Title: A review of sex differences in responses to infidelity: A meta-analytic examination. Author: Tsukasa Kato. Behavior Science Research 2016 Vol. 55, No.
Behavior Science Research Title: A review of sex differences in responses to infidelity: A meta-analytic examination Author: Tsukasa Kato Behavi o r S ci enc e R esear ch 2016 Vol . 5 5 , No. 2 , pp. 137-14 9 .
The B ehavi or S ci en ce R ese arch (BS R ) i s t he offi ci al j ourn a l o f t he J apanes e As s oci at i on of B eha vi oral S ci ence (J AB S ). The BS R i s a pe er-r evi ewed j ournal publ i shed i n J apanese l an gua ge. UR L for t he J ABS : ht t p: / / www.j abs.j p/ i ndex .ht m l
Ab s tract Accordi n g t o som e e vol uti on ar y ps ychol ogi st s, sex -speci fi c evol ved j eal ous y m echani s m (EJ M) predi ct s sex di ffer enc es i n responses t o t h e part ner ’s i nfi del i t y. Thou gh t he EJ M h ypot h esi s has been support ed b y sev eral evol ut i onar y ps yc ho l ogi st s, m an y st udi e s al so rej ect ed t h e h yp ot hesi s. A M et a-an al ysi s w as c onduct ed usi ng 87 e m pi ri cal art i cl es ( k = 168, N = 1 2 5 , 6 9 8 ) to esti mate gend er differ enc es i n response to inf ideli t y. The me an eff ect s i z e (φ ) i n st udi es usi ng a forc ed - choi ce pa radi gm wa s .20 (95% C I [.19, .21] , k = 100, n = 87,942), i ndi cat i ng a w eak associ at i on. In t h e l it erat u re usi n g a co nt i nuous m easur e, t he m ean e ff ect si z es ( ds) for gender di ffer ences b y s ex ual and em ot i onal i nfi del i t i es were -0.10 ( 95% C I [ -0.14 , -
0.06] , k = 52, n = 9, 794) and 0.41 (95% C I [ 0.37, 0.45] , k = 50, n = 9,571), res pect i vel y. Moreo ver, al t ern at i ve t heo ri es a gai nst t he EJ M h ypot hesi s we re di s cus s ed, such as t he rol e t heor y, t he s oci al -co gni t i ve t heo r y, t he doubl e s hot h ypot hesi s, and t he sex ual i m a gi nat i on h ypot hesi s. Thes e fi ndi ngs and di s cus s i ons suggest t hat even when a for ced -choi ce pa radi gm or a cont i nuous m eas ure w as used, p revi ous rese arch on gend er di ffer enc es i n j eal ous y di d not s upport t he EJ M h ypot hesi s.
C orres pondenc e sho ul d be address ed t o: Tsukasa Kat o, To yo Uni versi t y , Depart m ent of S oci a l P s yc hol o g y, e-m ai l : m t sukasa @hot m ai l .com .
Tabl es 1 t o 4 are t h e s am e t abl es t hat e xi st i n t he t ext . Tabl es S 1 t o S 3 are s upport i ng i nform at i on. R eferen ces a re t he l i st of ci t at i ons t o t he resea rch i ncl uded i n m et a-an al yses.
Ts ukas a , Kat o S port i ng Inform at i on of “ A revi e w of se x di ffer ences i n r esp onses t o i nfi del i t y: A m et a - a nal yt i c ex am i nati on. ” K L2016 -001 ht t p: / / kat ol abo.web. fc2.com / K L2016 -00 1.pdf
1
Table 1 Four hypotheses on a sex-specific evolved jealous mechanism hypothesis
Hypothesis a
Men are more upset over sexual infidelity than women.
Hypothesis b
Women are more upset over emotional infidelity than men.
Hypothesis c
Men are more upset over sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity.
Hypothesis d
Women are more upset over sexual emotional than sexual infidelity.
2
Table 2 Effect sizes (φ) and results of χ2 tests across gender differences in response to infidelity using a forced-choice measure
k
Per.
n
φ
104
69.2
90,267
0.20
0.19
0.21
Homo/bisexual
8
12.5
4,634
0.01
-0.03
0.03
Victim
8
25.0
810
0.13
0.05
0.20
Non-victim
7
42.9
2,665
0.24
0.16
0.32
13
53.8
46,784
0.19
0.14
0.24
Non-committed relationship
8
37.5
8,931
0.19
0.11
0.26
Cognitive load
3
100
598
0.20
0.12
0.28
Internet infidelity
2
50.0
687
0.11
0.03
0.18
Object of data
All data
Committed relationship
95% CI
Note. K and n are number of independent samples and participants, respectively. The effect sizes are weighted mean phi (φ). CI is confidence interval. Per. is a percentage of independent samples that χ2 test for gender × infidelity type is significant. Committed relationship (non-committed relationship) is individuals who are (or not) married, living with their partner, or in a committed relationship.
4
Table 3 Effect sizes (d) of gender and infidelity type differences in response to infidelity using a continuous measure
Object of data All sample Interaction Hypothesis a Hypothesis b Hypothesis c Hypothesis d Hypothesis a Jealousy Hurt/sadness Anger/betrayal Disgust Anxiety/threat Victim Non-victim Committed relationship Non-committed relationship Internet infidelity Hypothesis b Jealousy Hurt/sadness Anger/betrayal Disgust Anxiety/threat Victim Non-victim Committed relationship
k
Per.
