Sex Differences in Jealousy in Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Special Section
SEX DIFFERENCES IN JEALOUSY IN EVOLUTIONARY AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE: Tests From the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States Bram P. Buunk, ' Alois Angleitner,^ Viktor Oubaid, ' ' and David M. 'University ofGroningen, the Netherlands, 'University of Bielefeld, Germany, ^University of Heidelberg, Germany, and ' 'University of Texas Abstract—As predicted by models derived from evohttionary psychology. men within the United States have been shown to exhibit greater psychological and physiological distress to sexual than to emotional infidelity of their partner, and wotnen have been shown to exhibit more distress lo emotional than to sexual infidelity. Because cross-cultural tests are critical for evolutionary hypotheses, we examined these sex differences in three parallel studies conducted in the Netherlands fN = 207j, Germany fN = 200), and the United States fN = 224). Two key findings emerged. First, the sex differences in sexual jealousy are robust across these cultures, providing support for the evolutionary psychological model. Second, the magnitude of the sex differences varies somewhat across cultures—large for the United States, medium for Germany and the Netherlands. Discussion focuses an the evolutionary psychology of jealousy and on the sensitivity of sex differences in the sexual sphere to cultural input. Social scientists have frequently ' observed that sexual jealousy can be a strikingly strong emotion. In his classic work on the natives of the Trobriand Islands, for example, Malinowski (1932) noted that "jealousy, with or without adequate reason, and adultery are the two factors in tribal life which put most strain on the marriage tie" {p. 97). The sociologist Davis (1948) noted that jealousy is a "fear and rage reaction fitted to protect, maintain, and prolong the intimate association of love" (p. 183). Despite the potentially powerful impact of sexual jealousy, emotion researchers have devoted
Special Section
SEX DIFFERENCES IN JEALOUSY IN EVOLUTIONARY AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE: Tests From the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States Bram P. Buunk, ' Alois Angleitner,^ Viktor Oubaid, ' ' and David M. 'University ofGroningen, the Netherlands, 'University of Bielefeld, Germany, ^University of Heidelberg, Germany, and ' 'University of Texas Abstract—As predicted by models derived from evohttionary psychology. men within the United States have been shown to exhibit greater psychological and physiological distress to sexual than to emotional infidelity of their partner, and wotnen have been shown to exhibit more distress lo emotional than to sexual infidelity. Because cross-cultural tests are critical for evolutionary hypotheses, we examined these sex differences in three parallel studies conducted in the Netherlands fN = 207j, Germany fN = 200), and the United States fN = 224). Two key findings emerged. First, the sex differences in sexual jealousy are robust across these cultures, providing support for the evolutionary psychological model. Second, the magnitude of the sex differences varies somewhat across cultures—large for the United States, medium for Germany and the Netherlands. Discussion focuses an the evolutionary psychology of jealousy and on the sensitivity of sex differences in the sexual sphere to cultural input. Social scientists have frequently ' observed that sexual jealousy can be a strikingly strong emotion. In his classic work on the natives of the Trobriand Islands, for example, Malinowski (1932) noted that "jealousy, with or without adequate reason, and adultery are the two factors in tribal life which put most strain on the marriage tie" {p. 97). The sociologist Davis (1948) noted that jealousy is a "fear and rage reaction fitted to protect, maintain, and prolong the intimate association of love" (p. 183). Despite the potentially powerful impact of sexual jealousy, emotion researchers have devoted
References: Baker. R.R., & Beilis. M.. '. (1995!. Sperm competition: Copulation, masturbation, and infidelity, London: Chapmati and Hall. Bringle. R.G., & Buunk. B.P. (1985). Jealousy and social behavior: A review of personal, relationship and situationat determinants. In P. Shaver (Ed.l. t{evieiv nf personality and social psychology (Vol. 2. pp. 241-264). Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Buss. D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1—49. Buss. D.M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books. Buss. D.M.. Larsen. R.J.. Westen, D.. & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution. phy.siology. and psychology Psychological Science, 3, 25S-255. Buunk, B.P. (1986). Husband s jealousy, tn R.A. Lewis & R. Salt (Eds.). Men in families (pp. 97-114). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Buunk. B.P. (1995). Sex. self-esteem, and extradyadic sexual experience as related lojeaiousy re.sponses. Journal af Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 147-153. Buunk. B.P.. & Hupka. R.B. (19871. Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. Journal of Se?: Research, 23, 12-22. BuQnk. B.P.. & van Driel. B. (1989). Variant lifesrytes and relationships, Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Cohen, i. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. Daly. M.. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide, New 'k 'ork: Aldine de Gruyter. Daly. M.. Wilson. M.. & Weghorst. S.J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociohiology, 3, Ii~27. Davis. K. (1948). Human society. New York: MacMillan. de Weerth. C . & Kalma. A.P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual jealousy: A sex role reversal? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265-279. Francis. J.L. (1977). Towards the management of heterosexual jealousy. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 3, 61-69. Frank. R.H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: W.W. Norton. Frayser. S. (1985}. Varieties of sexual experience: An anthropological perspective. New Haven. CT: HRAF Press. Guerrero. L.K.. Eloy. S.V.. Jorgensen, P.F.. & Andersen. P.A. (1993). Her or his? Sex differences in the experience and communication of jealousy in close relationships. In P.J. Kalbfleish (Ed). Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 109-132). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Hofstede. G. (1994). Culture 's consequences: International differences in workrelated values, Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Hupka, R.B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular situation? Motivation and Emotion, 8, 141-1.55. Hupka. R.B.. & Ryan. J.M. (1990). The cultural contribution to jealousy: Crosscultural aggression in sexual jealousy situations. Behavioral Science Research, 24, 51-71. Malinowski. B. (1932). The sexual life of savages, Boston: Beacon. Plutchik. R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary .synthesis. New York: Harper & Row. Salovey, P. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology ofjealou,^ and envy. New York: Guilford Press. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sextwlity. New York: Oxford University Press. Trivers. R. (1985). Social evolution, Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. White. G.L.. & Mullen. P.E. (1989). Jealou,n: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press. Wiederman. M.V., & Allgeier. E.R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptationist or social learning explanation? Ethology ' and Sociobiology, 14, 115-140. (RECEIVED 7/17/95; AccEPrED 7/24/95) VOL. 7, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1996 363