Rivalaus.con

8/12/2019 Rivalaus.con

1/491

Automatically evaluating ones romantic rivals: towards a social cognitive

evolutionary approach of jealousy

Abraham P. Buunk

Karlijn assar

Pieternel !ijkstra

"niversity of #roningen


2/492

The importance of jealousy

$ealousy is aroused when one%s relationship is threatened due to the interference of a

rival& and may involve feelings such as fear& suspicion& distrust& an'iety& and anger&

betrayal& rejection& threat and loneliness (e.g.& )aslam * Bornstein& +,,- Knobloch&

/olomon& * 0ru1& 233+ Parrott& 233+4. Although there are related behaviors elsewhere

in the animal kingdom& human jealousy is a special phenomenon due to the uni5ue

reproductive strategies of the human species. 6hile humans and chimpan1ees evolved

out of a common ancestor& their reproductive behaviors vary considerably.

0himpan1ees have promiscuous se'ual relationships& whereas humans engage in more

or less stable pair relationships. )uman pair bonding probably evolved because human

offspring is very helpless during the first years of their life& and can hardly survive

without the support of both parents. 6hile the investment in offspring is for females in

either species very high& human males invest more in their off7spring than chimpan1ee

males. )owever& the evidence from hunter7gatherer societies suggests that the

contribution of males not only to child care& but also to the food provision of their mates

and off7spring has been 5uite limited in our ancestral past. Probably& the benefit of a

pairbond for females was particularly that males protected their mates from predators&

from other males& and from other hostile groups.

8he relatively high male investment in their off7spring entails a considerable

potential cost. )uman males have& in the course of evolution& confronted a potential cost

not encountered by females& namely that& as a conse5uence of infidelity of their partner&

they might& unknowingly& invest heavily in another man%s offspring without passing on

their own genes. 8herefore& males will have evolved a tendency to prevent their mate


3/493

from becoming se'ually involved by being possessive& by spending as much time with

her as possible& and by threatening her with undesirable conse5uences& such as desertion

and violence& if she is unfaithful. 9ndeed& throughout human history& males have found

many ways to limit their mates freedom to prevent them from engaging in se' with

other males& from the chastity belts in the middle ages to the veils of uslim women.

Because of the tremendous reproductive risks that are at stake& infidelity and the

suspicion of it are major causes of violence on the part of males against females. 6hile

a woman does not suffer from uncertainty concerning the maternity of her offspring& a

partner%s infidelity may include other risks. irst& she may contract a se'ually

transmitted disease& a considerable risk as over ;3< of the cases of infertility are the

result of such a disease. /econd& she may have to share her partner%s resources with

another woman& and& even more threatening& she runs the risk that her partner will direct

all his support to another partner. Because males can copulate with females while

minimi1ing their investments& an emotional bond of one%s mate with another female will

be felt as particularly threatening for women (Buss& =arsen& 6esten * /emmelroth&

+,,2 Buunk * !ijkstra& 233+4.

8he defining feature of a jealousy evoking situation is that it involves a rival who

is interested in ones partner& or in whom ones partner is interested. 9ndividuals do not

become jealous when their mate ends the relationship for other reasons& such as when

the partner is killed in an automobile accident& moves to a far away city for work

(athes& Adams * !avies& +,>;4 or ends the relationship without getting involved with

someone else (Parrott& +,,+4. /upport for the centrality of a rival for the occurrence of

jealousy was found by )upka& ?tto& 8arabrina and @eidl (+,,4 who& in three cultures


4/494

(@ussia& the "/ and #ermany4& e'amined the nouns individuals associate with jealousy.

8hey found that& although individuals in the three cultures differed on most nouns&

individuals in all three cultures agreed that the words rival and se' were associated

strongly with jealousy& but not to emotions such as anger& envy and fear& indicating that

rivalry over a se'ual relationship is central and discriminating feature of the emotion of

jealousy.

As a conse5uence of intrase'ual selection& individuals will have developed in the

course of evolution a tendency to compare themselves with a rival who is pursuing one%s

romantic partner to assess if the rival may constitute a threat. 8he central assumption in

our program of research is that& because of mens and women%s different mate

preferences& men and women will differ in what type of rival they find most disturbing.

8here is considerable evidence that men& more than women& value physical attractive7

ness in a partner& supposedly because a woman%s physical attractiveness signals her

reproductive value (Buss& +,>, Buss * Barnes& +,>- 0unningham +,>- eingold&

+,,3 Kenrick * Keefe& +,,2 Kenrick et al.& +,,3 athes& Brennan& )augen * @ice&

+,>; /ymons& +,C,4. 8herefore& jealousy in women will be particularly driven by a

rivals physical attractiveness. 9n contrast& women& more than men& value dominance

and status in a partner& supposedly because these features are related to a man%s ability to

provide protection and resources. (Barber& +,,; Buss& +,>, Buss * Barnes& +,>-

Kenrick& /adalla& #roth * 8rost& +,,3 /adalla& Kenrick& Dershure& +,>C 8ownsend&

+,>, 8ownsend * =evy& +,,3 8ownsend * 6asserman& +,,>4. 8herefore& jealousy in

men will be influenced particularly by the rival%s dominance and status& and in women

more by the rival%s physical attractiveness.


5/495

Inventory of relevant rival characteristics

?ur research program started off with a number of studies that investigated the

jealousy7evoking nature of all those rival characteristics that may& at least to some

e'tent& evoke jealousy. 8hat is& we first e'amined what rival characteristics individuals

spontaneously mention when asked about those rival characteristics that would evoke

most feelings of jealousy. As is common in jealousy research& to evoke these

characteristics we presented participants with a scenario (e.g. Buss et al.& +,,2 Buss et

al.& 2333 !e/teno * /alovey& +,,- athes& Adams& * !avies& +,>; c9ntosh *

8ate& +,,2 /harpsteen& +,,; 6iederman * Algeier& +,, Eammuner * rijda& +,,F4.

Although a hypothetical situation may not generate responses that +33< reliably reflect

how individuals behave in real life& these projected responses may provide an inde'

of how subjects tend to react to a comparable situation in real life (/hettel7Geuber&

Bryson& * Houng& +,C>4. oreover& as /hettel7Geuber& Bryson& and Houng (+,C>4 state

in their study Iattempts to create jealousy in e'isting relationships carry with them a

great degree of of ethical risk that may be difficult to justify& and attempts to observe

naturally occuring incidents of jealousy suffer from a lack of ade5uate e'perimental

controlJ (p. -+24.

As in all our subse5uent studies& in this study we used the following scenario:

.. you are at a party with your girlfriend and you are talking with some of

your friends. Hou notice your girlfriend across the room talking to a man you do

not know. Hou can see from his face that he is very interested in your girlfriend.

)e is listening closely to what she is saying and you notice that he casually

touches her hand. Hou notice that he is flirting with her. After a minute& your


6/496

girlfriend also begins to act flirtatiously. Hou can tell from the way she is looking

at him that she likes him a great deal. 8hey seem completely absorbed in each

other.

6ith regard to the person their partner was flirting with& participants were asked what

kind of person would make them feel most jealous if this situation would happen to

them.

9n total& participants mentioned over -33 rival characteristics. en more often than

women mentioned a rivals physical dominance& IsmoothnessJ and social status as

characteristics that would make them jealous. 9n contrast& although men and women did

not differ with regard to how often they mentioned a rivals overall physical

attractiveness and body build& they more often than men mentioned a rivals se'y

appearance and slenderness as characteristics that would make them jealous. ?n the

basis of these spontaneously mentioned rival characteristics& a 5uestionnaire was

constructed that included ;- characteristics. All characteristics mentioned more than

two times by men or women were included in the 5uestionnaire. 9n addition& characteris7

tics that were mentioned only once were included when prior research had demonstrated

that the specific characteristic contributes to an individual%s mate value. 8he same

scenario as in the previous study was used with the additional 5uestion I6hen my

partner and a different man would flirt with each other& 9 would feel particularly jealous

when that other man ...J. 9n a study among 2F3 college students a factor analysis on

these characteristics showed ; factors:

+.social dominance, e.g.& more spontaneous& more charisma& more attentive& a better

sense of humor& a better listener& more interesting& nicer& more self7confident& a


7/497

better talker& more intelligent& more generous& more elegant& more popular& gives

compliments more easily4.

2. physical attractiveness,e.g.& more slender& more beautiful legs& a better figure& a

more attractive body& more beautiful hips& lighter body build& a more attractive

face& se'ier and dressed better.