d
95% CI
n
29 52 50 50 50
34.5 7.7 36.0 42.0 26.0
― -0.10 0.41 0.33 0.07
― -0.14 0.37 0.27 0.02
― -0.06 0.45 0.40 0.12
10,307 9,794 9,571 4,209 6,470
12 14 18 8 6 8 5 9 3 6
0 0 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 33.3 0
-0.09 -0.26 -0.01 -0.10 -0.11 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 0.22 -0.17
-0.22 -0.39 -0.11 -0.27 -0.31 -0.18 -0.21 -0.15 0.12 -0.33
0.04 -0.13 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.31 -0.02
939 939 1,298 564 403 632 523 1,455 1,762 647
12 14 18 8 7 8 5 7
33.3 42.9 33.3 0 28.6 37.5 60.0 0
0.39 0.33 0.32 0.06 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.31
0.26 0.19 0.21 -0.11 0.25 0.34 0.29 0.20
0.53 0.46 0.44 0.23 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.41
939 939 1,298 564 403 632 523 1,455
5 Non-committed relationship Internet infidelity Hypothesis c Jealousy Hurt/sadness Anger/betrayal Disgust Anxiety/threat Physiological response Victim Non-victim Committed relationship Non-committed relationship Internet infidelity Hypothesis d Jealousy Hurt/sadness Anger/betrayal Disgust Anxiety/threat Physiological response Victim Non-victim Committed relationship Non-committed relationship Internet infidelity
3 6
33.3 16.7
0.28 0.23
0.19 0.07
0.38 0.39
1,762 647
10 13 16 8 6 6 8 5 6 3 4
20.0 15.4 50.0 37.5 16.7 16.7 25.0 20.0 16.7 33.3 0
0.24 0.10 0.70 0.56 0.26 0.15 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.21 ―
0.05 -0.09 0.52 0.29 -0.07 0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.06 ―
0.44 0.29 0.88 0.82 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.55 0.37 0.37 ―
447 447 585 241 160 223 213 190 568 665 135
10 13 16 8 6 5 8 5 6 3 4
10.0 7.7 6.3 0 16.7 20.0 25.0 0 16.7 33.3 0
0.10 0.01 -0.37 -0.62 0.09 0.27 0.22 0.31 0.07 0.27 ―
-0.08 -0.18 -0.53 -0.86 -0.17 -0.09 0.03 0.09 -0.06 0.15 ―
0.29 0.19 -0.22 -0.38 0.35 0.63 0.42 0.53 0.20 0.39 ―
492 492 713 323 243 137 419 333 921 1,097 200
Note. K and n are number of independent samples and participants, respectively. Interaction is an interaction between gender and infidelity type. Per. is a percentage of independent samples that each hypothesis is supported. Hypotheses a, b, c, and d are gender differences in responses to sexual infidelity, gender differences in responses to emotional infidelity, infidelity type differences for men, and infidelity type differences for women. Victim (or non-victim) is a participant who had (or not) previously experienced real partner's infidelity. Committed relationship (non-committed relationship) is individuals who is (or not) married, living with their partner, or in a committed relationship.
6
Table 4 Numbers of studies that author(s) accepted or rejected a sex-specific evolved jealousy mechanism hypothesis
Type of academic journal
Accepted
Rejected
Unclear
Evolutionary psychology
27
0
0
0
5
0
Residual journals
30
23
6
Sum total
57
28
6
Sex roles or cultural psychology
7
Table S1 Percentage of choosing a sexual infidelity scenario as more distressing and effect sizes (φ) and χ2 test across gender differences in response to infidelity using a forced-choice measure
Literature
Percentage
N
p
φ
Participant and so forth
Men
Women
74
51
95
*
0.24 Black
87
58
96
**
0.32 White
46
17
1,074
***
0.32 Nor.
37
9
1,074
***
0.35 Nor.
49
18
1,074
***
0.33 Nor.
59
34
1,074
***
0.24 Nor.
62
24
460
***
0.38 Nor.
62
35
460
***
0.27 Nor.
58
35
328
***
0.22 non-victim
53
53
64
n.s
0.01 victim
46
25
646
***
0.22 UK
32
14
646
***
0.22 UK
39
25
646
***
0.15 UK
53
38
646
***
0.15 UK
50
33
646
***
0.17 UK
45
31
646
***
0.14 UK
Bohner et al. (2010)
37
35
566
n.s
0.02 Grc./Ger.
Brase et al. (2004)
58
22
104
***
0.38 UK
60
31
104
**
0.30 UK
58
28
104
**
0.32 UK
47
39
104
n.s
0.03 UK
63
28
104
***
0.37 UK
27
9
104
*
0.24 UK
34
30
202
n.s
0.04 Ita.
48
36
202
n.s
0.12 Ita.
48
39
202
n.s
0.09 Ita.
23
27
202
n.s
- 0.05 Ita.
40
33
202
n.s
0.07 Ita.
29
17
202
*
0.14 Ita.
73
41
477
***
0.34
65
36
477
***
0.32
Abraham et al. (2001-02) Bendixen et al. (2015a)
Bendixen et al. (2015b) Berman & Frazier (2005) Bohner & Wänke (2004)
Brase et al. (2014)
8
Buss et al. (1992)
58
34
477
***
0.27
61
28
477
***
0.35
58
30
477
***
0.30
52
20
477
***
0.35
17
202
***
0.49 Study 1
202
***
0.54 Study 1 0.35 Study 3
60 a
32 49 Buss et al. (1999)
309
***
a
19
405
***
―
Study 1
26 a
626
***
―
Study 1
25 76
32
234
***
0.63 Study 2
43
11
234
***
0.54 Study 2
61
13
234
***
0.70 Study 2
65
31
234
***
0.48 Study 2
54
27
234
***
0.38 Study 2
54
13
234
***
0.62 Study 2
59
19
190
***
0.41 Study 3, Kor.
53
22
190
***
0.32 Study 3, Kor.
47
27
190
**
0.21 Study 3, Kor.
54
30
190
***
0.24 Study 3, Kor.
52
28
190
**
0.25 Study 3, Kor.
42
27
190
*
0.16 Study 3, Kor.
38
13
316
***
0.26 Study 4, Jap.
32
15
316
***
0.19 Study 4, Jap.
33
21
316
*
0.12 Study 4, Jap.
75
75
316
n.s
0.01 Study 4, Jap.
38
23
316
**
0.15 Study 4, Jap.
15
0.19 Study 4, Jap.
32 Buunk et al. (1996)
Cann et al. (2001) Cramer et al. (2000) Cramer et al. (2001-02) Cramer et al. (2008)
316
***
43 a
224
***
―
Study 1
32 a
224
***
―
Study 1
12 a
200
*
―
adult, Study 2, Ger.
22 a
200
***
―
adult, Study 2, Ger.
20 a
207
***
―
Study 3, Nld.
10 a
207
*
―
Study 3, Nld.
67
41
77
*
0.06
79
24
79
***
0.29
63
23
120
***
0.40 Study 1
56
29
88
*
0.27 Study 2
87
46
64
***
0.44
87
59
64
*
0.30
48
20
189
**
0.29
9
55
26
189
**
0.29
55
19
189
**
0.37
51
25
114
**
0.27
42
38
141
*
0.19
54
34
111
*
0.20 Study 1
92
65
57
*
0.33 cog load, Study 2
96
36
64
***
32
51
237
**
- 0.18 homo, Nld.
