27

Jealousy and Problems

of Commitment
Gregory L. White

INTRODUCTION

Romantic jealousy has only recently been the object of sustained social science research,
though, of course, it is an old problem for individuals, cultures, and therapists. It is also a prob-
lem that may be increasing in frequency and intensity (Bringle & Buunk, 1985; Hupka, 1991;
Mullen & Maack, 1985; Pines, 1992; Salovey, 1991; White & Helbick, 1988; White & Mullen,
1989). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the relationship between the concept of self
and certain features of the commitment process that may be related to the threat to self in jeal-
ousy situations. I do not offer a choice among several possible definitions of commitment,
which are presented elsewhere in this volume. However, commitment is informally defined
here as a process of increasing material and psychological interdependence, which may be sig-
nified at times by conscious statements of emotion and relationship status.
As with the study of interpersonal relationships in general, and of relationship commit-
ment per se, recent research on jealousy has been primarily influenced by cognitive and social
interdependence theories (Berscheid, 1994; Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991; Fitness & Fletcher,
1993; Kelley, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Rusbult, 1983; Salovey & Rodin, 1986; Sharpsteen, 1993;
White & Mullen, 1989). Other current approaches to jealousy include evolutionary psychol-
ogy (Buss, 1991; White & Mullen, 1989), systems theory (White, 1991), cultural roles and
conditions (Hupka, 1991; Hupka, Zaleski, Jurgen, & Reidl, 1996), and phenomenology (Neu,
1980; Titelman, 1982). A recurrent interest is in explaining the widespread observation that
male jealousy has a larger element of sexual threat and female jealousy has a larger element of
relationship threat (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Hupka & Bank, 1996; Mullen
& Martin, 1994; Nadler & Dotan, 1992; White & Mullen, 1989). There is also a very large
theoretical and case report literature within clinical psychology and psychiatry, dating back to
Freud, and a literature in anthropological theory and research (both literatures are reviewed in
White & Mullen, 1989).

Gregory L. White • Department of Psychology, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Handbook ofInterpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability, edited by Jeffrey M. Adams and Warren H. Jones.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 1999.

471
472 GREGORY L. WHITE

White and Mullen (1989) defined jealousy as a complex of thoughts, emotions, and ac-
tions that follows the loss of, or threat to, self-esteem and/or the existence or quality ofthe ro-
mantic relationship. The perceived loss or threat is generated by the perception of a real or
potential romantic attraction between one's partner and a rival. The notion that jealousy in-
volves a threat to self or relationship is present in almost all discussions of jealousy (Bryson,
1991; Buunk & Bringle, 1987; Hupka, 1991; Lazarus, 1993; Neu, 1980; Pines, 1992; Salovey
& Rothman, 1991; White & Mullen, 1989). Mullen and I presented a model of jealousy that
pointed to the importance of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural aspects of jealousy.
Intrapersonally, the model has the elements of primary appraisal of threat or loss, secondary
appraisal of what can be done, and cognitive coping efforts. Behavioral aspects include the
enactment of coping and information gathering; affective processes include emotions and
moods that result from threat or loss, appraisal, and coping. The model has been extended by
applying systems concepts to self, relationship, and social systems involved in jealousy
(White, 1991).
In this chapter, I want to pay particular attention to the concept of threat to self-esteem
so important to our own and others' models, and I want to link this threat to problems of
commitment. Mullen and I suggested that the partner's attraction to the self affords oppor-
tunities to negotiate and abstract meaning about the self (White & Mullen, 1989, pp. 19-21).
Two aspects of self are particularly important: self-evaluation and self-concept, which we
equated then with organized knowledge about the self. A rival may pose a threat either to
self-evaluation or to self-knowledge. Perceived or potential rejection by the partner for a ri-
val is particularly threatening, since romantic partners typically have more privileged access
to core aspects of self. In addition, the appearance of a rival exposes privately negotiated
self-worth to the more public social comparison to a rival, increasing the threat to self-
esteem (cf. Salovey & Rothman, 1991; Salovey & Rodin, 1986). Our discussion of these
concepts was guided primarily by previous social-psychological research and theory (White
& Mullen, 1989).