. seductive behavior & e.g.& more of a troublemaker& behaves more provocatively&

dressed more nakedly& is smoother and more shrewd& is more of a seducer&

behaves more e'aggeratedlyL

F. physical dominance & e.g.& more muscular& broader shoulders& is built heavier&

bigger& taller& physically stronger& better in sports& tougher.

;. social status & e.g.& a better job& more money& a better education& a beautiful car or

motorcycle& and more successful.

0onsistent with our e'pectations& in this sample& men e'perienced more jealousy

than women when their rival was more socially or physically dominant or had a higher

status than themselves whereas women e'perienced more jealousy then men when their

rival was more physically attractive. en and women did not differ in the e'tent to

which the seductive behavior of their rival evoked feelings of jealousy. Ge't& in a

community sample of +FF individuals& these findings were replicated& demonstrating

that the se' differences were not restricted to college students. "nderlining the

importance of social comparison in jealousy& is the finding that in the community

sample social comparison orientation (i.e.& the dispositional tendency to engage in social

comparisons& Buunk * #ibbons& 233; #ibbons * Buunk& +,,,4& was positively

correlated with jealousy in response to a rivals social dominance& social status& and


8/498

physical attractiveness& and in men also with jealousy in response to a rival%s physical

dominance. 6hile the present 5uestionnaire has not yet been administered in other

cultures& also in samples from the "nited /tates and Korea& it has been found that

women reported more distress to a rival who surpassed them on facial and bodily

attractiveness whereas men reported more distress to a rival who had better financial

and job prospects (Buss et al.& 23334.

Experimentally manipulatin rival characteristics

rom these studies a rivals social dominance and physical attractiveness emerged as

the two rival characteristics that evoked overall most feelings of jealousy. 8o supplement

these correlational studies& we conducted a series of studies in which these rival

characteristics were e'perimentally manipulated. ?nly a handful of studies on jealousy

have employed a similar method (!e/teno * /alovey& +,,- c9ntosh * 8ate& +,,2

Gadler * !otan& +,,2 /hettel7Geuber& Bryson * Houng& +,C>4. 9n our e'perimental

studies& participants were presented with the scenario mentioned previously in which the

participant%s current (real or imagined4 partner was flirting with an opposite7se'

individual. Ge't& the participants received one of four profiles of the individual flirting

with one%s partner& consisting of a picture and a personality description. 8he picture

showed an individual of either high or low physical attractiveness& and the personality

description depicted someone who was either thigh or low in dominance. 8he personality

description of the rival was based on items of the !ominance scale of the Gederlandse

Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst (GPD& !utch Personality Muestionnaire =uteijn& /tarren *

Dan !ijk& +,>;4& the most widely used personality 5uestionnaires in 8he Getherlands. 8he

descriptions of both the low and high dominance rivals are presented in igure +. After


9/49!

they had read the scenario and the profile& participants were asked how they would

respond to this situation by filling out a multiple7adjective rating scale that included the

term %jealous%.

8he first of the studies in this paradigm was conducted among college students

(!ijkstra * Buunk& +,,>4& and showed that the hypothesi1ed se' difference clearly

emerged: jealousy in men was in particular influenced by the rival%s dominance whereas

jealousy in women was in particular influenced by the rival%s physical attractiveness (see

igures 24. Gevertheless& social dominance had a greater impact on men% jealousy scores

when they were e'posed to a physically unattractive rival than when they were e'posed to

an attractive rival. 9t seems as if men first focus on the most salient characteristic of their

rival& i.e. his physical appearance. 6hen they observe that the rival is physically very

attractive& they seem to pay not too much attention anymore to the e'tent to which the

rival has dominant personality characteristics. 9n contrast& when men conclude that their

rival is unattractive& they seem to be more keen to assess if their rival has a dominant 7 and

therefore potentially threatening 7 personality.

6hile these findings are in line with evolutionary predictions& they do not speak to the

mechanisms that are involved in assessing the threat of a rival. rom an evolutionary

perspective& such findings can reflect at least two different types of adaptive mechanisms.

9n the first place& there may be a se'7specific rival oriented mechanism. 8hat is& in the

course of our evolution& when confronted with a rival& males and females may have

developed a sensitivity to se' specific rival characteristics. 9n the second place& males and

females may have developed a general partner7oriented mechanism& i.e. a sensitivity to

what one%s partner and one%s potential partners may find attractive in a mate. A


10/491"

homose'ual sample offers the opportunity to e'amine the validity of both interpretations&

because& as we will argue& for homose'uals the two perspectives lead to different

predictions. A se'7specific rival oriented mechanism would be e'pected on the basis of

the reasoning put forward by /ymons (+,C,4. According to /ymons& homose'uals have

the same set of se'ual mental mechanisms as do heterose'uals& e'cept for the se' of their

se' mates. 8he notion of modularity or domain specificity of psychological processes

(Kenrick& Keefe& Bryan& Barr * Brown& +,,;4 elaborates on /ymons%s assumption by stat7

ing that different psychological processes involved in reproduction& such as se'ual prefer7

ences& mate preferences and jealousy& are controlled by a number of independent mecha7

nisms. Because of the relative autonomy of these mechanisms& a difference in one of these

mechanisms is not necessarily accompanied by differences in all related mechanisms.

ollowing this notion of modularity& a change in se'ual orientation would not necessarily

alter the rival characteristics that evoke jealousy& suggesting that the same se' difference

in rival characteristics would emerge as among heterose'uals. 8hus& jealousy in gay men

would be evoked more by a rival%s dominance than by a rival%s physical attractiveness&

whereas jealousy in lesbian women would be evoked more by a rival%s physical attractive7

ness than by a rival%s dominance.

9n contrast& a general partner7oriented mechanism would imply that such se'

differences would be dependent on whether individuals are heterose'ual or homose'ual.

8hat is& differences between gay men and lesbian women in the rival characteristics that

evoke jealousy& would reflect differences in the characteristics that gay men and lesbian

women respectively& value in a mate. A number of studies have found that gay men%s

mate preferences are hardly distinguishable from those of heterose'ual men (Bailey&


11/4911

#aulin& Agyei& * #ladue& +,,F !eau' and )anna& +,>F Kenrick& Keefe& Bryan& Barr&

* Brown& +,,;4: like heterose'ual men& gay men show little interest in a potential

partner%s status but show high interest in a potential partner%s physical attractiveness (see

also /ymons& +,C,4. )owever& lesbian women seem to have& compared with hetero7

se'ual women& a more masculine pattern of mating psychology. or instance& compared

to heterose'ual women& lesbian women seem more interested in younger partner

($ankowiak& )ill& * !onovan& +,,24& and less concerned with their partner%s status

(Bailey et al.& +,,F4. #iven these mate preferences among heterose'uals& the e'istence

of a general partner7oriented mechanism would be supported when jealousy in homo7

se'ual men would be evoked more by a rival%s physical attractiveness than a rival%s

dominance& whereas jealousy in lesbian women would be evoked more by both a rival%s

physical attractiveness and a rival%s dominance.

"sing the same paradigm as in the !ijkstra and Buunk (+,,>4 study& in a study by

Buunk and !ijkstra (233+4 homose'ual participants were presented with a scenario in

which their partner was flirting with an individual of the same se'. 8he results showed

clear support for the e'istence of se'7specific rival mechanism. 8hat is& lesbian women&

but not gay men& reported more jealousy when they were e'posed to a physically

attractive rival as compared to a physically unattractive rival. #ay males& but not lesbian

women& reported more jealousy when they were e'posed to a rival high in dominance as

compared to a rival low in dominance& especially when e'posed to a physically unat7

tractive rival. 8hus& these findings strongly suggest that males and females posses an

evolved mechanism through which they respond more or less automatically to those

rival characteristics that have been important in se'ual selection in our evolutionary


12/4912

past. As a result of this& homose'uals seem to be endowed with a jealousy mechanism

that is not completely adapted to their situation as they tend not to respond most

jealously to those characteristics that are& given the mate preferences of their partners&

constitute the largest threat.

?ne of the possible problems with both the correlational and e'perimental studies

we described here& is the possibility of demand characteristics. 8hat is& participants may

have had theories about research hypotheses and may have responded accordingly. 9n

order to try to avoid this limitation& in a new series of e'periments we have chosen to

present participants with rival characteristics without their knowledge of being e'posed

to them& i.e. we presented rival characteristics subliminally. 8o our knowledge& the use

of subliminal priming in jealousy research is new. #iven the importance of rival

evaluation for reproductive success it seems plausible that sensitivity to rival

characteristics has evolved in such a way that these characteristics may be perceived

even outside conscious awareness.