23
26
237
n.s
- 0.05 homo, Nld.
47
59
237
n.s
- 0.12 homo, Nld.
32
51
237
***
- 0.18 homo, Nld.
41
59
237
**
- 0.17 homo, Nld.
50
61
237
n.s
- 0.11 homo, Nld.
57
29
140
***
0.29 adult, Bra.
54
21
140
***
0.35 adult, Bra.
41
46
77
n.s
- 0.05 adult, homo, Bra.
36
51
77
n.s
- 0.16 adult, homo, Bra.
Easton et al. (2007)
99
88
398
**
0.18 morbid jealousy
Edlund et al. (2006)
48
23
102
*
0.23 victim, Study 1
52
35
103
n.s
0.15 victim, Study 1
53
7
196
***
0.48 Study 1
61
28
58
*
0.32 employee/student, victim, Study 2
83
29
28
*
0.43 employee, victim, Study 2
61
36
60
n.s
0.24 employee/student, victim, Study 2
53
16
64
**
0.34 employee/student, non-victim, Study 2
54
35
60,030
***
0.19 adult
30
27
2,275
n.s
0.03 adult, bi
32
34
1,588
n.s
29
28
2,275
n.s
0.01 adult, bi, opposite-sex
35
20
2,275
***
0.17 adult, bi, same-sex
59
37
7,634
***
―
non-committed relationship
57
36
5,493
***
―
cohabitation
52
35
37,164
***
―
married
40
39
361
n.s
―
non-committed relationship, homo
24
29
789
n.s
―
cohabitation, homo
28
31
124
n.s
―
married, homo
44
36
284
n.s
―
non-committed relationship, bi
35
27
371
n.s
―
cohabitation, bi
27
25
1,229
n.s
―
married, bi
50
34
122
***
―
victim
DeSteno & Salovey (1996a) DeSteno et al. (2002)
Dijkstra et al. (2001)
de Souza et al. (2006).
Frederick & Fales (2016)
0.60 Study 2
- 0.02 adult, homo
10
54
35
893
***
―
non-victim
34
33
330
n.s
―
non-victim, homo
28
31
903
n.s
―
non-victim, bi
54
19
179
***
0.37 UK
42
9
179
***
0.39 UK
44
22
179
**
0.23 UK
36
19
179
**
0.19 UK
―
―
385
***
0.31 Study 1
―
―
95
*
―
―
273
***
0.36 Study 2
―
―
137
*
0.18 Study 2
Geary et al. (2001)
73
63
292
***
0.36 Study 1
Goldenberg et al. (2003)
55
35
112
*
0.20 Study 2
Groothof et al. (2009)
87
71
254
*
0.15 Study 1, Nld
60
29
254
***
0.27 Study 1, Nld
81
59
254
**
0.19 online, Study 1, Nld.
66
40
254
***
0.21 online, Study 1, Nld.
72
42
254
***
0.24 online, Study 1, Nld.
81
52
254
***
0.24 online, Study 1, Nld.
80
73
537
*
0.08 cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
67
56
537
**
0.11 cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
70
66
537
n.s
0.05 online, cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
71
61
537
*
0.10 online, cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
55
49
537
n.s
0.05 online, cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
69
61
537
*
0.08 online, cohabitation, Study 2, Nld.
62
34
153
***
0.28
51
28
150
**
0.23 online
Harris (2002)
26
―
94
n.s
0.20 adult
Harris (2003b)
61
24
358
***
0.37
56
18
358
***
0.40
Harris & Christenfeld (1996a)
47
12
136
**
0.26
Hupka & Bank (1996)
37
27
246
n.s
0.10 Study 1
48
26
499
*
0.22 Study 2
46
22
157
**
0.25 committed relationship, Study 1
26
38
51
n.s
53
31
266
**
0.22 committed relationship, Study 2
33
17
118
*
0.18 non-committed relationship, Study 2
51
24
325
***
0.28 non-committed relationship, Jap.
61
44
128
n.s
0.17 committed relationship, Jap.
73
67
128
n.s
0.07 committed relationship, vivid, Jap
Fussell et al. (2011)
Geary et al. (1995)
Guadagno & Sagarin (2010)
Kato (2014a)
0.22 Study 1, Chn.
- 0.12 non-committed relationship, Study 1
11
61
47
128
n.s
0.14 committed relationship, non-vivid, Jap
―
―
496
**
0.35 Nor.
―
―
495
**
0.29 Nor.
Levy & Kelly (2010)
76
47
416
***
0.27
Lishner et al. (2008)
44
27
96
n.s
0.17
Mathes (2003)
80
29
119
***
0.52 Study 1
63
7
119
***
0.59 Study 1
77
37
104
***
0.40 Study 2
46
7
104
***
0.44 Study 2
59
19
81
***
0.42 Black, Study 3
68
19
81
***
0.50 Black, Study 3
73
21
210
***
0.52
42
8
210
***
0.41
63
21
210
***
0.43
34
6
210
***
0.36
55
23
234
***
0.30 non-committed relationship
36
36
234
n.s
0.01 non-committed relationship
62
10
234
***
0.56 non-committed relationship
18
33
29
n.s
- 0.17 non-committed relationship
18
33
29
n.s
- 0.17 non-committed relationship
46
11
29
*
0.39 non-committed relationship
46
25
145
*
0.18 serious committed relationship
39
11
145
***
0.29 serious committed relationship
64
38
145
**
0.21 serious committed relationship
67
11
30
**
0.58 serious committed relationship
25
0
30
―
58
28
30
n.s
0.31 serious committed relationship
58
22
58
**
0.37 non-committed relationship
39
9
58
**
0.35 non-committed relationship
62
34
58
*
0.27 non-committed relationship
37
23
284
*
0.15 adults, cog load, Ger.
38
23
284
**
0.17 adults, deliberation, Ger.