NARRATIVE: CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVES ON THE SELF

To expand the focus on self in this chapter, I draw on evolving literatures within con-
structivist and narrative psychologies (Bruner, 1990; Burnett, 1991; Fletcher & Fitness, 1995;
Gergen, 1985; Gergen & Gergen, 1988; Goncalves, 1995; Guidano, 1995; Howard, 1991;
Lazarus, 1993; Mahoney, 1995; Mahoney, Miller, & Arciero, 1995; Oatley & Jenkins, 1992;
Schwarz & Clore, 1996). These approaches generally emphasize (1) that tacit (unconscious)
knowledge is important in organizing conscious thought, (2) that tacit knowledge is a system
of abstract rules that order the relations of experience and activity, (3) that narratives are the
primary organization of the interplay of knowledge and experience, (4) that emotion is impor-
tant in narrative, and (5) that information about self is most accessible through narrative.
Though this literature is much too diverse to review here, I highlight below certain features that
I think are important for relating jealousy to commitment:
1. Core tacit processes involving identity are given special protection from challenge and
change. As a system, the self protects and perpetuates its identity ("autopoiesis").
2. Core identity knowledge changes by a process similar to natural selection, selecting
for knowledge that is more viable in helping to maintain a sense of consistency of self,
while also helping to accommodate to the environment.
3. Change in identity must be gradual enough to allow for both some degree of consis-
tency and increasing accommodation.
JEALOUSY AND PROBLEMS OF COMMITMENT 473

4. Identity may be affected by appraisals made by others but can also be affected by in-
corporating aspects of relationships with specific others.
5. Narratives are tacitly and explicitly constructed as a means to maintain adequate con-
sistency of identity, while also accommodating to change.
6. Identity narratives have both causal-reductionistic and telic features. Whether per-
sonal or cultural, narratives point not only to the origins of aspects of self but also to
the goals toward which the self has been consciously or unconsciously striving.
7. Emotions may reflect tacit knowledge about the self-in-relationship even though the
person cannot articulate the core identity abstractions involved.
8. While reductionistic analysis may identify important components of self-psychologi-
cal processes, the experiencing person synthesizes components to arrive at tacit or ex-
plicit molar knowledge. For researchers and theorists, there is always the problem of
mapping molecular scientific constructs onto experience (Kelley, 1992; Lazarus,
1993). For example, our model posits molecular appraisal and attributional processes,
but the jealous person "knows" that the partner is untrustworthy.

CORE IDENTITY AND INCORPORATION OF THE OTHER

At this point, my central thesis can be presented: A romantic relationship is an evolving

process by which both partners incorporate patterns of the relationship and attributes of the
other into core identity. This process is a delicate interplay of maintenance of identity con-
sistency and accommodation to information provided by relationship experience. The inti-
macy of romantic relationships poses an especially potential threat to core identity. Partners
achieve incorporation primarily by narratives that earlier in the relationship may emphasize
how the beloved has come onto the scene of one's life and later emphasize the intertwined na-
ture of one's own life themes with that of the partner. (There is a shift from primarily causal
to more telic narrative.) The process of incorporation requires different kinds of commitment
at different stages of evolution of the narrative. Failure of commitment at different stages pro-
duces a threat to core identity, which is experienced as emotion. When the failures of com-
mitment involve the potential or actual presence of a romantic rival, the jealousy complex
(White & Mullen, 1989) emerges as a partly tacit and partly conscious attempt to protect core
identity.
While the task of identity change in relationships has been the focus of much past dis-
cussion (Fletcher & Fitness, 1995; Knudsen, 1985; Reis, 1985; White & Mullen, 1989), the
recent work of the Arons focuses particularly on the incorporation of the other into one's own
identity (Aron & Aron, 1996a, 1996b; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Through a series of in-
genious experiments and the development of the "Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale"
(lOS), they have demonstrated that romantic attraction is greater when attributes of the other
provide a means for identity to expand in the direction of more effective interaction with the
environment. Hence, the balancing of consistency and accommodation is facilitated by the in-
creased viability of an identity that incorporates attributes of the relationship and other. In
narrative terms, the inclusion of the other as a central aspect to one's story is more easily
achieved when the relationship allows for increased capacity to reach immediate and future
goals. It is interesting to note that the lOS uses, in part, pictorial means to assess incorpora-
tion. This technique may allow for more ready access of tacit knowledge than verbal ques-
tions. Note also that the positive affective states of love and attraction accompany this
expansion, which is consistent with the notion that emotion may reflect changes in tacit
knowledge. In my thesis, the negative emotions associated with jealousy reflect threats to
change in core tacit self-knowledge.
474 GREGORY L. WHITE