A large body of evidence from the social cognition literature suggests that people

may evaluate a target immediately upon as NgoodN or NbadN without being consciously

aware of the othersN presence. "nobtrusively presenting participants with certain cues

may nonconsciously influence their evaluations of others (a1io& /anbonmatsu& Powell&

* Kardes& +,>- !evine& +,>, erguson& Bargh& * Gayak& 233;4. /ome research using

this paradigm has already been linked to evolutionary psychology. ocusing on the

social cognitive aspects of mate attraction& @oney (2334 established that the mere

visual e'posure to young women caused young men to adopt more favorable attitudes

toward material wealth than young men e'posed to other men. 8hese effects were found


13/4913

without mens awareness of the influence of the e'perimental manipulation& suggesting

that visual stimuli from females act as imput cues that are capable of priming mating

related constructs and behaviors in males.

!irectly relevant to the present issue& recent research suggests that people not only

evaluate persons that are presented to them subliminally& but also make social

comparisons with these targets. 8argets presented subliminally either in the form of

photographs of well7known people (e.g. Oinstein& see /tapel * Blanton& 233F4& or in the

form of names of well7known people (e.g. ichael $ordan& see Baumeister& 233F4&

appeared to induce changes in self7evaluations. Applying such findings to rival

evaluation& we hypothesi1ed that the mere e'posure to rival characteristics through

subliminal priming& would induce a comparison between oneself and the rival literally

in the blink of an eye& and that the degree of jealousy would be based on the outcome of

this comparison.

9n the first study using subliminal priming (assar *& 233;4& participants were told

that they were going to make an %association task%& and that there task was to indicate as

5uickly as possible if two neutral words presented on the screen were related to each

other by pressing one of two colored keys on the keyboard.

8he visible %association% words in the task had no relation to rival characteristics& but

were neutral words like %house% and %garden%. !uring this task& and in between the two

neutral words& participants were subliminally e'posed to the rival characteristics. Oach

word was preceded by a personal pronoun& %he% for the men and %she% for the women& and

both primes were presented for +C ms each. 8he pronouns were included to ensure that

participants would not relate the rival characteristics to themselves& but would project


14/4914

them onto a person described in the scenario presented to them after the association

task. 8he rival characteristics used in the subliminal priming procedure were taken from

a preliminary study in which men and women were asked to generate words relating to

attractiveness and social dominance. or the present e'periment& the characteristics that

were mentioned most often by these participants were chosen. or the attractiveness

condition& these were %pretty', 'beautiful', 'slender', and 'sexy%. or the social dominance

condition& %tough', 'money', 'power'& and 'success% were used. 8here were four rival

characteristics for each condition& and each word was presented five times& making a

total of 23 trials. A trial would consist of a neutral word (presented for +.; sec4& a

personal pronoun (+C ms4& a rival characteristic (+C ms4 and then another neutral word

(+.; sec4. After completing the association task& participants read a shortened version of

the jealousy scenario used in the studies described above.

8he results showed that subliminally priming in this conte't clearly worked&

although we found the hypothesi1ed effects only for individuals with a high mate value

(see igure 4. 8hese participants obviously differentiated between the rival

characteristics: women reported more jealousy when e'posed to words relating to

physical attractiveness than to social dominance words& and men reported more jealousy

after e'posure to social dominance words than to attractiveness words. Participants with

a low mate value reported more overall jealousy& independent of the characteristics of

the rival.

6hy did we find the effects only for individuals with a high mate value rom an

evolutionary point of view& it is adaptive for people with low mate value to react

strongly to the presence of any rivals& independent of their characteristics. After all& not


15/4915

only is their partner more likely to abandon them in favor of the more attractive rival&

but should this actually happen& there is a risk they might not find another partner. ?n

the other hand& people with a high mate value can afford to be more differentiated in

their jealous responses. or them& it is more relevant to focus on those characteristics

that make a rival a more desirable partner than they themselves are& e.g. physical

attractiveness for women and social dominance for men. A similar pattern of results was

found by Buunk and !ijkstra (2334 who showed that women who felt they had a low

6aist )ip @atio (6)@4& that is& a good figure& reported more jealousy after e'posure to

a rival who also had a low 6)@& than women who felt they had a high 6)@.

Although the effects were limited to those with a high mate value& this study

established for the first time that it is possible to induce jealousy in participants through

subliminal presentation of se'7specific rival characteristics. 8he effects reported here

were found without participants awareness of having noticed the rival characteristics.

?ne might argue that the e'ternal validity of our paradigm is limited as we used words

to describe the rival characteristics. )owever& in real life& this may indeed happen 5uite

regularly& for instance when one%s partner describes the characteristics of someone of the

opposite se' he or she knows. ?ur findings suggest that unconsciously linking certain

features to a third person& leads to %projecting% these characteristics onto a rival that is

without any characteristics described in a scenario. oreover& in line with recent

research on subliminal social comparison (ussweiler& 233 /tapel * Blanton& 233F4&

given the se'7specific differentiated responses to the rival characteristics& and the

moderating role of one%s own mate value& it seems that the participants made a

comparison between the rival and themselves& causing them to report more or less


16/4916

jealousy.

9n a ne't e'periment& using the same paradigm& we e'amined to what e'tent the

jealousy evoking effects of rival characteristics depended on the menstrual cycle of the

woman. 9t can be argued that the during the fertile period of a woman%s menstrual cycle&

the presence of a rival could be an especially large threat to the relationship& for women

as well as for men. Previous research has established that women tend to be more prone

to feelings of jealousy during the time of high fertility risk& and are especially sensitive

to cues of emotional infidelity (#aulin& /ilverman& Phillips& * @eiber& +,,C Krug& inn&

Pietrowsky& ehm& * Born& +,,-4. 6e therefore reasoned that a physically attractive

rival would be especially threatening to women who were at the time of the e'periment

in the ovulatory phase of their menstrual cycle. @esearch has also shown that women

rate men who display signs of social dominance as more attractive during the fertile

phases of their menstrual cycle than during the non7fertile phases of their cycle

(#angestad& /impson& 0ousins& #arver7Apgar& * 0hristensen& 233F4. oreover& men

tend to be more attentive and proprietary during the fertile phases of their girlfriends%

menstrual cycle (#angestad& 8hornhill * #arver& 23324. 8herefore& it can be e'pected

that for men& the presence of a socially dominant rival is especially threatening during

the fertile phases of their partner%s menstrual cycle.

9n our ne't study& which employed the same paradigm as the previous study (e.g.

participants were subliminally primed with words relating to rival characteristics4& the

menstrual cycle of both the female participants and of the male participants% girlfriends

was assessed. Preliminary results showed that women in the fertile phase of their

menstrual cycle did indeed report more jealousy than women in the non7fertile phase of


17/4917

their cycle& and did report more jealousy after e'posure to a physically attractive rival

than after e'posure to a socially dominant rival. en whose girlfriends were in the

fertile phase of their menstrual cycle at the time of the e'periment reported more

jealousy after e'posure to a socially dominant rival than after e'posure to a physically

attractive rival (assar& Buunk * !echesne& 233;4. 8hus& these results show that

menstrual cycle apparently has a strong effect on the sensitivity to intrase'ual

competition as it affects how men and women respond to subliminally presented rival

characteristics.

#o$y %uil$

6hile the previous studies operationali1ed physical attractiveness as facial

attractiveness& the study by !ijkstra and Buunk (2334 indicated that particularly

features like having more beautiful legs& a better figure& a more attractive body& more

beautiful hips& a lighter and more slender body build were important rival

characteristics. 9ndeed& many studies have shown& however& that the body is at least as

an important determinant of physical attractiveness than the face& in particular when

individuals are observed from a distance (Alicke& /mith& * Klot1& +,>- ueser& #rau&

/ussman& * @osen& +,>F Pedersen& arkee * /alusso& +,,F4. A series of studies

employing different methods& and e'amining various populations& including

preadolescent& e'ican7American& British and #reek participants& have shown that

particularly for women a low waist7to7hip ratio (6)@4 is an important determinant of

attractiveness that is independent of weight (urnham& outafi * Baguma& 2332

urnham& 8an * canus& +,,C )enss& +,,; arkey& 8insley& Oricksen& ?1er& *

arkey& 2332 /ingh& +,, +,,; /treeter * acBurney& 2334. 8he ultimate reason


18/4918

that a low 6)@ is perceived as attractive& is that it is actually associated with health and

fertility. Gevertheless& there is evidence that in many non76esterni1ed societies the

attractiveness of a woman may be mainly determined by her weight (e.g.& 6etsman *

arlowe& +,,, Hu * /hepard& +,,>4& supposedly because in cultures where few

resources are available to provide ade5uate nutrition& being overweight and having a

high 6)@ may be viewed as signs of high status& wealth and prosperity.