Pietrzak et al. (2002)
73
4
47
***
0.71
Sabini & Green (2004)
39
9
152
***
0.35 upset, Study 1
32
10
152
***
0.27 hurt, Study 1
80
66
152
n.s
0.14 anger, Study 1
84
71
152
n.s
0.14 blame, Study 1
55
24
83
***
0.29 upset, Study 1
30
14
83
n.s
0.20 hurt, Study 1
74
60
83
n.s
0.15 anger, Study 1
Kennair et al. (2011)
Miller & Maner (2009)
Murphy et al. (2006)
Penke & Asendorpf (2008)
―
serious committed relationship
12
78
92
83
n.s
25
15
129
n.s
0.13 adult, upset, Study 1
29
19
129
n.s
0.12 adult, hurt, Study 1
62
48
129
n.s
0.14 adult, anger, Study 1
67
62
129
n.s
0.05 adult, blame, Study 1
34
33
157
n.s
0.01 adult, upset, Study 2
33
26
157
n.s
0.07 adult, hurt, Study 2
66
70
157
n.s
- 0.04 adult, anger, Study 2
77
89
157
*
- 0.16 adult, blame, Study 2
51
16
208
***
33
37
305
n.s
53
21
353
***
0.33 Study 2
59
30
244
***
0.28
38
46
216
n.s
- 0.08 same-sex
24
26
254
n.s
- 0.02 homo, same-sex
31
32
238
n.s
- 0.01 homo, opposite-sex
Sagarin & Guadagno (2004)
60
21
86
***
0.38 White, Study 2
Scelza (2014)
100
96
66
***
0.37 Nam: natural fertility population
Scherer et al. (2013)
26
25
75
n.s
0.01 bi, same-sex
49
17
59
**
0.38 bi, opposite-sex
Schützwohl (2004)
37
20
200
**
0.19 Ger.
Schützwohl (2006)
33
15
96
*
0.22 Study 2, Ger.
Schützwohl (2008a)
64
31
257
***
0.30 Ger.
39
16
257
**
0.26 cog load, Ger.
41
23
257
n.s
0.19 cog load, Ger.
55
30
117
*
0.23
29
11
117
n.s
0.21
24
22
85
n.s
0.01 adult, homo
5
4
85
n.s
0.02 adult, homo
51
57
71
n.s
86
25
26
*
68
2
93
***
0.38 Study 2
68
94
93
n.s
- 0.19 Study 2
56
26
366
***
0.29
53
26
246
**
0.27 employee
43
42
127
n.s
0.01 victim, employee
Tagler & Jeffers (2013)
52
19
324
***
0.34
Treger & Sprecher (2011)
63
29
3,836
***
0.33
Voracek (2001)
33
25
335
n.s
0.08 adult, Aut.
27
28
153
n.s
Sagarin et al. (2003)
Sagarin et al. (2012a)
Sheets & Wolfe (2001)
Strout et al. (2005)
Tagler (2010)
- 0.19 blame, Study 1
0.37 Study 1 - 0.04 same-sex Study 1
- 0.14 Study 1 0.61 victim, Study 1
―
married, adult, Aut.
13
59
28
113
―
―
adult, committed relationship, Aut.
26
15
69
―
―
adult, committed relationship, Aut.
44
20
268
*
0.21 Aus.
28
5
268
*
0.33 Aus.
48
20
139
*
0.28 committed relationship, Aus.
29
20
129
n.s
0.09 non-committed relationship, Aus.
45
37
268
n.s
0.05 Aus.
43
30
268
*
0.12 Aus.
48
28
139
*
0.19 committed relationship, Aus.
38
25
129
n.s
0.13 non-committed relationship, Aus.
48
20
86
*
0.27 non-victim
37
13
61
*
0.28 adult, non-victim
38
14
86
n.s
0.26 non-victim
23
10
61
n.s
0.19 adult, non-victim
45
20
60
*
4.10 victim
27
12
99
n.s
3.55 adult, victim
45
8
60
***
11.72 victim
39
8
99
***
14.97 adult, victim
50
39
115
n.s
0.10 victim
43
23
193
**
0.20 adult, victim
44
42
115
n.s
0.03 victim
32
23
193
n.s
0.09 adult, victim
Wiederman & Allgeier (1993)
64
41
223
*
0.23
Wiederman & Kendall (1999)
62
37
376
***
Zengel et al. (2013)
37
26
782
***
―
victim
36
27
912
*
―
non-victim
Ward & Voracek (2004)
Varga et al. (2011)
0.25 Swe.
Note. a This value is a percentage of men choosing sexual infidelity minus a percentage of women choosing sexual infidelity. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Dashs "―" mean that te data to calculate an effect size (φ) and p values did not existed in the literature. The participants that is not provide information about a sample in the Participant and so forth head is college students in the USA. Adult is a non-college-student sample. Committed relationship (or non-committed relationship) is individuals who is (or not) married, living with their partner, in a committed relationship. Homo and bi are homosexual and bisexual, respectively. Online is Internet infidelity. Victim (or non-victim) is individuals who had (or not) previously experienced real partner's infidelity. Ex-rival is partner's infidelity with a former partner. Same-sex and opposite-sex are partner's infidelity with same- and opposite-sex rivals, respectively. Cog load is cognitive load. Aus, Aut, Bra, Chn, Grc, Ger, Jap, Kor, Nam, Nld, Nor, Swe, UK, and, USA are Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Greece, Germany, Japan, Korea, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United State America, respectively.
14
Table S2 Effect sizes (d) of gender and infidelity type differences in response to infidelity using a continuous measure
Literature
N
Gender difference (Between subject)
Interaction
Sexual p Baschnagel & Edlund (2016)
Becker et al. (2004)
Bendixen et al. (2015a) Buunk (1981) Buunk & Dijkstra (2004)
83 83 83 72 72 72 72 51 51 51 51 70 70 70 70 1,074 100 151
* n.s n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―
d 0.04 - 0.55 - 0.60 0.00 0.18 0.04 - 0.21 - 0.11 - 0.19 - 0.47 - 0.09 - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.06 - 0.39 ― ― ―
p n.s ** * n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s ― n.s n.s
Infidelity type difference (Within subject)
Emotional d 0.60 0.74 0.56 0.38 0.44 0.22 0.11 0.34 0.22 - 0.11 - 0.17 0.67 0.51 0.14 0.35 ― ― ―
p ** ** * n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s ** * n.s n.s ― ― *
Men d 0.47 1.03 1.30 0.15 0.23 0.42 0.16 - 0.18 - 0.22 - 0.05 0.17 0.16 - 0.02 0.32 0.54 0.44 ― ―
p * *** *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** ― ―
Participant and so forth
Women d 0.14 - 0.81 - 1.12 0.22 0.36 - 0.12 - 0.26 0.39 0.20 - 0.61 - 0.40 0.44 0.41 - 0.28 - 0.57 0.45 ― ―
p n.s *** *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s n.s ** *** ― ―
jealousy hurt anger non-committed relationship, jealousy non-committed relationship, hurt non-committed relationship, anger non-committed relationship, disgust casually dating, jealousy casually dating, hurt casually dating, anger casually dating, disgust serious committed relationship, jealousy serious committed relationship, hurt serious committed relationship, anger serious committed relationship, disgust Nor. committed relationship, Ger. betrayal/anger, Nld.