COMMITMENT AND JEALOUSY

In this section, I selectively review recent work to illustrate aspects of the constructivist
approach to commitment and jealousy. Mullen and I suggested that there were five key rela-
tionship characteristics that influence jealousy: the degree of investments and rewards,
salience of self-evaluation and self-concept, security for investments and rewards, security for
self-evaluation and self-concept, and the potential for a rival relationship (White & Mullen,
1989, pp. 104-107). We reviewed the sparse literature available, which generally found that re-
lationship satisfaction and relationship commitment were related to lower levels of jealousy.
We suggested that commitment would reduce jealousy, since it provided security for invest-
ments, security for self, and reduction of the potential for a rival relationship (White & Mullen,
1989, p. Ill). We also presented evidence that the perception of oneself as inadequate for one's
partner and the degree of dependence of self-esteem on the partner's evaluations of self were
both related to higher levels of jealousy and greater emotionality when jealous. In the current
discussion, both represent different aspects related to protection of core identity.
Our focus on investments and security is compatible with a number of approaches to
commitment. Here, I focus on Rusbult's (Rusbult, 1983, 1987; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow,
1986; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996) approach, since it has both research validation and has
been related to jealousy per se. In her model, rewards, costs, and comparison level (outcome
expectations) produce relationship satisfaction. Satisfaction, investments (e.g., time, self-dis-
closure, possessions), and the quality of alternatives to the relationship each predict relation-
ship commitment, which is rather informally defined as a tendency to maintain a relationship
and to feel psychologically attached to it. Commitment is a direct predictor of relationship sta-
bility. Her model has received mostly positive empirical support (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996;
Rusbult & Buunk, 1993).
Bui et al. (1996), while confirming the basic model for both genders, also discovered that
the quality of the partner's self-rated alternatives independently predicted his or her commit-
ment. It is interesting to note that quality of alternatives was measured by three items assess-
ing if the partner was going out with another person, had someone else he or she might date,
or had sex with another person. Commitment was measured by an estimate of the likelihood of
marrying and the three attachment items of Rubin's (1970) Love Scale: "IfI could never be
with (my partner) I would feel miserable," "IfI were lonely, my first thought would be to seek
(my partner) out," and "It would be hard for me to get along without (my partner)."
In terms of the current discussion, Bui et al.'s (1996) measure of commitment has two ele-
ments: The sense of extending one's personal narrative into time by incorporating the other,
which is marriage, and three items that plausibly assess the extent to which core identity has
incorporated the other. The finding that the partner's indication that rivals do not exist is re-
lated to the person's commitment is compatible with my interpretation that incorporation of the
other does not easily proceed without security against the intrusion of a rival. In addition, Bui
et al. 's (1996) measure of investment combined items assessing length of relationship, fre-
quency of seeing each other, living together, degree of inclusion in friendship circles, and de-
gree of self-disclosure. All of these measures may simply reflect the degree to which one's
partner has become incorporated into one's identity and narrative. Hence, the confirmed rela-
tionship between investment and commitment may merely be a linkage between the degree of
incorporation and its emotional phenomenology; that is, the investment measures reflect tacit
knowledge that is explicit in the emotional aspect of the narrative tapped by the commitment
items. Asking subjects to indicate if they would feel miserable if the partner were absent is ask-
ing them to create a small narrative that features emotion.
Bryson (1991) applied Rusbult's model of responses to relationship deterioration specif-
ically to coping with a romantic rival. In the model, responses are either constructive or de-
JEALOUSY AND PROBLEMS OF COMMITMENT 475