6e e'pected that rivals with a favorable 6)@ would evoke more jealousy than

rivals with an unfavorable 6)@. 6e used the stimuli developed by /ingh (+,, +,,;4

that manipulate the rivals 6)@ by varying the si1e of the waist. )owever& with this

procedure& one unintentionally manipulates a rivals degree of body taper as well: as the

waist narrows& not only the 6)@ decreases& but also the body taper seems to increase.

8his is 5uite relevant as there is considerable evidence that body taper is a more

important determinant of male than of female physical attractiveness e.g.& ran1oi *

)er1og& +,>C )orvath& +,C, =ippa& +,>4& assumedly because it reflects a mans level

of physical dominance& a feature highly valued by women& but not by men in a mate.

8here is indeed medical evidence that the pelvic7shoulder ratio correlates positively

with beta7lipoproteins& hormones that are related to testosterone levels and muscle

development in men (e.g.& Ovans& +,C24. 9n line with& among others& )orvath (+,C,4& we

manipulated body taper by varying the shoulder7to7hip7ratio (/)@4. 6hile we e'pected

rivals with lower 6)@s to evoke relatively more jealousy in females than in males& we

e'pected rivals with higher /)@s to evoke relatively more jealousy in males than in

females. 6e also asked participants which body parts they had paid attention to while

evaluating the rivals.


19/491!

9n a first study with this paradigm& (!ijkstra * Buunk& 2334 we presented a sample

of students with line drawings (derived from the work by /ingh& +,,4 of individuals of

the same se' as themselves. 8he drawings had identical facial and bodily features and

only differed in the si1e of their 6)@ and /)@. 8he results showed that rivals with a

low as opposed to a 6)@ evoked indeed more jealousy in women than in men. 9n

contrast& rivals with a high as opposed to low /)@ evoked more jealousy in men than in

women& particularly when the rival had a high 6)@ (see igure F4. 9n evaluating the

rivals& women indicated that they had paid more attention to the rivalsN waist& hips& and

legs& and men indicated that they had paid more attention to the rivals% shoulders& chest&

and belly.

A second study e'amined the role of 6)@ and /)@ of rivals in evoking jealousy in

a sample of adults in various age groups from the general population (Buunk * !ijkstra&

233;4. 8here were two reasons to conduct this study. irst& students form a very

restricted sample with regard to age and educational level& limiting the generi1ability of

the findings by !ijkstra and Buunk (233+4. /econd& and more importantly& according to

life history theory& men may follow two important strategies to achieve reproductive

success (e.g.& )ill * )urtado& +,,-4: a strategy of physical dominance or a strategy of

eminence (Kemper& +,,34. Physical dominance refers to the elevated social rank that is

achieved by physical competition& and contributes especially to the mate value of young

men who at their peak with regard to health and fitness (Kemper& +,,34. 9n contrast&

eminence refers to the elevated rank that is achieved through socially approved

accomplishments& which will peak as men get older& whereas their physical dominance

will decline. Because men most often will be confronted with rivals of appro'imately


20/492"

the same age (due to womens preference for males who are only slightly older than

themselves Kenrick * Keefe& +,,24& it was e'pected that as men get older& a rivals

/)@ will play a less important role in evoking jealousy. 9n contrast& it was e'pected that

a rivals 6)@ will continue to evoke jealousy among women as they get older&

particularly because& regardless of age& men tend to prefer women who signal health&

youth and fertility (e.g.& Buunk& !ijkstra * Kenrick& 6arntjes& 233+ Kenrick * Keefe&

+,,24. 6e further e'amined if jealousy evoked by rivals with varying a 6)@s and

/)@s differed depending on ones own 6)@ or /)@.

8he results were largely in line with the previous study (Buunk * !ijkstra& 233;4.

)owever& as predicted& as men were older& the /)@ of the rival was a less important

factor in evoking jealousy& whereas among women jealousy in response to the rivalNs

6)@ was not affected by age. oreover& the rivals /)@ was also a more important

determinant of perceptions of social and physical dominance as men were younger.

@emarkably& among men& the low 6)@7low /)@ rival& that is& the rival with a linear

and slender body build& evoked the highest level of jealousy and was perceived as the

most attractive and the most socially dominant of all rivals. Probably& this type of rival

is perceived by adult men as having the highest level of eminence& and therefore as the

most threatening. 8here is indeed some evidence that a linear and slender body build is

associated with the strategy of eminence. or e'ample& men with such a body build have

been found to be more reflective (Kagan& +,--4& to be more interested in higher status

vocations such as school superintendent and lawyer& and to attain a higher occupational

level (!eabler et al.& +,C;4. 9n contrast& men with a an athletic and muscular body build

have been found to be relatively energetic& physically fit& but also to show relatively a


21/4921

lower impulse control and a higher competitive aggressiveness (e.g.& Bridges * $ones&

+,C34& which might lead to physical dominance early in life& but may not be conducive

to attaining a high position in the societal hierarchy (for a review see Kemper& +,,3

!abbs& +,,24.

An important limitation of these studies was that we used a within7subjects design in

which participants viewed the various figures simultaneously& which may have evoked

demand characteristics as participants may have had theories about the research

hypotheses and may responding accordingly. 9n a ne't e'periment& we e'amined if

individuals may perceive the figure of the rival automatically and unconsciously. 9n this

e'periment& male participants were subliminally e'posed to the line drawings. 8his

time& a parafoveal priming procedure was used& whereby the primes are presented in the

periphery of the attended region (Bargh * 0hartrand& 23334. or male participants& a

figure with a high shoulder7to7hip ratio (e.g. an attractive body shape& indicating social

dominance4 and a figure with a low shoulder7to7hip ratio (an unattractive body shape4

were chosen as primes. Participants were assigned to either the attractive prime

condition& or the unattractive prime condition. 8hey were told to focus on the %Q% in the

centre of the screen and to indicate as fast as possible on which side of the Q they saw a

flash by pressing a key on the keyboard. 8he prime (the line drawing4 was randomly

presented for -3 ms in one of the four parafoveal regions& and was immediately masked.

A random delay between the primes was inserted to avoid an anticipated response by

participants. oreover& the primes were alternated with neutral pictures of geometrical

shapes. All in all& participants were e'posed to -F trials& +- of which consisted of the

primes. After the priming procedure& the shortened version of the jealousy evoking


22/4922

scenario was presented to the participants and jealousy was measured with a slider on

the computer screen.

8he results from this e'periment were in line with the results from the !ijkstra and

Buunk (2334 study: men reported significantly more jealousy after subliminal e'posure

to the figure with the attractive body shape (high /)@4 than after e'posure to the figure

with the unattractive body shape (low /)@4. Apparently& the men in this study were

able to detect another man%s body shape without being aware of it& and their behaviour

was influenced by these impressions. 9n a future e'periment& female participants will be

subliminally e'posed to either a line drawing of a figure with a low 6)@ (a physically

attractive body shape4 or a line drawing of a figure with a high 6)@ (unattractive body

shape4.

&exual versus emotional infi$elity

?ne might argue that even automatic gender differences in the importance attached

to the dominance and attractiveness of rivals& do not necessarily reflect evolved

differences& but may simply be due to cultural learning. 8he validity of an evolutionary

perspective would be particularly strengthened if we could define on the basis of such a

perspective conditions under which the oppositese' difference would occur. 6hile it is

often assumed that an evolutionary perspective is insensitive to conte't& we would like

to argue that considering men%s and women%s reproductive interests in a given situation&

an evolutionary approach may make very specific predictions on the way in which se'

differences may depend on the conte't. 6ith respect to jealousy& an important

conte'tual factor is the type of threat implied by the infidelity. en& and not women&

have faced in the course of evolution& the problem of uncertainty with regard to the


23/4923

paternity of their offspring. 6hen their partner is se'ually unfaithful& men may incur

serious costs as they may& unknowingly& invest heavily in another man%s offspring without

passing on their own genes. 8herefore& male jealousy will have evolved as a mechanism

to prevent one%s partners se'ual involvement with another man& and this mechanism will

be primarily elicited by signs of the partner%s se'ual infidelity (6ilson * !aly& +,,24. 9n

contrast& for women& their partners infidelity might have included the risk of having to

share her partners resources with another woman& and& even more threatening& the risk

that he might leave her for that other woman. Because men can have se' with women

while minimi1ing their investments& evidence of an emotional bond may be a reliable

indicator to women of the potential loss of their partner%s investment. 8herefore& women

would especially e'perience jealousy when their partner is emotionally unfaithful (Buss et

al.& +,,24.

