, M.T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s
and women’s attitudes toward online and offline
infidelity. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6, 569–579.
Whitty, M.T. (2005). The realness of cybercheating: Men’s
and women’s representations of unfaithful internet
relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 57–
67.
Wiederman, M.W., & Allgeier, E.R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning
explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115–140.
Wiederman, M.W., & LaMar, L.C. (1998). Not with him
you don’t!’: Gender and emotional reactions to sexual
infidelity during courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 35,
288–297.
Yarab, P.E., & Allgeier, E.R. (1998). Don’t even think
about it: The role of sexual fantasies as perceived
unfaithfulness in heterosexual dating relationships.
Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 23, 246–254.
Yarab, P.E., Allgeier, E.R., & Sensibaugh, C.C. (1999).
Looking deeper; Extradyadic behaviors, jealousy, and
perceived unfaithfulness in hypothetical relationships.
Personal Relationships, 6, 305–316.
Young, K.S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J.,
& Buchanan, J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addition and Compulsivity,
7, 59–74.
Zammuner, V.L., & Fischer, A.H. (1995). The social regulation of emotions in jealousy situations: A comparison
between Italy and the Netherlands. Journal of CrossCultural psychology, 26(2), 189–208.
Zola, M.F. (2007). Beyond infidelity-related impasse:
An integrated, systemic approach to couples therapy.
Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26(2), 25–41.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 17, 329–345 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/cpp