structive and active or passive in nature. Responses may serve to protect either self-esteem or
the relationship (cf. White & Mullen, 1989): "Exit" (active-destructive) is an attempt to main-
tain self-esteem; "neglect" (passive-destructive) allows the relationship to deteriorate while
tolerating some self-esteem threat; "loyalty" (passive-constructive) aims at improving the re-
lationship, perhaps at the expense of self-esteem; and "voice" (active-constructive) aims at
preserving both self-esteem and the relationship by active expression and problem solving.
Bryson developed multi-item measures of each of these strategies that were specific to coping
with jealousy-inducing situations. Subjects'responses to vignettes were consistent with
Rusbult's (1987) more general findings: High levels of investment presented in the vignettes
were associated with increased use of constructive efforts and decreased use of destructive ef-
forts. From the constructivist-narrative viewpoint, these findings may reflect the subject's tem-
porarily merging the vignette with his or her own narrative of relationship to indicate that if a
partner were incorporated into narrative and identity, then it would be painful to destruct the
relationship.
Finally, Rusbult and Buunk (1993) suggested a number of possible ways in which com-
mitment to a relationship could lead to relationship maintenance. These include (1) adaptive
social comparison during periods of relationship conflict by seeking out information from
well-functioning couples; (2) perceived relationship superiority, or assuming that one's rela-
tionship produces better outcomes than comparison others; (3) derogation of attractive, threat-
ening alternatives; (4) adopting norms and roles to reduce extramarital involvements; (5)
sacrificing for the good of the relationship; and (6) accommodating rather than retaliating in
conflict.
Each of these relationship-maintaining aspects of commitment can be interpreted as re-
sulting from the incorporation of the other into identity and narrative. Upward social compar-
ison, relationship superiority, and derogation are techniques to preserve core identity under
threat; their extension to the couple reflects incorporation of the other into identity. Adopting
norms to reduce rivals is mutual protection of core identity. Sacrificing and accommodating
are less at odds with identity when the relationship and the other are part of personal narrative
and identity. Furthermore, these suggested outcomes of commitment take time to develop, just
as commitment takes time to develop. This is equivalent, I think, to saying that it takes time to
incorporate and, hence, time for core identity protection to extend to relationship and other.

RECENT JEALOUSY RESEARCH RELEVANT

TO IDENTITY AND NARRATIVE

Since the research reviews of White and Mullen (1989) and Salovey (1991), there has
been some jealousy research pertinent to the identity concepts presented here. Siegert and
Stamp (1994) interviewed undergraduate couples regarding the source of their "first big fight."
In essence, they were asking partners to provide a relationship narrative. Four fight concerns
were revealed: uncertainty over commitment, jealousy, violation of expectations, and person-
ality differences. These fights helped clarify feelings, increased awareness of interdependence,
and initiated conflict themes that persisted in later fights. The data are consistent with the idea
that incorporation of the other into one's identity and life narrative requires development of in-
creasing security for investments and self that, when not adequately provided, are associated
with increasing uncertainty, anxiety, and self-protectiveness.
Jealousy has been found to be closely associated with partner assault (Mullen & Maack,
1985; White & Mullen, 1989). Recently Murphy, Meyer, and O'Leary (1994) found that com-
pared to maritally discordant and maritally concordant nonviolent men, men who had assaulted
their partners were more dependent on their spouses for esteem and had lower self-esteem but
476 GREGORY L. WHITE

were not more likely to rate themselves as jealous. They thus appeared to have core identity
threatened, which might account for the violence. Mathes (1991) reported that jealousy result-
ing in relationship termination was attenuated if (1) a replacement partner provided rewards
and self-esteem and (2) the termination had occurred at a relatively distant point in time. Both
of these findings suggest that a repair of identity and narrative had occurred. Downey and
Feldman (1996), investigating a trait they name "rejection sensitivity," reported evidence in
four studies that people who expect interpersonal rejection more readily perceive it in am-
biguous acts of others, interpret romantic partners'insensitive behaviors as signs of rejection,
and produce dissatisfaction in their partners by their hostility and jealousy. Again, core iden-
tity seems to be under greater threat for the "rejection sensitive." Such people may need more
than the usual externally generated security for self-esteem and identity.
Radecki-Bush, Farrell, and Bush (1993), using a vignette method, found that anticipated
jealousy and perceived threat were affected by depression level (as measured by the Beck
Depression Inventory), anxious-ambivalent attachment style, and level of manipulated situa-
tional threat. One possible interpretation is that both depression level and anxious attachment
style reflect uncertainty about the attractiveness of the self to others (cf. White & Mullen,
1989, pp. 120-121). Alternatively, perhaps both variables are associated with rejection sensi-
tivity (Downey & Feldman, 1996). The implicit and explicit possible rejections of self in fa-
vor of a rival would be particularly threatening to core identity for such people if they
projected themselves into the role of a threatened partner in an established romantic relation-
ship, as the vignettes portrayed.