A series of studies in the "nited /tates& the Getherlands& 0hina& #ermany& Korea&

/weden and $apan suggests indeed that when asked to choose what they find most

upsetting& more men than women do indeed find se'ual infidelity of their partner more

upsetting& whereas more women than men do find emotional infidelity of their partner

more upsetting (e.g.& Bailey& #aulin& Agyei& * #ladue& +,,F Buss& =arsen& 6esten& *

/emmelroth& +,,2 Buunk& +,>- Buunk& Angleitner& ?ubaid& * Buss& +,,- 0ann&

angum * 6ells& 233+ !e/teno * /alovey& +,,-b )arris * 0hristenfeld +,,-

)upka * Bank& +,,- 6iederman * Kendall& +,,,4. 9n addition& participants are also

more physiologically upset& as measured by heart rate& electrodermal response&

corrugator supercilii contraction& in line with the predicted gender difference (see also

Pietr1ak& =aird& /tevens& * 8hompson& 23324& although these physiological data could


24/4924

later not be replicated by #rice and /eely (23334 nor by )arris (23334. 9t must be noted&

however& that the gender difference may not occur when rating scales instead of a

forced7choice paradigm are used (!e/teno& Bartlett& Braverman& * /alovey& 2332

6iederman * Allgeier& +,,4& when personal e'periences with a partner%s actual

infidelity are recalled ()arris& 23324& when individuals are under cognitive constraint

(!e/teno& Bartlett& Braverman& * /alovey& 23324& or when individuals do have

e'perience with infidelity ()arris& 2332 /agarin& Becker& #uadagno& Gicastle& *

illevoi& 2334. urthermore& men are mostly e5ually split when it comes to choosing

which type of infidelity they would find the most upsetting.

6e assumed that our studies that found gender differences in the jealousy7evoking

nature of rival characteristics implied primarily emotional jealousy& and that under

conditions of %pure% emotional infidelity& rivals will be evaluated more as potential

threats to the relationship and that& therefore& the jealousy7evoking effect of rival

characteristics will strongly reflect the importance of long7term partner preferences.

)owever& when confronted with une5uivocal se'ual infidelity without the potential of

the development of an emotional attachment& gender differences in the characteristics

that evoke jealousy may be 5uite different& and even opposite. 9n our evolutionary past&

important reasons (though not necessarily conscious motivations4 why women might

have engaged in e'tradyadic se' might have included the ac5uisition of Ngood genesN

that would increase offspring 5uality& the ac5uisition of Nse'y sonsN genes that would

increase a son%s chance of reproductive success& and the promotion of genetic diversity

as a buffer against an unpredictable environment (e.g.& Buss& +,,F /cheib& 233+4. All

these potential benefits would be served by having se' with physically attractive men


25/4925

because a mans physical appearance is the only 5uick way to assess the 5uality of his

genes (Buss& +,,F4. 8herefore& in the case of %pure% se'ual infidelity& men would

particularly pay attention to the attractiveness of the rival rather than to his social

dominance or status. or women& the situation is 5uite different. /e'ual infidelity as

such has from an evolutionary point of view not posed a threat to a woman%s

reproductive success. 8herefore& for women& it is relatively unimportant who the rival is

in a purely se'ual fling of their partners.

6e also assumed that& because se'ual and emotional infidelity are 5ualitatively

different situations& they will evoke 5ualitatively different types of affective responses.

According to several authors& the e'act content of the emotional e'perience of jealousy

depends strongly upon the specific aspects of a jealousy7evoking situation that

individuals cognitively focus upon (e.g.& Parrot * /mith& +,, /harpsteen& +,,+4.

8herefore& we e'pected that in the case of a partners emotional infidelity& an'iety and

insecurity due to a threat to the continuation of the primary relationship will become

salient. 8his response has been called preventive (Buunk& +,,C4 or suspicious

jealousy (!e/teno * /alovey& +,,F Parrott& +,,+4. 9n contrast& when e'tradyadic se'

has already occurred& and thus the partner has committed an act that violates the widely

held norm of faithfulness& individuals will usually respond with anger and betrayal to an

e'tradyadic affair of one%s partner& in particular when the infidelity is perceived as

undeserved or unfair (Buunk& +,,; athes& Adams * !avies& +,>; Parrott& +,,+

/harpsteen& +,,+4.

9n our study (Buunk * !ijkstra& 233;4& we e'posed men and women to the

scenario used in our previous studies. )owever& in the se'ual infidelity condition& the


26/4926

following was add to the scenario:

9n the course of the evening you lose track of her. 8he ne't day your girlfriend

tells you that they kissed passionately that night and that she has seldom had such good

se' as with this man. ?n a se'ual level& they connected in an intense and very special

way. /he does& however& assure you that she only feels se'ually attracted to this man and

does not feel emotionally attached to him.

9n the emotional infidelity the following was added to the scenario:

9n the course of the evening you lose track of her. 8he ne't day your girlfriend

tells you that she had felt an immediate connection with this man and that she seldom met

someone with whom she could talk so well. ?n a personal level& they connected in a

uni5ue and very special way. /he does& however& assure you that she does not feel

se'ually attracted to this man and that she only feels emotionally attached to him.

8he results showed that jealousy evoked by emotional infidelity was primarily

characteri1ed by feelings of threat& and jealousy after se'ual infidelity was primarily

characteri1ed by feelings of betrayal and anger. ollowing emotional infidelity& in men&

a rivals dominance& and in women& a rivals physical attractiveness& evoked feelings of

threat (and not of anger7betrayal4. 9n contrast& after se'ual infidelity& in men& but not in

women& a rivals physical attractiveness evoked feelings of betrayal7anger (and not of

an'iety or suspicion4. 8hus& our study showed that the gender differences found in many

of our studies are confined to pure emotional infidelity& and that in the case of pure

se'ual infidelity& the se' difference is in part reversed& with men& and not women&

responding with more jealousy to physically attractive rivals. 8his latter finding reflects

the importance of physical attractiveness as an attribute for women in the conte't of


27/4927

casual se'ual affairs (Buss& +,,F 6iederman * !ubois& +,,> #angestad et al.& 233F4.

9n a related e'periment& we e'amined if subliminally presenting se'7related versus

intimacy7related words would affect responses to different types of rivals& and if this

would depend on one%s se' drive. 6e assumed that for individuals with a high se' drive&

activating se' related constructs will make intrase'ual competition particularly salient&

whereas for individuals with a low se' drive activating intimacy related constructs will

make intrase'ual competition particularly salient. 8hat is& someone with a high se' drive

will be more oriented to short7term mating and having se' with multiple partners&

whereas someone with a low se' drive will be more oriented towards long7term mating

and developing a intimate relationship with a single partner. 9n this e'periment&

participants were subliminally primed with words relating either to se' (sex, passion,

making out& and aroused4 or with words relating to intimacy (warmth, intimate,

attached& and committed4. After the priming procedure& they were told to imagine their

partner coming home one day and telling them %9 found someone else%. Ge't& they

indicated& among others& how upset they would be if this %other person% had better career

prospects than they had& and was more attractive than they were. Because these two

variables were the only ones to show significant effects of the primes& and because they

showed the same pattern of responses& they were taken together to form one dependent

variable: upset over a rival%s characteristics.

As shown in igure ;& the results showed that there was no main effect of prime& but

that there was a main effect of se' drive. en with a high se' drive reported feeling

more upset than men with a low se' drive over the rival%s characteristics. 8he

interactions between se' drive and prime were also significant. or men who had been


28/4928

primed with intimacy& se' drive did not influence their feelings of upset over a rivals

characteristics. )owever& when they had been primed with se'& se' drive did influence

mens responses: men with a high se' drive reported feeling more upset over a rivals

characteristics than men with a low se' drive. 8hese results suggest that men with a high

se' drive are more prone to engage in intrase'ual competition& especially when they are

confronted with the se'ual infidelity of their partner (assar * Buunk& 233-4.

