Summary: Sex Differences In Jealousy

Background

In the research report “Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology” conducted by Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992), the primary purpose of their study is to differentiate the gender differences, particularly in humans. This interest seems to originate from the difference between humans and all of the other animals, whereby paternity is most significant to humans – specifically males. They believe this varies from other animals that can display lowered paternity probability and greater cuckoldry, which stems from female animal’s biological capability of internal female fertilization (251). Hence, females of most species will most certainly know that they are the mother of the off spring, but emotional infidelity from the male partner via spending resources on another female for instance, is a potential consequence experienced by the female giving birth. With men, it differs on the basis of cuckoldry, in the sense that their potential consequence is when their female partner engages in sexual activity with another male – in the animal kingdom it is known as the rival gametes (251). Simply put,

it is the battle for paternity.
Harris and Christenfeld’s (1996) study is a response counter to the findings of Buss et al.’s research, that are based on evolutionary findings.
Hypothesis
Buss et al. hypothesize that male and female humans become jealous as a bodily-or-mind reaction to different stimuli. They support this on their understanding of biological differences that have been inherited and developed through the history of humankind’s existence, when it comes to sex and reproduction. Buss draws on his previous work (1989) to elaborate on this hypothesis by suggesting that sexual and emotional infidelity is a stimulus that can trigger jealousy in males and females, but of different proportions.
In contrast, Harris and Christenfeld hypothesize that both sexes are distressed based on the context of their rationalization of infidelity. In other words, males can rationalize the legitimacy of their partner’s sexual infidelity based on different contexts. The example they suggest is that a man who believes his partner will only engage in sexual acts when in love; will rationalize their partner’s sexual infidelity on the basis that she is in love with another man. A woman’s rationalization can differ from her beliefs that her partner can engage in sex without being in love, thus her partner’s sexual infidelity will be rationalized as what it is – a sexual act, without love.
Methodology
Buss et al. conduct their research by obtaining their participants of 202 undergraduate students, without naming any particular academic institute. The information they collected of these participants included how old they were, their gender, and a set of double-choice (options a) and b) only) questions. The primary question was framed as a ‘dilemma’ directly rooted to their hypothesis, whereby participants had to introspect on what would disturb them more based on a past, current, or ideal relationship. Their two options were straightforward, with a) being their manifesting a deep emotional attachment to another person; and b) differing in terms of participant’s partner engaging in physical sexual acts with another person (252). In addition, there were several more questions, followed by another dilemma along the same lines of the first one, except worded differently.
In a second study, Buss et al. measured participants’ heart rates (electromyographic activity). The sample consisted of 55 undergraduate students – 32 males, and 23 females. This was tested in a 2-hour lab test for each participant.
Harris and Christenfeld also obtained undergraduate students as participants. Their sample included 137 students – 55 males, and 82 females. Their data was gathered by each participant’s response to their survey questionnaire, which was also subjective, yet still about relationships (364). They used the same primary question that was applied by Buss et al. This was followed by additional questions related to infidelity, and two final questions which implemented a 5-point Likert scale – “ranging from not at all likely to very likely” (365).
Main Results
The results were then compared by drawing on their data displayed on the bar graphs. Since this is about the differing views of both genders, the graphs were a direct comparison of the male and female participants’ responses to the dilemma questions. The first graph controls for ‘Sexual infidelity versus deep emotional infidelity’ and ‘Sexual infidelity versus love infidelity,’ and the dependant variable being the ‘percentage reporting more distress to sexual infidelity’ (252). The findings in this graph were clear, revealing males to be more distressed than females, under both control variables. The second graph is from their third study which controls for participants who have been in a committed sexual relationship, and those who have not. The dependant variable is the same here, but the findings indicate that males committed in a sexual relationship are more distressed by sexual infidelity, than males who are not in a committed sexual relationship. Interestingly, the percentage of distressed female participants was consistent for both graphs, falling under the 10-20% range. On the other hand, the percentage of distressed males were for the most part in the 40-60% range, with the exception of those not in a committed sexual relationship (c. 30%).
Harris and Christenfeld divided their results based on the questions they used. With the first question (the same used by Buss et al.), their findings resembled that of Buss et al.’s due to females being more distressed by emotional infidelity; whereas the males’ distress was almost equivalent in both scenarios (sexual versus emotional infidelity). In other words, men were more distressed by sexual infidelity nonetheless.
However, their following questions revealed that gender was not a factor in determining one’s response to how distressed they would be in response to sexual-or-emotional infidelity.
Explanations
Buss et al. explain that in each study, their hypothesis is supported because the results show males being more distressed by sexual infidelity; whereas females are more distressed by emotional infidelity.
The counter-argument made by Harris and Christenfeld, based on their own questions was that in a broad scale, it was evident that participants’ rationalization to sexual and emotional infidelity stemmed from the pre-existing beliefs that emotional infidelity suggests sexual infidelity more than the opposite scenario (365).

Ultimately, this means that it comes down to how one perceives and comprehends the question being asked. In other words, males associated acts of sexual infidelity with emotional (‘love’), triggering more distress. Similarly, but not in the same way, females are more distressed by emotional infidelity, even though it may or may not be associated with sexual infidelity. Therefore, sex is not a biological factor in determining jealousy – rather it’s the social context and one’s understandings and

rationalizations.