PATHOLOGICAL JEALOUSY

There is a long history of attempts to classify various forms ofjealousy (White & Mullen,
1989). For example, Mullen and I suggested "symptomatic" jealousy, which results from a
psychiatric condition such as schizophrenia or alcoholism; "pathologically reactive" jealousy,
which is characteristic of some personality disorders or sensitizing experiences in which core
identity is fragile or especially protected; and "normal" jealousy, which is more situationally
determined. Buunk (1991) suggested a "reactive" jealousy similar to our normal jealousy, and
a "preventive" jealousy, which seems intended to protect fragile core identity through jealous
actions. He also suggested an obsessive, imaginal, "self-generated" jealousy, which has fea-
tures of our symptomatic jealousy. He found that relationship insecurity and greater relative
dependence on a partner were more highly predictive of self-generated jealousy than preven-
tive jealousy, which in tum was more predicted than reactive jealousy. These variables again
suggest problems in the identity incorporation process. Bringle (1991) suggested a "suspi-
cious" jealousy, similar to our pathologically reactive type. He also suggested that jealousy is
a multiplicative function of degree of interdependence, uncertainty about partner's commit-
ment, and degree of trait arousability. Note again the conjunction of threat to core identity and
associated emotionality.

LOVE STYLES

There have been several attempts to identify various dimensions or styles of love
(Berscheid, 1994; White & Mullen, 1989). Hendrick and Hendrick (1991) reviewed evidence
for five generic "love attitudes": passion, closeness, attachment, manic love, and practicality.
Passion and closeness were found to be predictors of relationship satisfaction. White (1977)
used Lee's (1977) Love Styles questionnaire to assess the six love styles of Lee' s typology.
JEALOUSY AND PROBLEMS OF COMMITMENT 477

Using data from a sample of 125 couples, whose relationships were a few months to a few
years duration, a measure of self-report level of current relationship jealousy was regressed
onto the six styles. Jealousy was positively correlated with eros (physical attraction, similar to
the Hendricks' passion), storge (committed attachment, which appears to overlap with the
Hendricks' attitudes of closeness and attachment), and mania (intense romantic love marked
by need for repeated assurance of reciprocation). Jealousy was negatively related to ludus,
which reflects a desire for uncommitted relationship. Note the possibility that eros and storge
might be alternative routes by which the other is incorporated into identity, one involving sex-
ual union and the other involving emotional longing and verbal intimacy. Hence, those subjects
already incorporating the other through passionate and attachment love would have core iden-
tity more under threat if rivals were thought to actually or potentially exist. The manic lover,
faced with intense emotions and uncertainty over commitment of the other, would likewise be
more prone to experience a threat to identity.
Though Hendrick and Hendrick (1991) provided an evolutionary pair-bonding frame-
work, a narrative perspective suggests that each "attitude" can be seen as a potential aspect of
a relationship narrative. These aspects may be differentially emphasized in narrative as a con-
sequence of development of the relationship, identity features of the partners, and cultural
scripting. It is interesting that the "attitudes" of eros and storge, which were related to satis-
faction, are those I suggested represent twin paths to identity incorporation of the other.