'onclusion

Although some people like to believe that& despite their biological differences& men

and women are essentially the same& according to evolutionary psychology men and

women do not only have different bodies& they also have different minds. 8his is in

particular due to the fact that& during their life& women produce only a limited amount of

eggs whereas men produce billions of sperms. 8his has lead men and women to make

essentially different investments in their offspring& producing different adaptive

problems for men and women (Buss& +,,F iller& 23334. 9n this chapter we presented a

series of results from our program that e'amined the conse5uences from these different

adaptive problems for intrase'ual competition. "sing both descriptive and e'perimental

methods as well as various kinds of stimuli material& our findings show that there are

consistent gender differences in the jealousy7evoking effect of particular rival

characteristics. ost of our findings sing a single song that is& whereas jealousy in

women is evoked more than in men by a rival s physical attractiveness& jealousy in men

more than in women is evoked by a rivals status and dominance related features. 8his

gender difference was found when physical attractiveness was defined as general

attractiveness& facial attractiveness& and waist7to7hip ratio& and when status and


29/492!

dominance related features were defined as social dominance& physical dominance&

shoulder7to7hip ratio and social status. ?f course& one might argue that such se'

difference mainly reflect culturally learned norms concerning what is appropriate for

each se'. )owever& this e'planation appears to fall short in e'plaining an increasing and

diverse number of findings. irst& among lesbian women and gay men the same se'

differences were found& suggesting that& overall& males and females posses an evolved

mechanism through which they respond more or less automatically to those rival charac7

teristics that have been important in se'ual selection in our evolutionary past& even

when& as in the case of homose'uals& this mechanism does not parallel those

characteristics that& given the mate preferences of their partners& constitute the largest

threat. /econd& we found in line with evolutionary reasoning& for males a reversalof the

importance of dominance versus physical attractiveness as an important rival

characteristic in the case of se'ual infidelity. 8hat is& when confronted with an intense

single se'ual contact of one%s partner with a rival& males responded with more jealousy

to a physically attractive rather than to a social dominant rival& paralleling precisely

what women find important in short7term mating. 8hird& we are now obtaining

increasing evidence that men and women respond differently to subliminal cues of rival

characteristics& and that the difference between men and women in the responses to such

cues is in the same way as to e'plicit descriptions of rival characteristics.

Apparently& the evaluation of rivals in a romantic jealousy situation may occur

outside conscious awareness& and such automatic responses are affected by factors

which are relevant from an evolutionary perspective& such as mate value and fertility of

the female. 8o conclude then& our program is unraveling in more and more detail how


30/493"

the male and female mind are made up to pay attention in different ways to specific rival

characteristics.


31/4931

(eferences

Alicke& .!.& /mith& @.).& * Klot1& .=. (+,>-4. $udgements of physical

attractiveness: the role of faces and bodies.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin&

+2& >+7>,.

Bailey& $..& #aulin& /.& Agyei& H.& * #ladue& B.A. (+,,F4. Offects of gender and

se'ual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of human mating.Journal of

Personality and SocialPsychology& --& +3>+7+3,.

Barber& G. (+,,;4. 8he evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: /e'ual

selection and human morphology.Ethology and Sociobiology& +-& ,;7F2F.

Bargh& $.A.& * 0hartrand& 8.=. (23334. 8he mind in the middle. A practical guide to

priming and automaticity research. 9n: ).8. @eis * 0.. $udd (eds4.andbook of

research methods in social and personality psychology (pp 2;72>;4. Gew Hork:

0ambridge "niversity Press.

Baumeister,@.. (233F4 #ender and erotic plasticity: /ociocultural influences on the

se' drive. Sexual and !elationship "herapy& +,& +7+,.

Bridges& P.K.& * $ones& .8. (+,C34. A ta'onomic study of physiological responses

to a psychological stress.Journal of #eurology, #eurosurgery and Psychiatry& &

+>37+>C.

Buss& !.. (+,>,4. /e' differences in human mate preferences: Ovolutionary

hypotheses tested in C cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences& +2& +7F,.

Buss& !. . (+,,F4. 8he evolution of desire: /trategies of human mating. Gew

Hork: Basic Books.


32/4932

Buss& !..& * Barnes& .. (+,>-4. Preferences in human mate selection.Journal

ofPersonality and Social Psychology& ;3& ;;,7;C3.

Buss& !..& =arsen& @.$.& 6esten& !.& * /emmelroth& $. (+,,24. /e' differences in

jealousy: Ovolution& physiology& and psychology$ Psychological Science& & 2;+72;;.

Buss& !..& /hackelford& 8.K.& 0hoe& $.& !ijkstra& P.& * Buunk& B.P. (23334.

!istress about ating @ivals.Personal !elationships& C& 2;72F.

Buunk& B.P. (+,>-4. )usband%s jealousy. 9n @.A. =ewis * @.O. /alt (Ods.4&%en in

families(pp. ,C7++F4. Beverly )ills: /age.

Buunk& B.P. (+,,;4. /e'& self7esteem& dependency and e'tradyadic se'ual e'peri7

ences as related to jealousy responses.Journal of Social and Personal !elationships, +2&

+FC7+;.

Buunk& B.P. (+,,C4.Personality& birth order and attachment styles as related to

various types of jealousy.Personality and &ndividual ifferences&2& ,,C7+33-.

Buunk& B.P.& Angleitner& A.& ?ubaid& D.& * Buss& !.. (+,,-4. /e' differences in

jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective.: 8est fram the Getherlands& #ermany&

and the "nited /tatesPsychological Science, (,;,7-.

Buunk& B.P.& !ijkstra& P.& Kenrick& !.8.& * 6arntjes& A. (233+4. Age preferences for

mates as related to gender& own age and involvement level.Evolution and uman

Behavior& 22& 2F+72;3$

Buunk& B.P. * !ijkstra& P. (2334. en& women and infidelity: se' differences in

e'tradyadiac se' and jealousy. 9n $. !uncombe& K. )arrison& #. Allan& * !. arsden.

(Ods.4. "he state of affairs$ Explorations in infidelity and commitment$ (pp. +37+234.

ahwah& G$: Orlbaum.


33/4933

Buunk& B.P.& * !ijkstra& P. (233;4. A narrow waist versus broad shoulders: /e' and

age differences in the jealousy7evoking characteristics of a rivals body build.

Personality and &ndividual ifferences,)*,C,7>,.

Buunk& B.P. * #ibbons& .Q. (233;4. /ocial 0omparison ?rientation: A new

perspective on those who do& and those who dont compare with others. 9n:

#uimond& /. (Od.4& Social comparison processes and levels of analysis$ 0ambridge:

0ambridge "niversity Press.

0ann& A.& angum, $.=.& * 6ells& . (233+4. !istress in response to relationship

infidelity: 8he roles of gender and attitudes about relationships.Journal of Sex

!esearch,>& +>;7+,3.

0unningham& .@. (+,>-4. easuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Muasi7

e'periments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology& ;3& ,2;7,;.

!abbs& $.. (+,,24. 8estosterone and occupational achievement. Social +orces& C3&

>+7>2F.

!eau'& K.& * )annah& @. (+,>F4. 0ourtship in personal column: 8he influence of

gender and se'ual orientation. Sex !oles, ++& -7C.

!eabler& ).=.& )artl& O..& * 6illis& 0.A. (+,C;4. Physi5ue and personality:

/omatotype and vocational interest.Perceptual and %otor Skills& F+& >2

!e/teno& !.A.& Bartlett& .H& Braverman& $. * /alovey& P. (23324. /e' differences

in jealousy: evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurementJournal of Personality

and Social Psychology& >& ++37+++-.

!e/teno& !.A.& * /alovey& P. (+,,F4. $ealousy in close relationships: ultiple


34/4934

perspectives on the green7ey%d monster. 9n: A.=. 6eber& $.). )arvey& et7al. (Ods4&

Perspectives on close relationships(pp. 2+C72F24. Boston& A& "/A: Allyn * Bacon&

9nc.

!e/teno& !.A.& * /alovey P. (+,,-4. Ovolutionary origins of se' differences in

jealousy Muestioning the fitness of the model.Psychological Science& C& -C7C2.

!e/teno& !.A.& * /alovey P. (+,,-b4. Ovolutionary origins of se' differences in

jealousy Muestioning the fitness of the model.Psychological Science& C& -C C2.

!evine& P.#. (+,>,4. /tereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled

components.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology& ;-& ;7+>.

!ijkstra& P.& * Buunk& B.P. (+,,>4. $ealousy as a function of rival characteristics:

An evolutionary perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin& 2F& ++;>7

++--.

!ijkstra& P. * Buunk& B.P. (233+4. #ender differences in the jealousy7evoking

nature of a rival%s body build. Ovolution and )uman Behavior& 22& ;7F+.

Ovans& @.B. (+,C24. Physical and biochemical characteristics of homose'ual men.

Journal of onsulting and linical Psychology, ,& +F37+FC.

a1io& @.).& /anbonmatsu& !..& Powell& .0.& * Kardes& .@. (+,>-4. ?n the

automatic activation of evaluations.Journal of Social and Personality

Psychology& FF& C27C;

eingold& A. (+,,34. #ender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on

romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.Journal of


35/4935

Personality and Social Psychology& ;,& ,>+7,,.

erguson,.&Bargh,$.& Gayak,$.A.& * !avid A.(233;4. After7affects: )ow

automatic evaluations influence the interpretation of subse5uent& unrelated stimuli.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology& F+& +>27+,+.

ran1oi& /.=. * )er1og& .O. (+,>-4.8he Body Osteem /cale: A convergent and

discriminant validity study.Journal of Personality -ssessment& ;3& 2F7+.

ran1oi& /.=.& * )er1og& .O.(+,>C4. $udging physical attractiveness: 6hat body

aspects do we use Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, +& +,7.

urnham& A.& outafi,$.& * Baguma,P.(23324. A cross7cultural study on the role of

weight and waist7to7hip ratio on female attrctiveness.Personality and &ndividual

ifferences& 2& C2,7CF;.

urnham& A.& 8an. 8.& * canus& 0. (+,,C4. 6aist7to7hip ratio preferences for

body shape: A replication and e'tension$ Personality and &ndividual ifferences& 22&

;,7;F,.

#angestad& /.6.& /impson& $.A.& 0ousins& A. $.& #arver7Apgar& 0. O. * 0hristensen&

P.G. (233F4. 6omen%s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the

menstrual cycle.Psychological Science, ./& 23723C

#angestad& /. 6.& 8hornhill& @.& * #arver& 0. O. (23324. 0hanges in womens

se'ual interests and their partners mate retention tactics across the menstrual cycle:

Ovidence for shifting conflicts of interest.Proceedings of the !oyal Society of

0ondon B, 12*,,C;7,>2.

#aulin& /.$.0.& /ilverman& 9.& Phillips& K.& * @eiber& 0. (+,,C4. Activational

hormone influences on abilities and attitudes: 9mplications for evolutionary theory.


36/4936

Evolution and ognition& )& +,+7+,,.

#ibbons& .Q.& * Buunk& B.P. (+,,,4. 8he 9G0?: !evelopment of a measure of

social comparison orientation in two countries.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology&C-& +2,7+F2.

#rice,$.6.& * /eely& O. (23334. 8he evolution of se' differences in jealousy:

ailure to replicate previous results. Journal of !esearch in Personality& F(4& F>7

;-.

)arris& 0.@. (23324. /e'ual and romantic jealousy in heterose'ual and homose'ual

adults$ Psychological Science&+& C7+2.

)arris& 0.@.& * 0hristenfeld& G. (+,,-4. $ealousy and rational responses to infidelity

across gender and culture.Psychological Science& C& C,7C,.

)aslam& G.* Bornstein& B.).& (+,,-4. Onvy and jealousy as discrete emotions: A

ta'ometric analysis3 %otivation and Emotion& 23& 2;;72C2.

)enss& @. (+,,;4. 6aist7to7hip ratio and attractiveness. @eplication and e'tension.

Personality and &ndividual ifferences& +,& FC,7F>>.

)orvath& 8. (+,C,4. 0orrelates of physical beauty in men and women. Social

Behavior and Personality C& +F;7+;+.

)ill& K. * )urtado& A.. (+,,-4. Ache life history. Gew Hork: Aldine de #ruyter.

)upka& @.B.& * Bank& A.=. (+,,-4. /e' differences in jealousy: Ovolution or social

construction ross ultural !esearch4 the Journal of omparative Social Science, 3&

2F7;,.

)upka& @.B.& ?tto& $.& 8arabrina& G.D. * @eidl& =. (+,,4. 0ross7cultural

comparisons of nouns associated with jealousy and the related emotions of envy& anger&
http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+CDC5FD01-BC86-40E6-8171-D894C8D633DC@sessionmgr4+dbs+psyh+cp+1+DAE7&_us=frn+1+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACB5A00059278+338C&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-Seely+st%5B0+-Grice+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+736A&fn=1&rn=1http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+CDC5FD01-BC86-40E6-8171-D894C8D633DC@sessionmgr4+dbs+psyh+cp+1+DAE7&_us=frn+1+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACB5A00059278+338C&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-Seely+st%5B0+-Grice+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+736A&fn=1&rn=1http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+CDC5FD01-BC86-40E6-8171-D894C8D633DC@sessionmgr4+dbs+psyh+cp+1+DAE7&_us=frn+1+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACB5A00059278+338C&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-Seely+st%5B0+-Grice+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+736A&fn=1&rn=1http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+CDC5FD01-BC86-40E6-8171-D894C8D633DC@sessionmgr4+dbs+psyh+cp+1+DAE7&_us=frn+1+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACB5A00059278+338C&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-Seely+st%5B0+-Grice+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+736A&fn=1&rn=1


37/4937

and fear. ross ultural !esearch4 the Journal of omparative Social Science& 2C&

+>+72++.

$ankowiak& 6.@.& )ill& O..& * !onovan& $.. (+,,24. 8he effect of se' and se'ual

orientation on attractiveness judgements: An evolutionary interpretation.Ethology and

Sociobiology& +& C7>;.

Kagan& $. (+,--4. Body build and conceptual impulsivity in children.Journal of

Personality& F& ++>7+2>.

Kemper. !. (+,,34.Social Structure and "estosterone. =ondon: @utger "niversity

Press.

Kenrick& !.8.& * Keefe& @.0. (+,,24. Age preferences in mates reflect se'

differences in human reproductive strategies.Behavioral and Brain Sciences& +;& C;7

+.

Kenrick& !.8.& Keefe& @.0.& Bryan& A.& Barr& A.& Brown& /. (+,,;4. Age preferences

and mate choice among homose'uals and heterose'uals.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology& -,& ++--7++C2

Kenrick& !.8.& /adalla& O.K.& #roth& #.& * 8rost& .@. (+,,34. Ovolution& traits and

the stages of human courtship: Mualifying the parental investment model.Journal of

Personality& ;>& ,C7++C

Knobloch,=. K.& /olomon,!.& )aunani& 0.& * ichael #. ( 233+4. 8he role of

relationship development and attachment in the e'perience of romantic

jealousy.Personal !elationships& >& 23;722F.

Krug& @.& inn& .& Pietrowsky& @.& ehm& ).=.& * Born& $. (+,,-4. $ealousy& general

creativity& and coping with social frustration during the menstrual cycle.-rchives of


38/4938

Sexual Behavior& 1/& +>+7+,,

=ippa& @. (+,>4. /e' typing and the perception of the body. $ournal of Personality&

;+& --C7->2.

=uteijn& .& /tarren& $.& * Dan !ijk& ). (+,>;4. er5iene handleiding #P6. =isse:

/wett

arkey,P.. (23324. 8he duality of personality: Agency and communicon in

personality traits& motivation& and behavior.issertation -bstracts &nternational4

SectionB4 "he Sciences and Engineering& -(;7B4& 2->.

arkey0.G.& 8insley,B.$.,

Oricksen& Andrea $. * Eeitlinger. (23324.

Preadolescents perceptions of females body si1e and shape: Ovolutionary and social

learning perspectives.Journal of 7outh and -dolescence& +& +C7+F-.

assar& K.& * Buunk& B.P. (233;4. $aloe1ie vanuit een evolutionair perspectief:

onbewuste waarneming van rivaalkenmerken R$ealousy from an evolutionary

perspective: unconscious perception of rival characteristicsS. "i8dschrift voor

riminologie, 9(& +>>7+,2.

assar& K.& * Buunk& B.P. (233;& june4. Subliminal rivals$ :nconscious processes

in 8ealousy and rival evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual eeting of the )uman

Behavior and Ovolution /ociety ()BO/4& Austin& 8Q.

assar& K.& * Buunk& B.P. (233-4. "he effect of sex drive and infidelity type on

men's evaluations of rival characteristics$"npublished manuscript.

athes& O.6.& Adams& ).O.& * !avies& @.. (+,>;4. $ealousy: =oss of relationship

rewards& loss of self7esteem& depression& an'iety& and anger.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology& F>&+;;27+;-+.