15
Cann & Baucom (2004) DeSteno et al. (2002) Dijkstra et al. (2013)
151 151 140 140 111 111 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 121 121 121 121 121
― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―
― ― 0.05 - 0.29 - 0.23 - 0.38 0.18 - 0.32 - 0.44 - 0.49 ― ― ― ― ― - 0.18 - 0.39 - 0.35 - 0.50 ― ― ― ― ― - 0.16 - 0.40 - 0.27 - 0.37 ―
n.s ― n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * ** *** ― ― ― ― ― n.s * * *** ― ― ― ― ― n.s * n.s * ―
― ― 0.23 0.60 0.41 0.31 0.65 ― ― ― 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.32 0.38 ― ― ― 0.26 0.28 0.39 0.26 0.23 0.01 ― ― ― 0.25
― n.s n.s *** n.s n.s *** ― ― ― *** * * n.s * * ― ― ― n.s n.s ** n.s n.s n.s ― ― ― n.s
― ― 0.81 0.64 0.46 0.20 0.82 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.41 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.13 ― ― ― ―
― ― *** *** *** ** *** ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― * ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s ― ― ― ―
― ― - 0.48 - 0.33 - 0.22 - 0.26 - 0.38 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― - 0.13 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― - 0.31 ― ― ― ―
― ― ** n.s *** ** ** ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s ― ― ― ―
anxiety, Nld. threat, Nld. ex-rival
betrayal/anger, Nld. betrayal/anger, online sex, Nld. betrayal/anger, phone sex, Nld. betrayal/anger, Internet porno, Nld. betrayal/anger, Internet, Nld. betrayal/anger, online, Nld. betrayal/anger, online, Nld. betrayal/anger, email, Nld. betrayal/anger, SMS, Nld. threat, Nld. threat, online sex, Nld. threat, phone sex, Nld. threat, Internet porno, Nld. threat, Internet, Nld. threat, online, Nld. threat, online, Nld. threat, email, Nld. threat, SMS, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, online sex, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, phone sex, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, Internet porno, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, Internet, Nld.
16
Edlund et al. (2006)
Edlund & Sagarin (2009) Geary et al. (1995)
Geary et al. (2001)
121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 102 103 196 58 28 60 64 1,081 1,081 504 504 504 292 292 292 292
― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s *** * * * n.s n.s n.s ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s
― ― ― ― - 0.19 - 0.35 - 0.16 - 0.22 ― ― ― ― ― - 0.27 - 0.27 0.03 0.17 ― - 0.15 0.19 - 0.58 - 0.43 ― ― ― 0.21 - 0.42 - 0.34 - 0.09
― ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s ― n.s n.s *** *** n.s n.s n.s n.s *** ** n.s
0.15 0.02 0.17 0.09 0.07 ― ― ― 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.78 0.64 0.79 0.47 ― 0.79 0.26 0.38 0.23 ― ― ― - 0.69 0.44 0.20 0.39
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** ** *** n.s ― ** n.s *** *** ** n.s n.s n.s ** n.s **
― ― ― ― - 0.07 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.17 0.35 0.08 0.20 ― 0.16 0.24 0.58 0.73 ― ― ― 1.06 0.01 0.55 0.13
― ― ― ― n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s ― n.s n.s *** *** ― ― ― *** n.s *** n.s
― ― ― ― - 0.06 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.25 0.17 0.64 0.42 ― 0.47 0.17 - 0.88 - 1.03 ― ― ― - 1.41 0.04 - 0.76 0.15
― ― ― ― n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s *** * ― * n.s *** *** ― ― ― *** n.s *** n.s
betrayal/anger, homo, online, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, online, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, email, Nld. betrayal/anger, homo, SMS, Nld. threat, homo, Nld. threat, homo, online sex, Nld. threat, homo, phone sex, Nld. threat, homo, Internet porno, Nld. threat, homo, Internet, Nld. threat, homo, online, Nld. threat, homo, online, Nld. threat, homo, email, Nld. threat, homo, SMS, Nld. victim, Study 1 victim, Study 1 Study 1 employee/student, victim, Study 2 employee, victim, Study 2 employee/student, victim, Study 2 employee/student, non-victim, Study 2 five point Likert scale seven point Likert scale hurt, Study 1, USA/Chn. jealousy, Study 1, USA/Chn. anger, Study 1, USA/Chn. hurt/anger, Study 1 hurt, Study 1 anger, Study 1 jealousy, Study 1
17
Guadagno & Sagarin (2010)
47 47 47 47 36 36 36 36 80 80 80 80 164 164 164 164 65 65 65 65 26 26 26 26 76 76 76 76 168
― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―
0.46 0.36 0.17 0.27 - 0.29 - 0.19 - 0.96 - 0.74 - 0.22 0.25 - 0.17 0.17 - 0.03 0.14 - 0.09 - 0.09 0.51 0.06 - 0.14 - 0.17 - 0.45 - 1.10 - 0.94 - 0.85 0.28 0.19 - 0.06 0.10 0.12
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s
0.08 0.06 0.36 0.42 0.80 0.49 0.58 - 0.11 0.33 0.01 0.62 0.02 0.41 0.20 - 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.13 0.26 0.15 0.30 1.15 0.40 0.89 -0.03 0.26 0.55 -0.15 0.05
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s n.s
0.37 0.61 0.21 0.96 0.41 0.51 0.10 0.25 0.14 0.56 0.18 1.10 0.28 0.54 - 0.39 0.63 0.12 0.12 - 0.03 0.45 - 0.10 0.22 -0.42 0.30 0.05 0.53 0.25 0.53 0.04
n.s * n.s ** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s ** * *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s
0.24 - 0.07 0.29 - 0.14 0.05 - 0.23 - 0.35 - 1.11 - 0.09 - 0.24 0.15 - 0.69 0.05 - 0.18 0.09 - 0.51 0.47 0.07 0.12 - 0.42 - 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.04 - 0.26 0.24 - 0.07 0.18 - 0.54 0.25
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** n.s n.s n.s * n.s n.s n.s *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s
non-committed relationship, jealousy non-committed relationship, anger non-committed relationship, hurt non-committed relationship, disgust casually dating, jealousy casually dating, anger casually dating, hurt casually dating, disgust, serious committed relationship, jealousy serious committed relationship, anger serious committed relationship, hurt serious committed relationship, disgust committed relationship, jealousy committed relationship, anger committed relationship, hurt committed relationship, disgust, non-committed relationship, online, jealousy
non-committed relationship, online, anger non-committed relationship, hurt, online online, disgust casually dating, online, jealousy casually dating, online, anger casually dating, online, hurt casually dating, online, disgust serious committed relationship, online, jealousy
serious committed relationship, online, anger
serious committed relationship, online, hurt serious committed relationship, online, disgust
committed relationship, online, jealousy
18
Harris (2002) Harris (2003b) Kato (2014b) Leeker & Carlozzi (2014)
Mathes (2003)
Pavela et al. (2014) Penke & Asendorpf (2008) Pietrzak et al. (2002)
168 168 168 98 358 127 598 1,643 296 296 296 296 296 296 119 119 104 104 426 426 284 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
― ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ** ** n.s * * * * n.s n.s n.s n.s
- 0.02 0.44 - 0.15 ― - 0.13 - 0.03 0.01 0.22 ― ― ― ― ― ― 1.66 1.49 0.96 0.70 - 0.10 - 0.11 - 0.29 3.04 1.06 0.02 1.22 - 0.92 ― ― ―
n.s ** n.s ― * n.s n.s *** *** *** *** *** n.s *** *** *** *** *** n.s n.s * *** *** n.s *** ** ― ― ―
0.32 0.39 0.14 ― 0.26 0.11 0.15 0.28 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.65 0.56 0.44 4.83 5.53 4.31 2.53 2.21 ― ― ―
* * n.s ― * n.s n.s *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ― ― ― ― *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ― ― ―
0.30 0.69 0.48 ― 0.28 - 0.07 0.04 0.21 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.11 0.18 0.04 3.75 4.59 1.29 3.35 -1.14 ― ― ―
n.s *** ** ― n.s n.s n.s *** ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s n.s *** *** n.s * n.s ― ― ―
-0.04 0.10 - 0.44 ― - 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.29 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.38 0.26 0.11 4.17 1.64 2.91 0.13 2.67 ― ― ―
n.s n.s ** ― n.s n.s n.s *** ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― *** *** n.s ** n.s * n.s * ― ― ―
committed relationship, online, anger committed relationship, online, hurt committed relationship, online, disgust victim victim committed relationship, Jap non- committed relationship, Jap committed relationship committed relationship, distress committed relationship, anger committed relationship, anxiety committed relationship, jealousy committed relationship, humiliation Study 1 Study 2 Study 2 Study 2 ex-rival adult, Ger. anger rage anxiety betrayal fear depression distress humiliation
19
Sagarin & Guadagno (2004) Sagarin et al. (2003) Schützwohl (2007) Sheets & Wolfe (2001) Strout et al. (2005)
Tagler (2010)
Tagler & Jeffers (2013) Takahashi et al. (2006)
86 86 513 353 199 456 85 117 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 295 193 127 324 44
― ― *** ** * *** ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * *** n.s *** ―
0.00 0.41 - 0.08 - 0.08 0.04 - 0.09 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.01 0.12 - 0.56 - 0.19 0.32
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** n.s n.s
1.08 0.33 0.75 0.46 0.42 0.61 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.38 0.90 0.34 0.62 - 0.30
*** n.s *** *** ** *** ― ― n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * * * n.s ** *** n.s n.s ** *** *** *** n.s
0.85 0.60 0.14 0.20 0.06 0.31 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.06 0.57 - 0.29 0.44 1.33
** * n.s * n.s *** *** n.s *** *** * ** *** *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** n.s *** ***
0.21 0.23 0.28 0.15 0.41 0.22 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 0.38 0.45 0.08 - 0.08 - 0.75
n.s n.s ** n.s ** ** ** ** *** *** * ** *** *** n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s *** n.s n.s n.s
White, Study 2 White, Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 Study 1, Ger. committed relationship, Study 2, Ger. adult, homo rage, Study 1 anger, Study 1 betrayal, Study 1 vindictiveness, Study 1 fear, Study 1 sadness, Study 1 anxiety, Study 1 vengeance, Study 1 rage, Study 2 anger, Study 2 betrayal, Study 2 vindictiveness, Study 2 fear, Study 2 sadness, Study 2 anxiety, Study 2 vengeance, Study 2 undergraduate/employee, non-victim victim employee, victim jealousy, Jap.
20
Varga et al. (2011)
Wiederman & Allgeier（1993） Zengel et al. (2013)
44 44 44 44 44 44 93 71 55 94 223 819 878
― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― n.s n.s
0.49 - 0.43 - 0.24 0.11 0.86 0.69 0.03 - 0.55 0.26 - 0.23 0.04 ― ―
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * n.s * n.s n.s n.s ― ―
- 0.60 - 0.10 0.18 - 0.78 - 0.55 - 0.20 0.51 0.95 - 0.02 0.25 0.32 ― ―
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s * *** n.s n.s * ― ―
2.18 0.23 1.25 0.86 0.61 0.85 0.84 0.32 0.80 0.22 0.81 ― ―
*** n.s ** n.s n.s n.s *** n.s * n.s *** ― ―
-
1.65 1.20 2.15 1.96 0.23 0.79 0.36 0.01 - 0.58 - 0.25 - 0.50 ― ―
*** * *** *** n.s n.s * n.s * n.s *** ― ―
anger, Jap. sadness, Jap. surprise, Jap. disgust, Jap. fear, Jap. anxiety, Jap. non-victim adult, non-victim victim adult, victim victim non-victim
Note. Interaction is F test for an interaction effect between gender and infidelity type. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Dashs "―" mean that te data to calculate an effect size (d) and p values did not existed in the literature. The participants that is not provide information about a sample in the Participant and so forth head is college students in the USA. Adult is a non-college-student sample. Committed relationship (or non-committed relationship) is individuals who is (or not) married, living with their partner, in a committed relationship. Online is Internet infidelity. Victim (or non-victim) is individuals who had (or not) previously experienced real partner's infidelity. Ex-rival is partner's infidelity with a former partner. Same-sex and opposite-sex are partner's infidelity with same- and opposite-sex rivals, respectively. Cog load is cognitive load. SMS is shuttle mission simulator. Aus, Aut, Bra, Chn, Grc, Ger, Jap, Kor, Nam, Nld, Nor, Swe, UK, and, USA are Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Greece, Germany, Japan, Korea, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United State America, respectively.
21
Table S3 Effect sizes (d) of infidelity type differences in psychophysiological responses to partner's infidelity by gender
Literature
Indicator
Men n
d
n.s.
20
- 0.42
n.s.
0.04
n.s.
18
0.12
n.s.
40
0.09
n.s.
31
- 0.07
n.s.
EDA
41
0.01
n.s.
22
0.01
n.s.
EDA HR
32 32
0.54 0.27
* *
23 23
0.43 0.07
* n.s.
brow EMG
32
0.24
n.s.
23
0.27
n.s.
HR
25
0.19
n.s.
23
0.12
n.s.
EDA
25
- 0.21
n.s.
23
- 0.28
n.s.
brow EMG
25
- 0.01
n.s.
23
- 0.06
n.s.
HR
25
0.47
n.s.
23
0.08
n.s.
EDA
25
- 0.20
n.s.
23
- 0.52
n.s.
brow EMG
25
- 0.13
n.s.
23
- 0.12
n.s.
Harris (2000)
SBP
36
0.25
*
43
- 0.11
n.s.
Study 1
DBP HR
36 36
0.19 0.27
* *
43 43
- 0.15 0.09
n.s. n.s.
Harris (2000)
SBP
82
0.21
**
―
―
―
Study 2
DBP
82
0.08
*
―
―
―
HR
82
0.28
**
―
―
―
EDA
82
0.07
n.s.
―
―
―
HR
22
2.24
*
25
1.99
**
EDA
22
0.46
**
25
0.53
**
EMG
22
4.44
**
25
3.73
***
TEMP
22
0.49
**
25
0.74
*
Baschnagel & Edlund (2016)
Buss et al. (1992) Study 2
Grice & Seely (2000)a
Grice & Seely (2000)b
Pietrzak et al. (2002)
n
d
Corrugator EMG
30
0.02
Levator EMG
33
HR
Women p
p
Note. a and b is different in a baseline condition. All samples are college students in the United State America. EDA, HR, EMG, SBP, DBP, and TEMP are electrodermal activity, heart rate, electromyographic activity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and skin temperature, respectively. *p < .05, ***p < .01, ***p < .001
22
References: the list of citations to the research included in meta-analyses Abraham, W. T., Cramer, R. E., Fernandez, A. M., & Mahler, E. (2001-2002). Infidelity, race, and gender: An evolutionary perspective on asymmetries in subjective distress to violations-of-trust. Current Psychology, 20, 337-348. Baschnagel, J. S., & Edlund, J. E. (2016). Affective modification of the startle eyeblink response during sexual and emotional infidelity scripts. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 114-122. Becker, D. V., Sagarin, B. J., Guadagno, R. E., Millevoi, A. & Nicastle, L. D. (2004). When the sexes need not differ: Emotional responses to the sexual and emotional aspects of infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 529-538. Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Buss, D. M. (2015a). Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212-216. Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., Kaasa, H., Isaksen, L., Pedersen, L., Svangtun, S., & Hagen, K. (2015b). In search of moderators of sex differences in forced-choice sexual jealousy responses: Effects of 2D:4D digit ratio and relationship infidelity experiences. Nordic Psychology, 67, 272-284. Berman, M. I., & Frazier, P. A. (2005). Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1617-1627. Bohner, G., Echterhoff, G., Glaβ, C., Patrzek, J., & Lampridis, E. (2010). Distress in response to infidelities committed by the partners of close others: Siblings versus friends. Social Psychology, 41, 223-229. Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2004). Psychological gender mediates sex differences in jealousy. Journal of
23
Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 213-229. Brase, G. L., Adair, L., & Monk, K. (2014). Explaining sex differences in reactions to relationship infidelities: Comparisons of the roles of sex, gender, beliefs, attachment, and sociosexual orientation. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 73-96. Brase, G. L., Caprar, D. V., & Voracek, M. (2004). Sex differences in responses to relationship threats in England and Romania. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 763-778. Burchell, J. L., & Ward, J. (2011). Sex drive, attachment style, relationship status and previous infidelity as predictors of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 657661. 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, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages. Alternative lifestyles, 4, 357-372. Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359-363. 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.
24
Cann, A., & Baucom, T. R. (2004). Former partners and new rivals as threats to a relationship: Infidelity type, gender, and commitment as factors related to distress and forgiveness. Personal Relationships, 11, 305-318. Cann, A., Mangum, J. L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 185-190. Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to sexual versus emotional infidelity: Men and women are more similar than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 25-37. Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2001-2002). Gender differences in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology, 20, 327-336. Cramer, R. E., Lipinski, R. E., Meteer, J. D., & Houska, J. A. (2008). Sex differences in subjective distress to unfaithfulness: Testing competing evolutionary and violation of infidelity expectations hypotheses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 389-405. Cramer, R. E., Manning-Ryan, B., Johnson, L. M., & Barbo, E. (2000). Sex differences in subjective distress to violations of trust: Extending an evolutionary perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 101-109. de Souza, A. A., 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., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-
25
1116. DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996a). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the "fitness" of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367-372. Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., & Groothof, H. A. K. (2013). Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: The role of sex and sexual orientation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 328-336. Dijkstra, P., Groothof, H. A. K., Poel, G. A., Laverman, T. G., Schrier, M., & Buunk, A. P. (2001). Sex differences in the events that elicit jealousy among homosexuals. Personal Relationships, 8, 41-54. Dunn, M. J., & McLean, H. (2015). Jealousy-induced sex differences in eye gaze directed at either emotional- or sexual infidelity-related mobile phone messages. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 37-40. Easton, J. A., Schipper, L. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Morbid jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 399-402. Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 462-470. Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: Misinterpretation of nonsignificant results as refuting the theory. Personal Relationships, 16, 67-78. Fenigstein, A., & Reltz, R. (2002). Distress over the infidelity of a child’s spouse: A crucial test of evolutionary and socialization hypotheses. Personal Relationships, 9, 301-312. Frederick, D. A., & Fales, M. R. (2016). Upset over sexual versus emotional infidelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 175-191.
26
Fussell, N. J., Rowe, A. C., & Park, J. H. (2011). Masculinised brain and romantic jealousy: Examining the association between digit ratio (2D:4D) and between- and within-sex differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 107-111. Geary, D. C., DeSoto, M. C., Hoard, M. K., Sheldon, M. S., & Cooper, M. L. (2001). Estrogens and relationship jealousy. Human Nature, 12, 299-320. Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995). Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 355-383. Goldenberg, J. L., Landau, M. J., Pyszczynski, T., Cox, C. R., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Dunnam, H. (2003). Gender-typical responses to sexual and emotional infidelity as a function of mortality salience induced self-esteem striving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1585-1595. Grice, J. W., & Seely, E. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 348-356. Groothof, H. A. K., Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: The case of internet infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1119-1129. Guadagno, R. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: An evolutionary perspective on online infidelity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2636-2655. Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082-1091. Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological
27
Science, 13, 7-12. Harris, C. R. (2003a). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102-128. Harris, C. R. (2003b). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319-329. Harris, C. R. (2005). Male and female jealousy, still more similar than different: Reply to Sagarin (2005). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 76-86. Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996a). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psychological Science, 7, 364-366. Hellstrand, D., & Chrysochoou, E. (2015). Upset in response to a sibling’s partner’s infidelity: A study with siblings of gays and lesbians, from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 13: 1474704915598491. doi: 10.1177/1474704915598491 Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup Jr., G. G. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity and multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 6, 3-13. Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social construction? CrossCultural Research, 30, 24-59. Kato, T. (2014a). A reconsideration of sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1281-1288. Kato, T. (2014b). Testing the sexual imagination hypothesis for gender differences in response to infidelity.
28
BMC Research Notes, 7:860. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-860. Kennair, L. E. O., Nordeide, J., Andreassen, S., Strønen, J., & Pallesen, S. (2011). Sex differences in jealousy: A study from Norway. Nordic Psychology, 63, 20-34. Kuhle, B. X. (2011). Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1044-1047. Leeker, O., & Carlozzi, A. (2014). Effects of sex, sexual orientation, infidelity expectations, and love on distress related to emotional and sexual infidelity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40, 68-91. Levy, K. N., & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21, 168-173. Lishner, D. A., Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L., & Zillmer, E. J. (2008). Are sexual and emotional infidelity equally upsetting to men and women? Making sense of forced choice responses. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 667-675. Mathes, E. W. (2003). Are sex differences in sexual vs. emotional jealousy explained better by differences in sexual strategies or uncertainty of paternity? Psychological Reports, 93, 895-906. Michalski, R. L., Shackelford, T. K., & Salmon, C. A. (2007). Upset in response to a sibling's partner's infidelities. Human Nature, 18, 74-84. Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Sex differences in response to sexual versus emotional infidelity: The moderating role of individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 287-291. 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.
29
Pavela, I., Banai, B. I., & Šimić, N. (2014). Height and jealousy over partner’s ex and a new rival among coupled men and women. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 81-95. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex differences in emotional but not in sexual jealousy at the automatic level of cognitive processing. European Journal of Personality, 22, 3-30. Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 83-94. Platek, S. M., & Thomson, J. W. (2007). Facial resemblance exaggerates sex-specific jealousy-based decisions. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 223-231. 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. Sagarin, B.J., Becker, D.V., Guadagno, R.E., Nicastle, L.D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 17-23. Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Wilkinson, W. W., & Nicastle, L. D. (2012). A reproductive threat-based model of evolved sex differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 487-503. Sagarin, B. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2004). Sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy. Personal Relationships, 11, 319-328. Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012).
30
Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595614. Scelza, B. A. (2014). Jealousy in a small-scale, natural fertility population: The roles of paternity, investment and love in jealous response. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 103-108. Scherer, C. R., Akers, E. G., & Kolbe, K. L. (2013). Bisexuals and the sex differences in jealousy hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1064-1071. Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which infidelity type makes you more jealous? Decision strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 121-128. Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 288-299. Schützwohl, A. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy: Information search and cognitive preoccupation. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 285-292. Schützwohl, A. (2007). Decision strategies in continuous rating of jealousy feeling elicited by sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 815-828. Schützwohl, A. (2008a). The crux of cognitive load: Constraining deliberate and effortful decision processes in romantic jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 127-132. Schützwohl, A. (2008b). The disengagement of attentive resources from task-irrelevant cues to sexual and emotional infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 633-644. Schützwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior,
31
25, 249-257. Schützwohl, A., Morjaria, S., & Alvis, S. (2011). Spatial distance regulates sex-specific feelings to suspected sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 417-429. Shackelford, T. K., Michalski, R. L., & Schmitt, D. P. (2004). Upset in response to a child's partner's infidelities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 489-497. Sheets, V. L., & Wolfe, M. D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals, lesbians, and gays. Sex Roles, 44, 255-276. Strout, S. L., Laird, J. D., Shafer, A., & Thompson, N. S. (2005). The effect of vividness of experience on sex differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 263-274. Tagler, M. J. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: Comparing the influence of previous infidelity among college students and adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 353-360. Tagler, M. J., & Jeffers, H. M. (2013). Sex differences in attitudes toward partner infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 821-832. Takahashi, H., Matsuura, M., Yahata, N., Koeda, M., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2006). Men and women show distinct brain activations during imagery of sexual and emotional infidelity. NeuroImage, 32, 12991307. Treger, S., & Sprecher, S. (2011). The influences of sociosexuality and attachment style on reactions to emotional versus sexual infidelity. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 413-422. Varga, C. M., Gee, C. B., & Munro, G. (2011). The effects of sample characteristics and experience with infidelity on romantic jealousy. Sex Roles, 65, 854-866.
32
Voracek, M. (2001). Marital status as a candidate moderator variable of male-female differences in sexual jealousy: The need for representative population samples. Psychological Reports, 88, 553-566. Ward, J., & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 165-171. Wiederman, M. W., & Allegeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115-140. Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy: Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 121-128. Zandbergen, D. L., & Brown, S. G. (2015). Culture and gender differences in romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 122-127. Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy in response to infidelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 47-51.