JEALOUSY AND PROBLEMS OF COMMITMENT

We can now return to jealousy and problems of commitment. Commitment processes

must provide security for investments, self-esteem and self-concept, as well as a reduction of
a potential for a rival relationship (White & Mullen, 1989). To expand on this from a con-
structivist-narrative perspective, commitment processes need to serve several related func-
tions. First, they regulate the process of incorporation of features of the partner and
relationship patterns into identity in a way that does not overly threaten core identity but allows
for noticeable change. A possible outcome of inadequate regulation is that threats to core iden-
tity may produce protective thoughts and actions that appear as jealousy even in the absence of
a real rival. Second, they provide opportunities to fashion a developing narrative about the
causes and goals of relationship formation, intimacy, conflict, and interdependence of this par-
ticular relationship. Third, they provide means to place other people who may be real or po-
tential rivals within a narrative that is not overly threatening to the process of identity change
or maintenance. Fourth, they provide a means to incorporate different emotions, fantasies, ex-
pectations, somatic reactions, and other love experiences (e.g., "attitudes toward love") within
a developing narrative, especially in ways that reduce the perceived and actual potential for a
rival relationship. Finally, they provide a way to coordinate the narratives of each partner into
an agreed joint narrative ("the story of our love") that provides security for the core identity
of each partner (e.g., the idea of special and unique "soul mate").
From a constructivist perspective, problems of commitment are problems associated with
the development and maintenance ofthese functions. The inability to fashion narrative is a cru-
cial element that helps mediate the reciprocal relationship of tacit knowledge about self and
romantic relationship, and experienced emotions, thoughts, and actions. Hence, at an overar-
ching level, problems of commitment likely to be related to jealousy are problems in individ-
ual and joint narrative construction.
Since narrative construction is an ongoing process, especially important during periods
of relationship formation or change (Burnett, 1991; Goncalves, 1995; Gergen & Gergen,
1988), there are many factors that could impede such construction. Not the least of these are
478 GREGORY L. WHITE

the inconsistent actions, feelings, and thoughts of both the self and beloved as both are react-
ing to each other and to other systems (White, 1991). But I want to conclude with the sugges-
tion that a primary difficulty in forming narrative is culturally mediated. Modern Western
lovers face the larger problem of the collapse of consistently presented, culturally described
narratives oflove (Gergen, 1991; Gergen & Gergen, 1988; Howard, 1991). When fashioning
a personal, evolving narrative, there are a large number of scripted narratives presented by con-
temporary music, mass audience television, pop psychology, religious groups, and ethnic sub-
cultures. The continuing evolution of sex roles, with its attendant confusion of relationship
roles and norms, further complicates narrative development. Hence, the central importance of
narrative in the process of mutual commitment becomes a problem of competing and uncer-
tain culturally supplied base scripts. Core identity protection becomes harder to fashion, and
we are presented with widespread problems of relationship stability and associated jealousy.

REFERENCES
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (l996a). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3,
45-58.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996b). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. 1. O. Fletcher & 1. Fitness (Eds.),
Knowledge structures and interaction in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325-344).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of the Other in the Self (lOS) Scale and the structure of close-
ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596--612.
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review ofPsychology, 45, 79-129.
Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology
ofjealousy and envy (pp. 103-131). New York: Guilford.
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1985). Jealousy and social behavior. Review ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 6,
241-264.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts ofmeaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryson, 1. (1991). Modes of responses to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey (Ed.). The psychology ofjealousy
and envy (pp. 178-210). New York: Guilford.
Bui, K.T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the RusbuIt model of relationship commitment and stability in a
15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244-1257.
Burnett, R. (1991). Accounts and narratives. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal attrac-
tion (pp. 121-140). New York: Guilford.
Bush, C. R., Bush, J. P., & Jennings, 1. (1988). Effects of jealousy threat on relationship perceptions and emotions.
Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 5, 285-303.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 42, 459-491.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. 1., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology,
and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.
Buunk, B. P. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoretical perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psy-
chology ofjealousy and envy (pp. 148-177). New York: Guilford.
Buunk, B., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate rela-
tionships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 123-147). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. l. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.
Ellis, c., & Weinstein, E. (1986). Jealousy and the social psychology of emotional experience. Journal ofSocial and
Personal Relationships, 3, 337-357.
Fitness, 1., & Fletcher, G. 1. O. (1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in close relationships: A prototype and cogni-
tive appraisal analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 65, 942-958.
Fletcher, G., & Fitness, 1. (1995). Knowledge structures and interaction in close relationships: A social psychological
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266--275.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
Gergen, K. 1., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the self as relationship. In L. Berkowtiz (Ed.), Advances in ex-
perimental social psychology (pp. 17-56). New York: Academic Press.
JEALOUSY AND PROBLEMS OF COMMITMENT 479