39/493!

athes& O.6.& Brennan& /..& )augen& P..& * @ice& ).B. (+,>;4. @atings of

physical attractiveness as a function of age.Journal of Social Psychology& +2;& +;C7+->.

c9ntosh& O.#.& * 8ate& !.8. (+,,24. 0haracteristics of the rival and the e'perience

of jealousy.Perceptual and %otor Skills& CF& -,7C3.

ueser& K.8.& #rau& B.6.& /ussman& /.& * @osen& A.$. (+,>F4. Hou%re only as pretty

as you feel: acial e'pression as a determinant of physical attractiveness.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, F-& F-,7FC>.

ussweiler& 8. (2334. 0omparison processes in social judgment: echanisms and

conse5uences.Psychological !eview, ..;,FC27F>,.

Gadler& A.& * !otan& 9. (+,,24. 0ommitment and rival attractiveness: 8heir effects

on male and female reactions to jealousy arousing situations. Sex !oles, 2-& 2,7+3.

Parrot& 6.#. (+,,+4. 8he emotional e'perience of envy and jealousy. 9n P. /alovey

(Od.4& "he psychology of 8ealousy and envy(pp. 734. Gew Hork: #uilford Press.

Parrott& #.6.& * /mith& @.). (+,,4. !istinguishing the e'periences of envy and

jealousy.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology& -F& ,3-7,23.

Parrott& 6.#. (233+4.Emotions in social psychology4 Essential readings$New York,

NY, US: Psychology Press.

Pedersen& O.=.& arkee& G.=.& * /alusso& 0.$. (+,,F4. #ender differences in

characteristics reported to be important features of physical attractiveness.Perceptual

and %otor Skills& 2,& +;,7+;FF.

Pietr1ak,@.).& =aird,$. !.* /tevens,!.A.(23324. /e' differences in human jealousy:

A coordinated study of forced7choice& continious rating7scale& and physiological

responses on the same subjects.Evolution and uman Behavior& 2& >7,F.
http://web28.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+1E791610-FC69-463A-9DC3-07FF7EDD8110@sessionmgr6+dbs+psyh+cp+1+B09B&_us=hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3%3B4%3B5%3B6+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+ri+KAAACBYC00111036+dstb+ES+mh+1+frn+101+7C98&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-+st%5B0+-parrott+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+E667&fn=101&rn=101http://web28.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+1E791610-FC69-463A-9DC3-07FF7EDD8110@sessionmgr6+dbs+psyh+cp+1+B09B&_us=hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3%3B4%3B5%3B6+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+ri+KAAACBYC00111036+dstb+ES+mh+1+frn+101+7C98&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-+st%5B0+-parrott+db%5B0+-psyh+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+E667&fn=101&rn=101


40/494"

@oney& $.@.$r.(2334. Psychological and hormonal responses of men to sensory cues

from women.issertation -bstracts &nternational4 Section B4 "he Sciences and

Engineering& -(C7B4& ;+>.

/adalla& O.K.& Kenrick& !.8.& * Dershure& B. (+,>C4. !ominance and heterose'ual

attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology& ;2& C37C>.

/agarin& B.$.& Becker,!.D.&* #uadagno,@.O. (2334. /e' differences (and

similarities4 in jealousy. 8he moderating influence of infidility e'pierence and se'ual

orientation of the infidelity.Evolution and uman Behavior& 2F& +C72.

/cheib& $.O. (233+4. 0onte't7specific mate choice criteria: 6omen%s trade7offs in the

conte'ts of long7term and e'tra7pair mateships.Personal& C+ T >,.

/harpsteen& !.$. (+,,+4. 8he organi1ation of jealousy knowledge: @omantic

jealousy as a blended emotion. 9n P. /alovey (Od.4& "he psychology of 8ealousy and envy

(pp. +7;24. Gew Hork: #uilford.

/harpsteen& !.$. (+,,;4. 8he effects of relationship and self7esteem threats on the

likelihood of romantic jealousy.Journal of Social and Personal !elationships& +2& >,7

+3+.

/hettel7Geuber& $.& Bryson& $.B.& * Houng& =.O. (+,C>4. Physical attractiviness of the

other person and jealousy.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin& FF& -+27-+;.

/ingh& !. (+,,4. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of

waist7to7hip7ratio.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology& -;& 2,73C.

/ingh& !. (+,,;4. emale judgement of male attractiveness and desirability for

relationships: role of waist7to7hip7ratio and financial status.Journal of Personality and


41/4941

Social Psychology& -,& +3>,7++3+.

/tapel& !.A.& * Blanton& ). (233F4. rom seeing to being: /ubliminal social

comparisons affect implicit and e'plicit self7evaluations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology& 233F& volume >C& F->7F>+

/ymons& !. (+,C,4. 8he evolution of human se'uality. ?'ford: ?'ford "niversity

Press.

8ownsend& $.. (+,>,4. ate selection criteria: A pilot study.Ethology and

Sociobiology& +3& 2F+72;.

8ownsend& $.. * =evy& #.!. (+,,34. Offects of potential partners% costume and

physical attractiveness on se'uality and partner selection.Journal of Psychology, +2&

C+7>,.

8ownsend& $..& * 6asserman& 8. (+,,>4. /e'ual attractiveness: /e' differences in

assessment and criteria$ Evolution and uman Behavior& +,& +C+7+,+.

6etsman,A. * arlowe,.(+,,,4. )ow universal are preferences for female

waist7to7hip ratios Ovidence from the )ad1a of 8an1ania.Evolution and uman

Behavior& 23& 2+,722>.

6iederman& .6. * Algeier& O.@. (+,,4. #ender differences in se'ual jealousy:

Adaptionist or social learning e'planationEthology.


42/4942

6ilson& .& * !aly& . (+,,24. 8he man who mistook his wife for chattel. 9n $.

Barkow& =. 0osmides& and $. 8ooby (Ods.4& "he -dapted %ind4 Evolutionary

Psychology and the =eneration of ulture (pp 2>,7224. Gew Hork: ?'ford "niversity

Press.

Hu& !.6. * /hepard& #.). (+,,>4. 9s beauty in the eye of the beholder#ature,

)*2& 2+722.

Eammuner& D.=.& * rijda& G.. (+,,F4. elt and communicated emotions: sadness

and jealousy. ognition and Emotion& >& C7;.


43/4943

igure +. Profiles of high and low socially dominant rivals.

)ih social $ominance

Hou find out that your girlfriend is flirting with )ans& the man in this photo. )ans is a

student in #roningen and is about the same age as you. )ans is a teaching assistant and

teaches courses to undergraduates. )e is also president of !=P& an activities club that

numbers about -33 members. )ans knows what he wants and is a good judge of

character. )ans also often takes the initiative to do something new and he has a lot of

influence on other people. At parties he always livens things up.

*o+ social $ominance

Hou find out that your girlfriend is flirting with )ans& the man in this photo. )ans is a

student in #roningen and is about the same age as you. )ans attends classes regularly

and is one of the -33 members of activities club !=P. )ans does not always know what

he wants and he often fails to understand what is going on in other people%s minds. )ans

often waits for others to take the initiative and is rather compliant. At parties he usually

stays in the background.


44/4944

igure 2. $ealousy as a function of dominance and attractiveness of the rival for men and

women

en

+

2

F

low high

@ival Physical Attractiveness

jealo

usy

nondominant

dominant


45/4945

6omen

+

2

F

low high@ival Physical Attractiveness

jealous

nondominant

dominant


46/4946

igure . $ealousy as a function of mate value after subliminal e'posure to either

physical attractiveness words or social dominance words.

en

3

3

F3

3

3

33

low hig

ate Dalue

ea ousyphysical attract veness

social domnanc


47/4947

ome

3

3

F3

3

3

33

low hig

ate Dalue

jealousyphysical attract veness

social domnanc


48/4948

igure F. $ealousy as a function of shoulder7to7hip ratio (/)@4 and waist7to7hip ratio

(6)@4 of the rival for men and women

F

;

-

low whrLlow

shr

low whrLhigh

shr

high whrLlow

shr

high whrLhigh

shr

jealo

usy

menwomen


49/49

igure ;. $ealousy in response to rival%s characteristics as a function of se' drive after

subliminal priming with intimacy related or se' related words.

en

2

F

;

9ntimacy primes /e' primes

"pset=ow se' drive

)igh se' drive

Rivalaus.con

Documents

Transcript of Rivalaus.con