Goncalves, O. F. (1995). Cognitive narrative psychotherapy: The henneneutic construction of alternative meanings. In
M. Mahoney (Ed.), Cognitive and constructive psychotherapies: Theory, research, and practice (pp.139-162).
New York: Springer.
Guidano, V. F. (1995). A constructivist outline of human knowing processes. In M. Mahoney (Ed.), Cognitive and con-
structive psychotherapies: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 89-102). New York: Springer.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1991). Dimensions of love: A sociobiological interpretation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 10, 206-230.
Howard, G. (1991). Cultural tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychotherapy.
American Psychologist, 46, 187-197.
Hupka, R. B. (1991). The motive for the arousal of romantic jealousy: Its cultural origin. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psy-
chology ofjealousy and envy (pp. 252-270). New York: Guilford.
Hupka, R. 8., & Bank, A. 1. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social construction. Cross-Cultural
Research, 30, 24-59.
Hupka, R. 8., Zaleski, A., Jurgen, 0., & Reidl, 1. (1996). Anger, envy, fear, and jealousy as felt in the body: A five na-
tion study. Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 243-264.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H. (1992). Common-sense psychology and scientific psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 1-23.
Knudsen, R. M. (1985). Marital incompatibility and mutual identity confinnation. In W Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and
incompatible relationships (pp. 233-252), New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44, 1-21.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173-182.
Mahoney, M. (1995). Theoretical developments in the cognitive and constructive psychotherapies. In M. Mahoney
(Ed.), Cognitive and constructive psychotherapies: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-19). New York:
Springer.
Mahoney, M. J., Miller, H. M., & Arciero, G. (1995). Constructive metatheory and the nature of mental representation.
In M. Mahoney (Ed.), Cognitive and constructive psychotherapies: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 103-120).
New York: Springer.
Mathes, E. W (1991). Dealing with romantic jealousy by finding a replacement relationship. Psychological Reports,
69, 535-538.
Mullen, P. E., & Maack, 1. H. (1985). Jealousy, pathological jealousy, and aggression. In D. P. Farrington & J. Gunn
(Eds.), Aggression and dangerousness (pp. 103-126). New York: Wiley.
Mullen, P. E., & Martin, J. 1. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 35-43.
Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S., O'Leary, K. D. (1994). Dependency characteristics of partner assaultive men. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 729-735.
Nadler, A., & Dotan, I. (1992). Commitment and rival attractiveness: Their effects on male and female reactions to
jealousy-arousing situations. Sex Roles, 26, 293-310.
Neu,1. (1980). Jealous thoughts. In A. O. RoTty (Ed.), Explaining emotions (pp. 425-464). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Oatley, K., & Jenkins, 1. 1. (\ 992). Human emotions: Function and dysfunction. Annual Review ofPsychology, 43,
55-85.
Pines, A. M. (1992). Romantic jealousy: Five perspectives and an integrative approach. Psychotherapy, 29, 675-683.
Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A. D., & Bush, 1. P. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The influence of adult attachment
and depression on threat appraisal. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 10, 569-588.
Reis, H. T. (1985). The role of the self in the initiation and course of social interaction. In W Ickes (Ed.), Compatible
and incompatible relationships (pp. 209-232). New York: Springer.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfac-
tion and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-Ioyalty-neglect model. In
D. Perlman & S.w. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp.
209-237). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis.
Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. 1., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic in-
volvements. Social Psychology Quarterly, 39(1), 81-89.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W Kruglanski (Eds.),
Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564-596). New York: Guilford.
Salovey, P. (1991). The psychology ofjealousy and envy. New York: Guilford.
480 GREGORY L. WHITE

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (I986). The differentiation of social-comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100--1112.
Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and society. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology ofjeal-
ousy and enry (pp. 271-286). New York: Guilford.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook ofbasic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford.
Sharpsteen, D. J. (1993). Romantic jealousy as an emotion concept: A prototype analysis. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 69-82.
Siegert, J. R., & Stamp, G. H. (1994). "Our first big fight" as a milestone in the development ofcIose relationships.
Communication Monographs, 61, 345-360.
Titelman, P. (1982). A phenomenological comparison between envy and jealousy. Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology, 12, 189-204.
White, G. L. (1977). Jealousy and attitudes toward love. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Western
Psychological Association.
White, G. L. (1991). Self, relationships, friends, and family: Some applications of systems theory to romantic jealousy.
In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology ofjealousy and enry (pp. 231-251). New York: Guilford.
White, G. L., & Helbick, T. R. (1988). Understanding and treating jealousy. In R. A. Brown & J. R. Field (Eds.),
Treating sexual problems in individual and marital therapy (pp. 245-266). Great Neck, NY: PMA Publishing.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford.