795257

research-article2018
EMR0010.1177/1754073918795257Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4Chung & Harris

Article

Emotion Review
Vol. 10, No. 4 (October 2018) 1­–16
© The Author(s) 2018
ISSN 1754-0739

Jealousy as a Specific Emotion: The Dynamic

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073918795257
DOI: 10.1177/1754073918795257
journals.sagepub.com/home/er

Functional Model

Mingi Chung
Psychology Department, University of California, San Diego, USA

Christine R. Harris
Psychology Department, University of California, San Diego, USA

Abstract
We review the jealousy literature and present our Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy (DFMJ), which argues that jealousy evolved
and has its own unique motivational state aimed at preventing others from usurping important relationships. It has a core form that
exists in infants and nonhuman animals and an elaborated form in humans that emerges as cognitive sophistication develops. The
DFMJ proposes that jealousy is an unfolding process with early and late phases that can be differentially impacted by relationship
and personality factors. It also notes the importance of looking at multiple concomitants of jealousy, including action tendencies.
We discuss how jealousy fits with current emotion theories and suggest that theories of specific emotions need to be broadened.

Keywords
attachment style, basic emotions, distinct emotions, Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy, evolution, functional, jealousy,
personality, relational variables, specific emotions

Jealousy is the theme of countless plays, movies, and songs. It is
mentioned in texts as old as the Bible, with God himself claiming
to be a jealous god. In some cultures and time periods, legal sys-
tems have granted special dispensation to acts committed out of
jealousy due to the belief that one had little power to resist the
impulses brought on by circumstances such as finding a spouse
in the arms of a lover (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982; Harris,
2003). Despite its old and compelling history, jealousy is rarely
included in theoretical accounts of specific emotions.
In this article, we argue that jealousy is an evolved emotion
with its own unique motivational state aimed at preventing
others from usurping important relationships. We propose a
Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy (DFMJ), which views
jealousy an ongoing process with early and late phases. We
first provide evidence for a core form of jealousy that occurs
in human infants and nonhuman animals. Second, we discuss
how this core jealousy develops into a more elaborated form in
older children as cognitive sophistication increases. While we
refer to core versus elaborated jealousy, they should be viewed
as lying on a continuum rather than categorically different.
After comparing the DFMJ to other theoretical positions, we
review empirical studies on factors that impact jealousy. Using
our model, we suggest how seemingly disparate findings can
be understood when jealousy is viewed as a motivational state
that unfolds over time and when the full concomitants of this
state (e.g., appraisals, motivations, action readiness, and
behaviors) are taken into account. We argue that while jeal-
ousy feels subjectively unpleasant, it can sometimes lead to
positive relationship outcomes. In the concluding section, we
discuss how criteria for specific emotions need to be broad-
ened to include longer lasting emotions such as jealousy.
Defining Features
While perspectives on jealousy are quite varied, one general
point of agreement for most theorists is that jealousy involves a
social triangle. It is the emotional state that arises over the per-
ception that an important interpersonal relationship is being
threatened by an interloper (Harris & Darby, 2010; Parrott,
1991; Parrott & Smith, 1993; White & Mullen, 1989). Many

Corresponding author: Christine R. Harris, Psychology Department, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. #0109, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, USA.
Email: charris@ucsd.edu
2  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Figure 1.  The core form of the Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy.
researchers also distinguish jealousy from envy, although in
common parlance the term “jealousy” is used for both states as
in “I’m jealous of his success.” Envy is the emotional state that
occurs when one desires what another possesses. It often
includes feelings of ill will towards the other and negative feel-
ings about the self (Cohen-Charash, 2009). While the same
word might be used in these different contexts, many argue that
the underlying emotional state is likely different (Henniger &
Harris, 2014; Parrott & Smith, 1993). Wanting what another has
is more aptly described as envy whereas jealousy occurs over
the potential loss of one’s relationship to another person.
The Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy
Functional approaches use Darwinian reasoning to argue that
different specific negative emotions evolved to deal with reoc-
curring inclusive fitness risks in our ancestral past (Darwin,
1872/1965; Frijda, 1986; Nesse, 1990; Roseman, 2013; Tracy,
2014). Each emotion motivates the organism to engage in
actions that will help reduce a particular risk. Take fear as an
example, threatening situations can cause harm, which could
result in consequences as dire as premature death. Fear evolved
to help motivate animals to avoid or engage in actions to reduce
the threat. Emotions are multicomponential including apprais-
als, urges to act, motivations, and physiological changes in ser-
vice of the state (e.g., Roseman, 2011).
With jealousy too, vital interests are at stake. We form impor-
tant bonds with others who provide us with a number of essen-
tial relationship rewards from warmth, shelter, and food to
validation, meaning, and love. However, others can usurp our
relationships and the rewards we obtain from them. Jealousy
arises in such circumstances and we argue that it produces the
motivation to get between the rival and the loved one (physi-
cally, psychologically, or emotionally) in order to prevent or
stop a threatening liaison, which functions to restore or maintain
relationships. We posit that this motivation state is different
from those of other emotions that often co-occur in jealous situ-
ations. Specifically, the motivational state and accompanying
action tendencies are not necessarily yielded by the action ten-
dencies of other related emotions that are frequently offered as
the more essential emotional components of jealousy—such as
anger (motivation to retaliate) or fear (motivation to escape;
Harris, 2003; Harris & Darby, 2010). Thus, we propose that
jealousy is its own distinct emotion.
The Core Form of Jealousy
Distinct emotions theorists generally accept the idea that emo-
tions such as fear or anger evolved to serve adaptive functions
in humans and are shared with other species. However, even
some of these theorists are hesitant to ascribe an emotion such
as jealousy to nonhuman animals. This may be because when
people think of jealousy, they usually imagine the complex state
that occurs between adults, which involves ongoing assess-
ments about the meaning of an interaction between a rival and a
loved one. This form of jealousy, which we label “elaborated
jealousy” (discussed in what follows), includes assessments not
only about the impact of such a liaison on one’s relationship but
also involves appraisals of threat to the self (e.g., does this mean
I am unlovable? Dull? Unattractive?). This reflection on the self
is what has led some researchers to claim that infants and non-
human animals do not possess jealousy (Lewis, 2010).
However, we propose that, at its core, jealousy does not
require sophisticated cognition about self and the meaning of an
interaction (Harris, 2003; Hobson, 2010). Using a functional
framework, we argue that in its nascent form, jealousy can be
triggered by an appraisal as simple as that the loved one is pay-
ing attention to a potential rival, motivating the urge to regain
the loved one’s attention. Figure 1 illustrates the phases involved
in the unfolding of core jealousy. The initial phase of a jealousy
episode involves appraising whether the presence of a rival is a
threat to one’s relationship. The core form of jealousy primarily
involves threats to relationship rewards including loss of a loved
one’s attention, affection, or resources to another.
Once there is the appraisal of threat, jealousy is activated,
which includes feelings, cognitions, action readiness, behaviors
and, importantly, the primary motivation to engage in acts to
protect the relationship and its rewards. This can be accom-
plished by different means, which can include acts that focus on
the loved one (bids for attention) or the rival (e.g., aggression)
or simply breaking up the two (e.g., physically getting between
them). Threat assessment is ongoing (primarily through surveil-

lance of the interaction) as the individual makes attempts to deal
with the threat. Importantly, jealousy, as interpreted here, is not
a psychological state that is inflexibly tied to any single behav-
ioral disposition. Rather, it is a process that creates or amplifies
a motivational tendency, and thus it can result in a wide variety
of behaviors depending on which one the organism perceives to
be most likely to succeed (Mook, 1987). Over time, different
behaviors may be chosen, for example, in a trial-and-error fash-
ion. This conception of jealousy as a motivational state that
amplifies the goal of regaining the loved one’s attention natu-
rally suggests a number of different aspects in which individual
differences may arise.
The last phase focuses on consequences of a jealous episode.
Despite feeling subjectively unpleasant, does jealousy result in
the beneficial effect of securing relationship rewards for the self
or does it produce negative consequences?
Research with human infants provides evidence for a core
form of jealousy. A number of studies have found evidence that
infants display behaviors that appear indicative of jealousy in
social triangles involving their mothers and another infant (e.g.,
Hart, Carrington, Tronick, & Carroll, 2004; Hart, Field, Del
Valle, & Letourneau, 1998; Legerstee, Ellenbogen, Nienhuis, &
Marsh, 2010; see Hart 2016a, for a review of infant jealousy).
For example, in one paradigm, mothers of 6-month-old infants
ignored their babies while attending to what appeared to be
another infant (but was a real-life-looking doll) or while reading
a book (Hart & Carrington, 2002). These infants exhibited
greater negative affect when their mothers interacted with a life-
like baby doll. Importantly, they did not show the same responses
when their mothers interacted with the nonsocial item, suggest-
ing that it was not merely the loss of attention, but rather the loss
of attention to another that was upsetting. In other work using a
similar paradigm (Mize & Jones, 2012; Mize, Pineda, Blau,
Marsh, & Jones, 2014), infants exhibited approach-style neural
activity as measured by electroencephalogram (EEG) during the
jealousy condition, which is the same pattern of activity shown
in adults in a jealous situation (Harmon-Jones, Peterson, &
Harris, 2009). The neural profile is consistent with the idea that,
at its core, jealousy involves an approach orientation aimed at
breaking up threatening liaisons.
Potential relationship threats begin for many at the moment
of birth, when the competition between siblings for a parent’s
nourishment, attention, and love begins. An ancestral environ-
ment characterized by a number of dependent offspring being
raised simultaneously for extended periods would have been
fertile ground for the evolution of jealousy (Harris & Prouvost,
2014). Consistent with this is the suggestion that jealousy is in
place specifically by 9 months of age because this is the approx-
imate period of human gestation, which could mean the arrival
of a newborn sibling (Hart, 2016b). One possibility is that jeal-
ousy may have first evolved to compete for parental resources,
and then later was effective for maintaining other types of rela-
tionships. Alternatively, human jealousy might have first
evolved in the mating context and then was co-opted for sib-
lings. Regardless of which is the case, we see little reason to
assume these are qualitatively different forms of jealousy since
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  3
both include the same motivational state elicited by the appraisal
of a relationship rival.
Claims like ours about evolutionary origins of emotions can
be bolstered by finding evidence of such states in other species.
Humans are not the only animals in which bonds between indi-
viduals develop and can be threatened by third parties. In fact,
the father of the theory of natural selection, Charles Darwin
(1872/1965), proposed that jealousy existed in other animals.
Although research on jealousy in nonhumans is limited, there
are some observations of jealous-like behaviors in the wild in
animals such as gibbons, as well as suggestive accounts by pet
owners of jealousy displays in animals such as horses, dogs, and
birds (Dixson, 2015; Morris, Doe, & Godsell, 2008).
Perhaps the strongest empirical evidence comes from an exper-
iment with dogs (Harris & Prouvost, 2014). In a modified version
of the infant jealousy paradigm, dog owners were instructed to
ignore their pet dogs across three conditions. In the jealousy condi-
tion, the dog’s owner treated a stuffed dog, which wagged its tail
and briefly barked, as if it were real (e.g., speaking “baby talk” and
petting it). In another condition, owners performed these same
behaviors but towards a novel object (a plastic jack-o’-lantern
pail). The third condition involved the owner reading a children’s
book aloud. Dogs displayed significantly more behaviors that
would be consistent with the function of jealousy (e.g., aggression,
attempting to place themselves between the owner and the object,
pushing/touching the object/owner) when their owners displayed
affectionate behaviors towards what appeared to be another dog as
compared to when their owners interacted with inanimate objects.
Behaviors in the jack-o’-lantern condition were in between those
of the other two conditions, which suggests that an owner display-
ing affection to an inanimate object may induce some jealous-like
behaviors but these behaviors are particularly strong when directed
at what appears to be an animate rival.
In sum, when dogs and human infants are placed in circum-
stances that resemble those that elicit jealousy in adults, we see
evidence of jealous-like behaviors that appear aimed at thwart-
ing the interactions between the loved one and the rival, and
protecting the primary relationship. This is not triggered by the
mere withdrawal of attention or affection but rather by the
diversion of these resources to a conspecific. This research also
demonstrates that a variety of strategies may be employed in
service of the goal of preventing this diversion (e.g., aggression
towards a rival, bids for attention of the loved one). The focus in
infant work has primarily been on differences between individu-
als, although there is some evidence that even within individu-
als there is some variability.
The Elaborated Form of Jealousy
We propose that the core form of jealousy then serves as the
foundation for the gradual emergence of a more elaborated form
of jealousy that is elicited under more complex circumstances.
As cognition becomes more sophisticated (ontologically or phy-
logenetically), the appraisals and strategies for achieving the
goal of protecting the relationship become increasingly elabo-
rated1 (see Figure 2.)
4  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Figure 2.  The elaborated form of the Dynamic Functional Model of Jealousy.
First, the elicitation of jealousy no longer requires the physi-
cal presence of a rival; it can be induced by the anticipation
(even if only imaginary) or recall of a rival. Second, the core
appraisal of threat extends beyond merely the loss of relation-
ship rewards to include threats to the self. Our sense of self is
inherently tied to our relationships and the possibility that we
could be replaced by another strikes at the very core of who we
are. Many, if not most, aspects of the self can only be defined in
relationship to others. For example, we only know that we are
loveable or desirable or beautiful based on whether someone
else sees us as such. Including threats to the self as part of the
primary appraisal in jealousy accounts for findings that dam-
aged self-esteem sometimes mediates jealous reactions
(DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). It also helps explain
jealousy that arises over an ex-lover’s new relationship or one’s
current lover’s past relationships. Both potentially challenge
one’s sense of uniqueness. Some part of us wants to assume that
we are irreplaceable but seeing an old flame’s new flame sug-
gests we are not. Similarly, knowing that a mate once loved
someone else can also make us question our unique value.
In elaborated jealousy, interpretations of the meaning of a
loved one’s interaction with a rival become increasingly impor-
tant in determining the propensity toward jealousy as well as its
intensity and manifestation. For example, even by the fourth year
of life, children’s jealousy is influenced by a rival’s characteristics
(Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). Children over 4 displayed more
jealousy over losing their mother’s attention to a similarly aged
peer than to an infant, whereas for younger children, jealousy was
not differentially influenced by the rival’s age. One interpretation
is that the older children had learned that babies require more
attention and therefore were not as threatened when their mothers
attended to the infant, whereas there is no mitigating explanation
for their mothers preferring another child to themselves.
Elaborated jealousy also can involve prolonged processes of
actively assessing and coping with threat (see Figure 2). The usur-
pation of a relationship by a rival rarely occurs in an instant.
Relationships develop over time; therefore, unlike many emo-
tions that have a fairly quick onset and offset, jealousy can be a
prolonged state. During the early threat assessment phase, one
must determine if the threat is real (e.g., is this a harmless flirta-
tion?). Threat assessment continues even during situations as
obvious as finding out for certain that a spouse is having an affair.
In such cases, the magnitude of the threat may at first seem
unclear as one seeks to determine the reasons for the betrayal as
well as the ultimate outcome for one’s relationship. Here we see
increasing complexity and variability in the strategies employed,
including the recruitment of other emotions (e.g., displays of sad-
ness, angry threats) in service of achieving the primary motive of
securing the relationship and removing the rival.
As in core jealousy, the final phase involves the impact of a
jealous episode. Data on the long-term consequences of jeal-
ousy are sparse, but there are a few suggestions that jealousy
can indeed function to protect relationships. In an early longitu-
dinal study by Mathes (1986), undergraduates completed meas-
ures pertaining to their jealousy in their current relationship.
Seven years later, they were surveyed again about this relation-

Figure 3.  Theoretical approaches to jealousy.
ship. Participants who were high in jealousy at the initial assess-
ment were more likely to be married, living with their partner,
or engaged relative to those who were low in jealousy (who
were more likely to have broken up). This finding tentatively
suggests that greater tendency for jealousy may be beneficial for
relationship stability in some cases.
Another longitudinal study provides insight into how the
dynamics of a couple’s interactions during jealousy can impact
relationship longevity. Sheets, Fredendall, and Claypool (1997)
examined how a jealous individual’s partner responded to the
jealousy. People who had partners who reassured them were more
likely to have their relationship intact after 2 months relative to
those who were ignored by their partner or whose partner tried to
exacerbate their jealousy (e.g., by highlighting their attraction to
the rival). This work shows that the jealousy experience itself
need not be detrimental to the relationship, but suggests that the
dynamics between partners may matter. Moreover, Neal and
Lemay’s (2014) 7-day dyadic diary study found that a jealous
party’s mate-guarding behaviors following perceived threat
(which corresponded with their partner’s actual temptation/inter-
est in someone else) led to increases in the partner’s subsequent
commitment and satisfaction. This result seems particularly
important since it shows that jealousy on the part of one member
of a relationship can result in increases in the other partner’s com-
mitment to the relationship. These findings lay important ground-
work for the functional perspective of jealousy in demonstrating
that jealousy can have longer term beneficial effects.
However, like any emotion, jealousy does not always func-
tion as it should. Whether jealousy manifests in dysfunctional
versus functional ways depends on a number of factors. The
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  5
bottom of Figure 2 lists some of the factors that commonly
appear in the literature, which we will discuss in detail later.
These factors contribute to overall assessments of whether
threat exists (early phase of the jealousy process) and how jeal-
ousy is manifested once elicited.
Comparison With Other Theories
Having presented our theory of jealousy as a specific emotion,
we now can contrast it with other views (represented along a
continuum in Figure 3).2 Most of these theoretical positions can
be applied to other emotions as well. On the far left, jealousy is
viewed as a social construction, without a specific biological
basis. It is a script that we learn from our culture regarding how
to behave in certain situations. This view suggests that some
cultures would not have jealousy, as claimed by Margaret Mead
regarding Samoa (Freeman, 1983). Next, are psychological
constructivists (e.g., Barrett, 2017), who propose that the expe-
rience or presence of an emotion requires language and a preex-
isting learned concept of that emotion. Both of these views are
hard to reconcile with the human infant and nonhuman animal
findings discussed earlier. Moreover, jealousy appears perva-
sive across cultures (Daly et al., 1982; Harris, 2003), including
Samoa (Freeman, 1983), although it is possible that we have yet
to discover some culture that lacks jealousy.
Closer to the center of the figure is the view that the term
“jealousy” does not refer to a specific emotional state per se, but
rather is the label applied to a complex interpersonal situation
that encompasses a variety of affective elements depending on
which appraisals or aspects of the situation are highlighted
6  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
(Clanton, 1996; Hupka, 1984; White & Mullen, 1989). Next is
the view that jealousy is a blended emotion (anger, fear, and
sadness are often implicated) that may arise either over chang-
ing reappraisals that elicit different emotions over the course of
a single episode of jealous feelings or as a result of a person
experiencing several emotions simultaneously (Sharpsteen,
1991). These two positions can account for the great degree of
variability that occurs in jealousy episodes. However, they fail
to capture jealousy’s unique aspect, namely, the motivational
state to protect the relationship, which is not captured by the
motivational states of other specific emotions.
Our position is next on the continuum. On this view, a single
emotion of jealousy evolved to secure relationships of any type
from childhood through old age and can do so for multiple rela-
tionship threats (resource loss, sexual betrayal, etc.). As with
any emotional state, other emotions can co-occur. For example,
situations that produce jealousy also may give rise to fear of
never finding a new mate or sadness over the loss of what was.
Nonetheless, jealousy still has a unique motivation that is differ-
ent than those of these other emotions. However, within a given
jealousy episode, the action tendencies of other emotions might
be recruited by jealousy to fulfill the goal of securing the rela-
tionship as when one displays anger over one’s spouse ogling
someone else.
Functional arguments are also used by theorists represented
at the far-right side of the figure, who propose that there are
multiple categorically distinct types of jealousy (as opposed to a
single state of jealousy). Postulation of multiple, very tailored,
hard-wired psychological mechanisms tends to be favored by
researchers working under the rubric of “evolutionary psychol-
ogy.” For example, one popular hypothesis proposes that the
two sexes faced different selective pressures and thus, sexual
jealousy evolved in men and emotional jealousy evolved in
women (although see Harris, 2003, for data challenging this
claim). It should be kept in mind, however, that natural selection
is potentially consistent with very general to very specific psy-
chological mechanisms. Most germane to the current article are
models that propose that what we consider as a single jealousy
process reflects categorically different types of jealousy (e.g.,
Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991, 1997; Parrott, 1991; Rydell &
Bringle, 2007). While we agree with a number of propositions
in these categorical views such as that jealousy can be both
functional and dysfunctional, there are several substantive dif-
ferences between our models.
First, although the exact terms used vary, in general, jealousy
is dichotomized as either suspicious (assessed by measures of
excessive worry and checking behaviors) or as reactive (upset
over a fairly clear-cut betrayal).3 In contrast, the DFMJ pro-
poses that what may appear as different types of jealousy are
actually different aspects of the same underlying emotional state
of jealousy that correspond to early processes (detecting threat)
and later processes (manifestations), which are ongoing and
often overlapping. In addition to greater parsimony, an advan-
tage of seeing these as part of the same state is that it enables us
to account for the many events that fall between baseless suspi-
cion of betrayal and fait accompli events (e.g., a mate leaves
you for another). With few exceptions, certainty of threat is not
as clear-cut as categorical models would suggest; for example,
situations such as your mate enjoying spending a lot of time
with her new male colleague. Unlike the DFMJ that views the
threat appraisal as the beginning of an ongoing threat assess-
ment process, previous models cannot capture the overlapping
process of jealousy when threats are between clear and unclear.
Second, categorical models posit that the different types of
jealousy are influenced by different variables—for instance,
individual difference variables primarily influence suspicious
jealousy, whereas relational variables (e.g., level of depend-
ency) primarily determine reactive jealousy (Attridge, 2013;
Bringle, 1991; Rydell & Bringle, 2007). However, the DFMJ
proposes that all variables can impact both threat appraisal and
manifestations because they are different aspects of the same
underlying emotional state of jealousy, not different types of
jealousy. In fact, as we shall see, a number of factors appear to
influence both phases of jealousy, but often have their effects on
different aspects of the jealous state (presented in Table 1).
Third, other models tend to view suspicious jealousy as dys-
functional and reactive jealousy as beneficial. While this is
clearly sometimes the case, it need not be. How these two forms
of jealousy are measured may have overly contributed to this
conclusion. Take, for example, the widely used Multidimensional
Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Two of its sub-
scales were designed to capture “pathological” jealousy and do
so by asking people about the frequency of their recent suspi-
cious thoughts and monitoring behaviors. Low scores presum-
ably indicate normal jealousy. However, without knowing
whether the rival or threat is real, it is hard to judge what is
reasonable. In the absence of a rival, engaging in snooping
behaviors might be considered pathological, but in cases of
actual or possible threat, these very behaviors seem reasonable.
For example, imagine finding two ticket stubs to an event that
your mate said he was attending alone. Under such circum-
stances, questioning him about his whereabouts or telephone
calls (pathological items on the MJS) is hardly irrational. In
contrast to predictions of dichotomous models, the diary study
by Neal and Lemay (2014) mentioned earlier lends support to
our contention that suspicious jealousy can produce beneficial
outcomes for the primary relationship.
The final difference pertains to jealousy over more certain
threats. Dichotomous models almost exclusively rely on ratings
of intensity of negative affect to measure reactive jealousy and
assume that greater intensity is more adaptive. Experiencing
jealousy over actual acts of betrayal, overall, would seem to be
beneficial, but here too we argue that whether it in fact is depends
on the degree to which the magnitude of the response matches
the magnitude of the threat (for a more general discussion, see
Scherer, 2015). After all, dysfunctional jealousy is not limited to
perceiving infidelity where it does not exist but also includes
overreacting to actual betrayal, which is often the case in spousal
abuse and jealousy-inspired homicide (Harris, 2003). To deter-
mine whether the emotion is serving its function, we propose
that one needs to assess not just the intensity of negative feelings
but also how the jealous state as a whole is manifested. Thus, our
model places weight on the manifestations of jealousy that
include motivations, cognitions, and behaviors, all of which can
 Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  7

Table 1.  Summary of how key variables impact jealousy.

Factors Elicitation phase: Manifestation phase:

Threshold for appraising Once the rival is perceived as a more certain threat, subjects tend to report
another as a relationship
threat

Individual differences
Attachment styles Anxious More often felt threatened Feelings Highest level of negative feelings
by a possible rival Cognitions Blaming themselves for the jealous situation
Behaviors Less likely to express their jealousy to their partner
Engaging in more surveillance behaviors
Secure Less often felt threatened Feelings Lower level of overall jealous feelings
Greater anger toward their partner
Motivation Greater motivation to maintain and improve their relationship
Cognitions Thinking jealousy experience brought the couples closer together
Avoidant Less often felt threatened Feelings Lower level of jealousy and other emotions such as fear, sadness,
and worry
Greater anger toward the rival
Cognitions May perceive the jealous episode as a loss of control in the
relationship
Behaviors Avoiding or denying the jealousy issue
Greater aggression toward the rival
Personality Extroversion Less often felt threatened Feelings Lower level of negative feelings
Neuroticism More often felt threatened Feelings Higher level of negative feelings
Conscientiousness Less often felt threatened Feelings Higher level of negative feelings
Relational
Satisfaction & Commitment Greater relationship Feelings Higher level of negative feelings
satisfaction/commitment, Behaviors Engaging in more constructive behaviors and less destructive
less often felt threatened behaviors
Greater relationship satisfaction, more likely to engage in covert
nonverbal behavior compared to overt behavior
Uncertainty Greater uncertainty, more Feelings Greater relational uncertainty, felt greater negative feelings
often felt threatened Behaviors Less likely to express their jealousy
Greater avoidance of issue, surveillance behaviors, distancing self
from partner, and decreased affection

range from beneficial to dysfunctional. In sum, looking at jeal-
ousy as an unfolding process sheds light on potential aspects of
jealousy that are not captured by categorical models.
Review of Empirical Data Through the
Lens of the Dynamic Functional Model of
Jealousy
Jealousy is unique, relative to other emotions, in that it inher-
ently involves three. Thus, assessments of threat and behavio-
ral choices of what to do about the threat will depend not only
on assessments of one’s own ability and feelings but also
those of the loved one and the rival.4 Here we review a num-
ber of factors that influence these assessments, including
individual difference and relationship variables (see lower
half of Figure 2.) Although not necessarily assessed directly
as such, the impact of these factors may partially reflect
underlying variables including self-worth, value of the rela-
tionship, expectations in the relationship such as trust, and
power to alter the situation, which can combine to impact
global assessments of the possible love triangle. Such assess-
ments influence both the elicitation of jealousy and how that
jealousy is then manifested. Thinking of jealousy as involving
a single process with different phases can help make sense of
the complex findings in the literature. In so doing, we illus-
trate the need to look at jealousy as it unfolds, as well as the
importance of examining measures beyond self-reported
intensity of affect, particularly when assessing whether jeal-
ousy leads to constructive or destructive consequences. Table
1 summarizes the specific effects of different variables on
jealousy using the DFMJ described in Figure 2.
Individual Difference Variables
Individuals vary in their motivation to search for relationship
threat and their threshold for what is perceived as threat. They
also differ in their beliefs in their ability to successfully deal with
a threat (removing the rival and maintaining the relationship).
8  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Attachment style. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) pro-
poses that experiences with others lead one to form internal
working mental models of relationships that begin in infancy.
While some caregivers respond immediately to an infant’s dis-
tress with comfort, other caregivers may behave in a distant or
inconsistent fashion. These ongoing experiences cause infants to
develop beliefs of what to expect from others, which also impacts
expectations about the self (Bowlby, 1969). Romantic relation-
ships are formed, at least partially, through similar attachment
processes and are argued to be influenced by attachments formed
early in life (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Attachment styles are often
presented in three categories: secure, anxious, and avoidant.
Adults with a secure attachment style generally feel worthy and
lovable and expect that others will be responsive and accepting.
Anxiously attached individuals also view attachment relation-
ships positively, yet have persistent worries of abandonment
because they fear they may not be worthy of love (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987). Individuals with the prototypical insecure-avoid-
ant attachment style believe others are unreliable and untrust-
worthy and that they therefore must rely on themselves.
Bartholomew’s (1990) work suggests that attachment styles
might be best thought of as involving two primary underlying
cognitive dimensions: (a) views of others as supportive, caring,
and loving; (b) beliefs about one’s own worthiness or lovability.
This dimensional view suggests further division of the insecure-
avoidant group: fear of attachment relationships (fearful) versus
low need for attachment relationships (dismissing).
Using the DFMJ, we describe how some of the apparent con-
tradictions in attachment research make sense when jealousy is
viewed as an unfolding process. Examining the most common
measures of early processes (e.g., worrying, checking behav-
iors) and of late processes (intensity of negative feelings), one
might conclude that the effect of any particular attachment style
is consistent throughout a jealousy episode (increasing or
decreasing jealousy). For example, both secure and avoidant
attachment styles would appear to produce low levels of jeal-
ousy throughout the process. However, if we take into account
the full range of jealous reactions including motivations, cogni-
tions, and behaviors, as our model argues we should, the effect
of attachment style is more nuanced. For example, avoidant
people engage in distancing behaviors when jealous, whereas
securely attached people attempt to maintain and improve their
relationship. We examine each attachment style in what follows.
Anxious attachment style. Although anxiously attached peo-
ple value attachment bonds, their low self-regard makes them
worry about being worthy of love and so fear that their partners
may eventually abandon them (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Radecki-
Bush, Farrell, & Bush, 1993; Simpson, 1990). This lack of trust in
their partner intensifies reactions across both phases of a jealousy
episode (although, see Rydell & Bringle, 2007, for an exception).
First, it heightens sensitivity toward possible interlopers at the
appraisal phase resulting in more frequent suspicious concerns
over possible betrayal (Attridge, 2013; Guerrero, 1998; see Fig-
ure 2 and Table 1). Moreover, when participants rated the extent
to which a series of behaviors (e.g., a person in a long-term rela-
tionship spending lots of time with a member of the opposite sex)
would be considered cheating, those with anxious attachment
style rated 18 of 27 behaviors higher, underscoring that they per-
ceive more threat than people with other attachment styles (Kru-
ger et al., 2013). Anxiously attached individuals also report more
jealousy over a partner’s Facebook activities involving an attrac-
tive person of the opposite sex (Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2014;
Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2013; Muise, Christofides,
& Desmarais, 2014).
At later phases of jealousy, anxious attachment style appears
to intensify negative feelings as shown across a variety of jeal-
ousy-inducing methods including recall of past experiences
(Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997), various hypothetical scenar-
ios (Buunk, 1997; Miller, Denes, Diaz, & Buck, 2014; Selterman
& Maier, 2013; Wigman, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008; see
Attridge, 2013, for an exception), a hypothetical Facebook post-
ing (Fleuriet, Cole, & Guerrero, 2014), a video of the confeder-
ate rival talking in a flirtatious manner to their assigned partner
(Powers, 2000), and in-lab manipulations between actual cou-
ples in which participants had to record how attractive their
romantic partner found several highly attractive targets as well
as their partner’s potential interest in being in a relationship
with the targets (Kim, Feeney, & Jakubiak, 2018).
However, when we turn to behavioral manifestations in
adults, we see a different pattern. Notwithstanding having more
intense negative feelings, anxiously attached individuals
reported that they were less willing to express these feelings in
past jealousy experiences (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997).
Moreover, in the study by Kim et al. (2018), despite having just
heard about their partner’s attraction to others, anxiously
attached individuals were less likely to retaliate (by not openly
admitting their own attraction to others in front of their partner).
Even when anxiously attached people do express their jealousy,
they report doing so through passive acts such as appearing sad
and depressed in front of their partner (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998).
They also increase monitoring behaviors. When anxiously
attached people felt jealous, they increased both offline
(Guerrero, 19985; Guerrero & Afifi, 1998) and online surveil-
lance (Marshall et al., 2013; Muise et al., 20146; Wright, 2017).
A similar behavioral pattern is found in children. Firstborns
whose attachment style was anxious-clingy most intently moni-
tored the interaction between their mother and their newborn
sibling while keeping close physical contact and proximity to
their mother (Volling et al., 2014). Anxiously attached preverbal
infants, who were competing against an infant-looking doll for
their mother’s attention, also exhibited greater proximity to
their mothers (Hart & Behrens, 2013).
Behaviors of the anxiously attached likely arise from varia-
bles listed in Figure 2, particularly a lack of trust in their part-
ners (Marshall et al., 2013) along with low self-worth, which
includes blaming themselves for jealous situations (Radecki-
Bush et al., 1993). Anxiously attached people may be too afraid
to openly confront their partner because they worry that their
partner might abandon them, so they choose instead to engage
in heightened surveillance activities. We propose that their
beliefs about their inability to handle more certain threats con-
tribute to the actions they take in earlier phases. Catching early
signs of a mate’s interest in another may be their best strategy

for maintaining the relationship given that they likely feel they
lack the power to manage more serious betrayal. However, sur-
veillance behaviors also could backfire given the finding that
even those who themselves engaged in online surveillance
behaviors felt upset or annoyed if their partner did the same
thing to them (Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011;
Lucero, Weisz, Smith-Darden, & Lucero, 2014). Overall,
although anxiously attached individuals may detect more threats
at the earlier process of jealousy and experience greater nega-
tive affect over a clearer threat, their behavioral reactions may
be less effective in protecting the long-term relationship. This is
a case where the dichotomized models discussed earlier would
appear incorrect in predicting that greater negative feelings in
response to actual threat will lead to more beneficial results.
Secure and avoidant attachment styles. Both secure and
avoidant attachment styles report lower jealousy relative to anx-
ious attachment style both in early and late phases of jealousy.7
However, secure and avoidant attachment styles likely do so
for different reasons, namely faith in the relationship for secure
attachment style and low value of the relationship for avoidant/
dismissive attachment style. Moreover, they differ in how their
jealousy is exhibited, highlighting the importance of examining
measures beyond self-report intensity of affect.
Secure and avoidant attachment styles have a higher thresh-
old for appraising a third party as a relationship threat, as evi-
denced by their reports of fewer suspicious worries over possible
rivals (e.g., Attridge, 2013; Buunk, 1997; Guerrero, 1998;
Rydell & Bringle, 2007). Securely attached people’s faith in
relationships combined with their self-worth likely helps buffer
against perceiving relationship threat. In contrast, avoidant
attachment style’s lack of confidence in relationships appears to
translate into not spending a lot of time worrying about possible
betrayal, leading to low self-reports of jealousy.
These two groups report lower jealousy under more certain
threat as well as shown across a number of studies using recall,
lab manipulations, and hypothetical vignettes (Buunk, 1997;
Miller et al., 2014; Powers, 2000; Rydell & Bringle, 2007;
although see Attridge, 2013; Wigman et al., 2008, for partial
support). For example, when people recalled their actual jealous
episodes, securely attached and avoidant people reported less
intense overall negative feelings compared to anxious/preoccu-
pied people (Guerrero, 1998; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997).
Additionally, experimentally manipulating secure attachment
by having people think of a loved one helping them, provided a
buffer against subsequent jealous feelings over a hypothetical
scenario (Selterman & Maier, 2013). In sum, overall studies
largely seem to indicate that secure and avoidant attachment
styles lead to self-reports of relatively less intense negative feel-
ings during jealousy episodes.
However, it would be inaccurate to claim that individuals
with secure or avoidant attachment styles are less jealous across
the board. Research reveals that each attachment style is associ-
ated with qualitatively different jealous reactions. Despite gen-
erally reporting lower jealous feelings, Sharpsteen and
Kirkpatrick (1997) found that when describing past jealousy
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  9
experiences, securely attached people reported experiencing
greater anger directed specifically at their mate, and greater
motivation to maintain and improve their relationship compared
to people with other attachment styles (Sharpsteen &
Kirkpatrick, 1997). The anger may be a product of their greater
perceived self-worth and hence the feeling that they do not
deserve their partner’s behavior, combined with the desire to
maintain the relationship. Anger is elicited when one perceives
an injustice but thinks the obstacle likely can be overcome and,
unlike contempt, suggests one has not given up on the relation-
ship (Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016). Directing their anger at
their partner, who also has a stake in their relationship, likely is
more effective than directing it at the rival. In fact, those who
were securely attached were the only group that reported that
their jealousy experience brought them closer (Sharpsteen &
Kirkpatrick, 1997). Recall that categorical models presume that
more intense jealous feelings over actual threat is adaptive.
However, these findings underscore the importance of not
merely relying on self-reported feelings since here we see that
despite having lower self-reported emotion, securely attached
individuals are more motivated to engage in constructive behav-
iors when jealous.
In contrast, avoidant people’s less intense feelings of jeal-
ousy appear more counterproductive due to a failure to engage
in behaviors to protect the relationship. When describing a
recent jealous experience, people with dismissive style reported
greater avoidance and denial of the issue and less constructive
communication (Guerrero, 1998) and reported greater anger
toward the rival relative to other attachment styles (Sharpsteen
& Kirkpatrick, 1997). They also displayed the greatest level of
aggression toward the rival after watching a flirtatious video
between their assigned partner and a confederate, although their
general level of jealous feelings was similar to that of securely
attached people (Powers, 2000). While targeting the rival may
help remove the current threat, it likely does little to deter the
mate from engaging in similar behavior in the future, and there-
fore may be less effective than targeting the mate, as securely
attached individuals do. Other than discouraging the rival,
avoidant individuals do not seem to further engage in behaviors
to protect the relationship.
Their less than optimal behavioral responses to jealousy
appear early in life. Based on parental reports, firstborn children
who had avoidant attachment characteristics exhibited problem-
atic behaviors the most, including withdrawal 4 months after the
birth of their sibling (Volling et al., 2014). In another study, chil-
dren’s withdrawal behaviors after their sibling’s birth predicted
relationship problems with their sibling (Dunn & Kendrick,
1982), which seems consistent with the adult findings of aggres-
sion towards the rival. Thus, avoidant attachment style seems to
be characterized by a high threshold for threat perception as
well as a failure to engage in behaviors that would reduce the
risk of losing the relationship under more certain threat.
In sum, attachment findings underscore the importance of
examining the full range of jealous responses. In particular, they
suggest that behavioral tendencies, more than intensity of affect,
may be key in predicting the long-term effects of jealousy.
10  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Personality.  Whereas attachment styles inherently involve
individual differences in how people approach relationships,
personality variables involve more global differences in how
people perceive circumstances and respond to them. Here we
focus on extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. The
number of studies using personality are fewer than those using
other variables so we devote less space to this topic and offer
our suggestions tentatively.
As seen in Table 1, when people were asked to report the
frequency of their concerns over the possibility of a rival (see
initial appraisal of threat in Figure 2), those high on neuroticism
reported more cases, whereas those high on extraversion
reported fewer (Buunk, 1997; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008;
Melamed, 1991). These effects also carried over to affective
responses to more certain relational threats, neurotic individuals
still reported greater negative affect, whereas extraverted indi-
viduals responded with less negative affect (Buunk, 1997;
Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). These effects make sense when we
consider that personality reflects general tendencies.
The effect of neuroticism appears straightforward; the over-
all negative outlook characterized by heightened negative emo-
tion prevails both when assessing initial threat and in response
to more certain threat. Neurotic individuals also have less trust
in their partners (a factor listed in Figure 2), which likely con-
tributes to this effect as well (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, &
Rubin, 2010). Less is known about behavioral reactions, but we
predict that these also are likely to take on a negative form. One
study consistent with this found that when neurotic women
recalled their behavioral responses to their spouse’s extramarital
affair, they reported avoiding their partner or the situation rather
than trying to communicate about it (Buunk, 1982).
Why do extraverts have lower jealousy? One suggestion
(Dijkstra, Barelds, & Buunk, 2009; Nettle, 2006; Watson &
Clark, 1997) is that extraverts’ higher social skills make them feel
more confident that they could find a new partner and therefore
feel less threatened. In addition, we suggest that because extro-
verts have much more experience interacting with others across
different contexts, they likely appraise many social acts as benign
whereas those who have fewer social experiences or who are less
socially skilled perceive the same acts as threatening.
In contrast to extraversion and neuroticism, the trait of con-
scientiousness shows how personality can differentially influ-
ence early versus late phases of jealousy. Dijkstra and Barelds’s
(2008) study found that people with high conscientiousness
were less likely to appraise a possible rival as threatening,
whereas they reported greater jealousy to more certain threat.
This switch in intensity of reactions in early versus late phases
of jealousy can also be understood by thinking about the global
assessments that conscientious people are likely to make at
these different time points. We suggest that because they them-
selves live up to their social commitments, they trust that others
will too, and therefore do not anticipate threat. However, when
actually confronted with betrayal, they may respond intensely
because this trust has been violated. Although there is no direct
evidence of how conscientious people behave when jealous,
there are some other general findings that lead us to predict that
they may behave constructively. Conscientious individuals have
high marital satisfaction (Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, &
Lucas, 2010), low rates of cheating (Schmitt, 2004), and more
stable relationships (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Karney & Bradbury,
1995; Schmitt, 2004). Future studies of how different personali-
ties display jealousy could help unpack the connection between
cognitions, jealous feelings, behaviors, and constructive/
destructive consequences.
Relational Variables
Existing qualities of relationships, referred to as relationship
variables, are another set of factors that impacts the elicitation
and manifestation of jealousy. For example, the degree to which
one feels positive about one’s relationship or secure about the
future of the relationship can differently shape sensitivity
toward appraising threats as well as responses to threats. In the
following section, we will review how some relational factors
such as satisfaction, commitment, and uncertainty impact dif-
ferent aspects of jealousy.
Satisfaction and commitment.  Relational satisfaction gener-
ally refers to individuals’ contentment in their relationships
(Bevan, 2013; Guerrero & Eloy, 1992; Rusbult, 1980), and com-
mitment generally refers to the long-term orientation to maintain
a relationship that is found satisfying and invested, with less inter-
est in alternative options (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult, 1983;
Stanley & Markman, 1992). At the earlier phase, we posit that
relational satisfaction and commitment provide buffers against
doubts regarding one’s relationship, including worries about the
possibility of interlopers since both suggest trust in the relation-
ship. Studies where participants were asked to report their fre-
quency of suspicious concerns over possible infidelity support
this; more satisfied people reported fewer instances, as did com-
mitted people (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995;
Bevan, 2008; Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014; Demirtaş & Dön-
mez, 2006; DiBello, Rodriguez, Hadden, & Neighbors, 2015;
Guerrero & Eloy, 1992; Kennedy-Lightsey & Booth-Butterfield,
2011; Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2007).
While a buffer against appraising threat, relationship satisfac-
tion and commitment can intensify other aspects of jealousy,
including heightening feelings over more certain betrayal
(Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2006;
Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014; although see DiBello et al.,
2015, for a null finding). For example, when a large sample of
married and cohabiting couples imagined more clear-cut infidel-
ity (e.g., sexual intercourse), individuals with better relationship
qualities (e.g., higher satisfaction) reported that they would be
more jealous relative to less satisfied individuals (Barelds &
Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). One study suggests this effect extends
beyond romantic rivals to include a mate’s same-sex friends, who
are also competitors for the loved one’s time, attention, etc.
(Hansen, 1983). Similar effects appear for commitment, such that
when people were asked to imagine specific hypothetical jeal-
ousy situations, those in more committed relationships reported
greater negative affect (Buunk, 1991; DiBello et al., 2015).

However, not all studies have found the expected relation-
ship between satisfaction/commitment and intensity of jealous
feelings. Four studies that used the MJS found no relationship or
a negative relationship (Attridge, 2013; Bevan, 2008; Guerrero
& Eloy, 1992; Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2007). The
inconsistencies might be an artifact of using an emotion meas-
ure that included the endpoints of “very pleased” to “very
upset.” It is unlikely that subjects would report feeling pleased
to any degree over their mate’s betrayal. Such a restrictive scale
may sometimes miss effects. In a study where this scale was
revised to “not at all upset” to “very upset,” more satisfied indi-
viduals reported greater jealous feelings (Dandurand &
Lafontaine, 2014).
Thus, relationship variables that include trust and confidence
in the loved one serve to raise the threshold for perceiving threat
(see Figure 2). However, once threat is more clear-cut, these rela-
tionship variables work to magnify jealousy presumably because
(a) violation of trust compounds the betrayal and (b) the higher
the value of the relationship, the greater the potential loss.
Despite generally eliciting stronger jealous feelings, both
relational satisfaction and commitment are associated with
channeling jealousy into positive behaviors. In married and seri-
ously dating samples, more satisfied individuals reported engag-
ing in less destructive (e.g., avoiding partner or yelling) and
more constructive behaviors (e.g., increasing affection) in their
recent jealousy experience (Buunk, 1982; Guerrero, Hannawa,
& Babin, 2011; Kennedy-Lightsey & Booth-Butterfield, 2011).
Additionally, when dating couples were asked to imagine hypo-
thetical jealousy situations, relationship satisfaction was posi-
tively related to endorsing more constructive jealousy responses
such as trying to talk to the partner and reach an understanding
(Guerrero, 2014). Likewise, committed individuals also reported
that they would engage in more constructive and less destruc-
tive responses (Bevan, 2008; Timmerman, 2001). Moreover,
when people listened to the vivid jealousy scenarios and imag-
ined their partner in those situations, highly committed people
reported that they would be less likely to engage in physical or
verbal aggressive actions relative to those less committed
(Slotter et al., 2012). Committed people still reported feeling
angry as much as less committed people, but they were less
likely to channel those feelings into destructive reactions.
Furthermore, there is intriguing recent evidence that rela-
tional satisfaction may differentially influence the nonverbal
behavior strategies that people use to deal with a relationship
threat. Montoya and Hibbard (2014) brought heterosexual cou-
ples into the lab and informed them, “When two people keep a
secret from a third person, attraction between those two people
tends to increase.” Next, a confederate (who ostensibly arrived
late) shared a secret either with the partner of the same sex (low-
threat condition) or the opposite sex (high-threat condition).
The couple’s subsequent behaviors showed that in the high-
threat condition, unsatisfied men were more likely to increase
overt nonverbal behaviors such as touching their girlfriends,
whereas satisfied men were more likely to increase what the
authors refer to as covert nonverbal behaviors such as smiling.
Although this pattern of results was found only for men, and
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  11
awaits further replication, it suggests interesting directions for
future work on nonverbal behaviors during jealousy. In fact,
other work shows that a romantic partner’s touch decreased
jealousy in anxiously attached people (Kim et al., 2018), but-
tressing the buffering effect of touch on the jealousy experience.
How nonverbal behavior may be linked with long-term effects
in the relationship remains to be investigated. Models that view
suspicious versus reactive jealousy as two distinct emotions
would not readily account for data such as these, where a threat
is potential but by no means certain.
Relational uncertainty.  A third relational variable, uncer-
tainty, also influences jealousy, but the pattern of impact is dif-
ferent from relational satisfaction and commitment (Knobloch,
Miller, Bond, & Mannone, 2007; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999).
In particular, relational uncertainty is related to heightened jeal-
ous responses in both phases, but manifests in more indirect
behaviors. Individuals with greater uncertainty reported more
frequent concerns over possible infidelity (Knobloch, Solomon,
& Cruz, 2001; Theiss & Solomon, 2006), and a longitudinal
diary study confirmed that uncertainty about partner’s feelings
and future of the relationship led to higher frequency of such
concerns (Theiss & Solomon, 2006). In other work, people with
greater relationship uncertainty reported that they would also
worry more over a partner’s friend (e.g., the friend would influ-
ence the partner’s decisions more than themselves; Worley &
Samp, 2014). At later phases of jealousy, uncertainty about the
future of the relationship was associated with greater negative
feelings (Knobloch et al., 2001). Overall, it seems that lower
confidence about involvement in a relationship intensifies jeal-
ous reactions across both phases. We suggest this is because
uncertain relationships are the very ones that are most vulnera-
ble to rivals, prompting alertness to possible threat. They are
also likely to be characterized by low feelings of power to
remove an existing threat.
When uncertain people recalled how they behaved the last
time they experienced jealousy, they reported being more likely
to pretend they were not affected by the jealous incident (Afifi
& Reichert, 1996). They also showed less affection towards
their partners while increasing surveillance behaviors (Kennedy-
Lightsey & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). Overall, uncertainty
increases passive jealous behaviors toward more certain threats.
The pattern of responses from relationship uncertainty is similar
to that seen in the anxiously attached, who chronically suffer
from feelings of uncertainty about their relationships as well as
feelings of inadequacy in dealing with threat.
Summary
In sum, we have discussed a number of factors that impact jeal-
ousy and have shown how they do so differentially across early
and later phases of a jealous episode. Relational and individual
difference factors that are associated with self-worth, trust, and
valuing the relationship (see Figure 2) appear to buffer against
appraising relationship threat. However, they do not dampen all
aspects of jealousy and have been shown to often intensify feel-
12  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
ings when the threat is more certain. Of particular importance,
we have shown that more intense feelings of jealousy can be
associated with different types of behaviors, some of which may
be detrimental to the maintenance of the relationship, while oth-
ers may improve it. This emphasizes that the field needs to
move towards measuring downstream reactions beyond self-
report in order to understand when and how jealousy is effective
versus counterproductive.
Final Discussion
In this article, we have offered the Dynamic Functional Model
of Jealousy. We have shown through developmental and nonhu-
man animal work that jealousy has a core form that can be elic-
ited by the simple appraisal that an interloper is attempting to
usurp some aspect of one’s relationship. The primary motiva-
tions are to monitor the situation and break up the threatening
liaison through any means possible. This motivational state, we
have argued, is different from the motivations associated with
other specific emotions. Jealousy presumably evolved because
it often produced effective solutions to securing one’s relation-
ship and the Darwinian rewards that tend to come with that.
Most previous research has focused on cases where jealousy
goes wrong, partially because at the extremes this is when it
becomes a societal issue (resulting in divorce, abuse, and even
murder). But here we have shown that, despite feeling subjec-
tively negative, jealousy can produce beneficial as well as
destructive results. This core state serves as the foundation for
the more elaborated manifestations of jealousy that we see in
older children and adults. These include more complex apprais-
als and sophisticated strategies aimed at achieving the motiva-
tional goal state. Using the DFMJ, we also illustrated how a
number of variables impact jealousy differently in early and late
phases. We conclude that to understand and predict jealous reac-
tions, we need to examine jealousy throughout an episode and
include measures of concomitants of jealousy that go beyond
self-reported intensity or frequency. Looking only at one meas-
ure in a single phase of the jealousy process can give one an
erroneous picture of the effect of any given factor on jealousy.
Our model of jealousy as a specific emotion in which various
behaviors are linked to one underlying emotional state is con-
sistent with a number of theories of specific emotions (e.g.,
Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Nesse, 1990; Roseman, 2011).
Interestingly though, jealousy does not find itself among the list
of basic emotions proposed by many specific emotion theorists.
For example, Ekman and Cordaro (2011), while somewhat
agnostic about whether jealousy might be a basic emotion, sug-
gest it is a “mental state” or “emotional scene” instead. Table 2
shows a list of some of the characteristics that Ekman and
Cordaro have argued exist in nearly all basic emotions. Jealousy
seems to exhibit most of these characteristics but not all of
them. In particular, there is no evidence to date that there is a
universal signal or distinct physiology. Research with other pri-
mates does not exist, although there are anecdotal reports.
Moreover, while jealousy can be of brief duration, we propose it
usually is not.
Table 2.  Characteristics that Ekman and Cordaro (2011) have argued exist
in nearly all basic emotions.
1. Distinctive universal signals
2. Distinctive physiology
3. Automatic appraisal
4. Distinctive universals in antecedent events
5. Presence in other primates
6. Capable of quick onset
7. Can be of brief duration
8. Unbidden occurrence
9. Distinctive thoughts, memories, and images
10. Distinctive subjective experience
11. Refractory period filters information available to what supports the
emotion
12. Target of emotion unconstrained
13. The emotion can be enacted in either a constructive or destructive
fashion
Note. Italics are added to highlight the characteristics that raise possible questions
about whether jealousy is a basic emotion.
Much of the work in the field, including Ekman’s, has
focused on emotions that conform to a very restrictive template
(e.g., they have distinct and recognizable facial expressions and
can thus be posed, they have quick onset and offset). In our
view, this produces a focus on short-lived emotions that are elic-
ited by punctate stimuli, a focus that may be an artifact of our
methods for studying emotion. The emotions that fit this tem-
plate are the ones that most readily lend themselves to investiga-
tion within the laboratory. However, what is true for this subset
of emotions (e.g., those with distinct facial expressions, quick
onset) may not apply to more complex emotions, particularly
inherently interpersonal ones such as jealousy. Ekman’s method
of studying emotion (primarily through facial expressions) may
have led him to propose criteria for specific emotions that fail to
capture some important emotions, which may be qualitatively
different than those with these particular characteristics. An
emotion like jealousy may still be distinct in the sense that it has
its own motivational state and cannot be distilled down into
other emotions. Thus, we need to broaden our view of what con-
stitutes specific emotions.
From a motivational perspective, an emotion should last as
long as is needed to rectify the inclusive fitness risk that triggers
it. Longer lasting emotions are needed for longer lasting threats
and challenges. Jealousy is about keeping another from usurp-
ing your relationship. Relationships do not emerge instantane-
ously. They develop over time. This is true for primary
relationships and true for any relationship that might blossom
between a loved one and a rival. If jealousy is to serve its func-
tion of securing the primary relationship, it needs to deal with
any potential threat, not only in the present but also by prevent-
ing subsequent development of any emerging bond between a
loved one and a rival. Doing so requires ongoing tracking, which
means that jealousy often will occur over a much longer time
course than is usually assumed in theories of specific emotions.
Even a single incident of betrayal or of a partner’s temptation

induces an ongoing cascade of appraisals assessing the magni-
tude and scope of threat both to relationship rewards and to self-
esteem. Adults can pursue complex strategies to achieve the
goal of maintaining the relationship. Moreover, an emotional
state such as jealousy might easily recruit other emotions in ser-
vice of its goals as we saw with the way different attachment
styles predict the character of a recalled jealousy episode. The
need for our theories of emotion to take into account longer last-
ing emotions is highlighted not only by our treatment of jeal-
ousy here but also by the treatment of other emotions in this
special section such as hate (Fischer, Halperin, Canetti, & Jasini,
XXXX).
Finally, while many emotions have distinct facial displays and
involve substantial autonomic nervous system activity to ready
the organism for action, they need not all have these. To date, a
facial expression of jealousy has not been proposed, although, to
our knowledge, studies on this in adults do not exist. The lack of
a jealousy facial expression is intriguing and could potentially be
adaptive. Displaying one’s internal state is not always to one’s
advantage. This may be the case with jealousy. Effective action in
the face of relationship threats is likely to need to be subtle since
one is trying to manipulate the behavior of others.
Critics of specific emotions (e.g., Barrett, 2009) have focused
heavily on one version of functionalism (namely, Ekman’s) and
have often made the erroneous assumption that there should be a
one-to-one mapping between behavior and emotion (e.g., fear
inevitably produces fleeing). There is nothing in the classic func-
tional analysis of emotions that requires or implies this (Roseman,
2011). Thus, we underscore again that the functional account we
present here (which seems to be shared by many specific emo-
tions theorists) is not one that argues that emotions produce a spe-
cific behavior in a reflexive way. Instead, emotions are conceived
of as motivational states that can favor the adoption of a wide
variety of strategies or behaviors that can help fulfill a desired
goal state. (In fact, even what have been described as fixed action
patterns among nonhuman animals are often far from fixed. This
flexibility in behavior has led many to prefer the term modal
action pattern.) Even basic physiological motivational states such
as hunger and thirst do not inevitably lead us to eat and drink, as
many dieters can attest! Furthermore, people often eat or drink for
reasons other than hunger and thirst such as in boredom or cele-
bration. Thus, if we do not see a one-to-one mapping of behavior
to biological states as key to survival as hunger and thirst are, then
we should not expect such a tight connection between particular
behaviors and a specific emotion.
In closing, different specific emotions will have some things
in common, including appraisals, feelings, action readiness, and
prioritized goal states, but they need not share all features such
as having a discernable facial expression or lasting only for a
short duration. As a field, we may never come to a complete
consensus on what constitutes an emotion (Nesse, 2014).
However, even if we do not, we still can make meaningful pro-
gress in understanding specific emotions. In the current article,
we have proposed some first steps toward predicting not only
when a precipitating event will lead to jealousy in given indi-
viduals but also how that jealousy will be manifested.
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  13
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1 The type of developmental process we propose here is in keeping with
that of other emotions as well. For example, it has been argued that
shame and pride do not occur until a sense of self is firmly established,
including the ability to recognize social expectations and others’ views
of the self (Lewis, Sullivan, Stanger, & Weiss, 1989). However, there
is some suggestive evidence that these emotions also may have a nas-
cent form (Reddy, 2003; Trevarthen, 2005).
2 We focus primarily on theoretical perspectives for adult emotions,
although many also bear on jealousy in human young and nonhuman
animals. For additional views within the developmental literature, see
Hart and Legerstee (2010).
3 Some models describe three forms of jealousy (e.g., cognitive, behav-
ioral, and emotional; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) but these generally can
be divided into suspicious versus reactive.
4 Our thinking has been influenced by Hupka (1981), Lazarus (1991),
Mathes (1991), and White (1981).
5 This study found that the more excessive surveillance behaviors were
paired with constructive behaviors.
6 The effect was only found in women.
7 Differences in self-reported jealousy between people with secure and
avoidant/dismissive attachment styles are sometimes reported, but the
pattern is not consistent across studies.
References
Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty
in jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9(2),
93–103.
Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995).
Romantic jealousy and relational satisfaction: A look at the impact
of jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 8(2),
77–85.
Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness: Exploring the
good (reactive) and bad (suspicious) sides of romantic jealousy. Sage
Open, 3(1). doi:10.1177/2158244013476054
Barelds, D. P., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different
types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship qual-
ity. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188.
Barelds, D. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2006). Reactive, anxious, and possessive
forms of jealousy and their relation to relationship quality among heter-
osexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 183–198.
Barrett, L. F. (2009). Variety is the spice of life: A psychological construc-
tion approach to understanding variability in emotion. Cognition &
Emotion, 23, 1284–1306.
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspec-
tive. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178.
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). Col-
lege students electronic victimization in friendships and dating rela-
tionships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors.
Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410–429.
Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy:
Questioning the investment model. Southern Communication Journal,
73(1), 42–67.
Bevan, J. L. (2013). The communication of jealousy. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
14  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related
behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to
mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional
model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.
103–131). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buunk, B. (1982). Strategies of jealousy: Styles of coping with extramarital
involvement of the spouse. Family Relations, 31, 13–18.
Buunk, B. P. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoret-
ical perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and
envy (pp. 148–177). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as
related to various types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 23(6), 997–1006.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, vari-
ability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 14–31.
Clanton, G. (1996). A sociology of jealousy. International Journal of Soci-
ology and Social Policy, 16(9–10), 171–189.
Cohen-Charash, Y. (2009). Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 39, 2128–2173.
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.
Dandurand, C., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2014). Jealousy and couple satisfac-
tion: A romantic attachment perspective. Marriage & Family Review,
50(2), 154–173.
Darwin, C. (1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chi-
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1872)
Demirtaş, H. A., & Dönmez, A. (2006). Jealousy in close relationships (per-
sonal, relational and situational variables). Turkish Journal of Psychia-
try, 17(3), 181–191.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the
threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 626–641.
DiBello, A. M., Rodriguez, L. M., Hadden, B. W., & Neighbors, C. (2015).
The green eyed monster in the bottle: Relationship contingent self-
esteem, romantic jealousy, and alcohol-related problems. Addictive
Behaviors, 49, 52–58.
Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. (2008). Self and partner personality and
responses to relationship threats. Journal of Research in Personality,
42(6), 1500–1511.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P., & Buunk, A. P. (2009). On the adaptive nature
of jealousy: Jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective.
In A. Błachnio & A. Przepiorka (Eds.), Closer to emotions III (pp. 241–
256). Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Dixson, A. F. (2015). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosim-
ians, monkeys, apes, and humans. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ cur-
rent Facebook friends; beware the ones they add! Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 483–488.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). The speech of two- and three-year-olds to
infant siblings: “Baby talk” and the context of communication. Journal
of Child Language, 9(3), 579–595.
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010).
Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nation-
ally representative samples from three countries: The relative impor-
tance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702.
Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic.
Emotion Review, 3, 364–370.
Fischer, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Contempt: Derogating others while
keeping calm. Emotion Review, 8, 346–357.
Fischer, A. H., Halperin, E., Canetti, D., & Jasini, A. (XXXX). Why we
hate. Emotion Review, X, XXX–XXX.
Fleuriet, C., Cole, M., & Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Exploring Facebook:
Attachment style and nonverbal message characteristics as predictors
of anticipated emotional reactions to Facebook postings. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 429–450.
Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking
of an anthropological myth. Canberra, Australia: Australian National
University Press.
Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience
and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5(3),
273–291.
Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Jealousy and relational satisfaction: Actor effects,
partner effects, and the mediating role of destructive communicative
responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 586–
611.
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1998). Communicative responses to jeal-
ousy as a function of self-esteem and relationship maintenance goals:
A test of Bryson’s dual motivation model. Communication Reports,
11(2), 111–122.
Guerrero, L. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Relational satisfaction and jealousy
across marital types. Communication Reports, 5(1), 23–31.
Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The Communica-
tive Responses to Jealousy Scale: Revision, empirical validation, and
associations with relational satisfaction. Communication Methods and
Measures, 5(3), 223–249.
Hansen, G. L. (1983). Marital satisfaction and jealousy among men. Psy-
chological Reports, 52(2), 363–366.
Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, C. K., & Harris, C. R. (2009). Jealousy: Novel
methods and neural correlates. Emotion, 9(1), 113–117.
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, includ-
ing self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal vio-
lence and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
7, 102–128.
Harris, C. R., & Darby, R. S. (2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In S. L. Hart
& M. Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and
multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 547–571). Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Harris, C. R., & Prouvost, C. (2014). Jealousy in dogs. PLoS One, 9(7),
e94597. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094597
Hart, S., Field, T., Del Valle, C., & Letourneau, M. (1998). Infants protest
their mothers’ attending to an infant-size doll. Social Development,
7(1), 54–61.
Hart, S. L. (2016a). Proximal foundations of jealousy: Expectations of
exclusivity in the infant’s first year of life. Emotion Review, 8, 358–366.
Hart, S. L. (2016b). Jealousy protest: Ontogeny in accord with the 9-month
period of human gestation. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1–9.
Hart, S. L., & Behrens, K. Y. (2013). Affective and behavioral features of
jealousy protest: Associations with child temperament, maternal inter-
action style, and attachment. Infancy, 18(3), 369–399.
Hart, S. L., & Carrington, H. A. (2002). Jealousy in six-month-old infants.
Infancy, 3, 395–402.
Hart, S. L., Carrington, H. A., Tronick, E. Z., & Carroll, S. R. (2004). When
infants lose exclusive maternal attention: Is it jealousy? Infancy, 6(1),
57–78.
Hart, S. L., & Legerstee, M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of jealousy: The-
ory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches. Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attach-
ment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3),
511–524.
Henniger, N. E., & Harris, C. R. (2014). Can negative social emotions have
positive consequences? An examination of embarrassment, shame,

guilt, jealousy, and envy. In W. G. Parrott (Ed.), The positive side of
negative emotions (pp. 76–97). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hobson, R. P. (2010). Is jealousy a complex emotion? In S. L. Hart & M.
Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multi-
disciplinary approaches (pp. 293–311). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hupka, R. B. (1981). Cultural determinants of jealousy. Alternative Life-
styles, 4(3), 310–356.
Hupka, R. B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular
situation? Motivation and Emotion, 8(2), 141–155.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital
quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
Kennedy-Lightsey, C., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). Responses to jeal-
ousy situations that evoke uncertainty in married and dating relation-
ships. Communication Quarterly, 59(2), 255–275.
Kim, K. J., Feeney, B. C., & Jakubiak, B. K. (2018). Touch reduces roman-
tic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 35(7), 1019–1041.
Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., Bond, B. J., & Mannone, S. E. (2007). Rela-
tional uncertainty and message processing in marriage. Communication
Monographs, 74(2), 154–180.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and con-
tent of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278.
Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of rela-
tionship development and attachment in the experience of romantic
jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 205–224.
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald,
C. J., & Strout, S. L. (2013). Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by
sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1),
159–171.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determi-
nants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relation-
ships, 10, 37–57.
Legerstee, M., Ellenbogen, B., Nienhuis, T., & Marsh, H. (2010). Social
bonds, triadic relationships, and goals. In S. L. Hart & M. Legerstee
(Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary
approaches (pp. 163–191). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, M. (2010). Loss, protest, and emotional development. In S. L. Hart
& M. Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and
multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 27–39). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Black-
well.
Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., Stanger, C., & Weiss, M. (1989). Self devel-
opment and self-conscious emotions. Child Development, 60(1),
146–156.
Lucero, J. L., Weisz, A. N., Smith-Darden, J., & Lucero, S. M. (2014).
Exploring gender differences: Socially interactive technology use/
abuse among dating teens. Affilia, 29(4), 478–491.
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attach-
ment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance
in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 1–22.
Masciuch, S., & Kienapple, K. (1993). The emergence of jealousy in chil-
dren 4 months to 7 years of age. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 10(3), 421–435.
Mathes, E. W. (1986). Jealousy and romantic love: A longitudinal study.
Psychological Reports, 58, 885–886.
Mathes, E. W. (1991). A cognitive theory of jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.),
The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 52–78). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Melamed, T. (1991). Individual differences in romantic jealousy: The
moderating effect of relationship characteristics. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 21(5), 455–461.
Miller, M. J., Denes, A., Diaz, B., & Buck, R. (2014). Attachment style pre-
dicts jealous reactions to viewing touch between a romantic partner and
Chung & Harris  Jealousy as a Specific Emotion  15
close friend: Implications for Internet social communication. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 451–476.
Mize, K. D., & Jones, N. A. (2012). Infant physiological and behavioral
responses to loss of maternal attention to a social-rival. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(1), 16–23.
Mize, K. D., Pineda, M., Blau, A. K., Marsh, K., & Jones, N. A. (2014).
Infant physiological and behavioral responses to a jealousy provoking
condition. Infancy, 19(3), 338–348.
Montoya, R. M., & Hibbard, K. C. (2014). The use of covert and overt jeal-
ousy tactics in romantic relationships: The moderating role of relation-
ship satisfaction. Current Research in Social Psychology, 22, 39–50.
Mook, D. G. (1987). Motivation: The organization of action. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Morris, P., Doe, C., & Godsell, E. (2008). Secondary emotions in non-
primate species? Behavioral reports and subjective claims by animal
owners. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 3–20.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2014). “Creeping” or just
information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in
response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21(1),
35–50.
Neal, A. M., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2014). How partners’ temptation leads
to their heightened commitment: The interpersonal regulation of infi-
delity threats. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(7),
938–957.
Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human
Nature, 1, 261–289.
Nesse, R. M. (2014). Comment: A general “theory of emotion” is neither
necessary nor possible. Emotion Review, 6, 320–322.
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and
other animals. American Psychologist, 61(6), 622–631.
Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In
P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–30). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of
envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
906–920.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196.
Powers, A. M. (2000). The effects of attachment style and jealousy on
aggressive behavior against a partner and a rival (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Retrieved from PsycINFO. (AAI9974710).
Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A. D., & Bush, J. P. (1993). Predicting jeal-
ous responses: The influence of adult attachment and depression on
threat appraisal. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(4),
569–588.
Reddy, V. (2003). On being the object of attention: Implications for self–
other consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(9), 397–402.
Roseman, I. J. (2011). Emotional behaviors, emotivational goals, emotion
strategies: Multiple levels of organization integrate variable and con-
sistent responses. Emotion Review, 3, 434–443.
Roseman, I. J. (2013). Appraisal in the emotion system: Coherence in strate-
gies for coping. Emotion Review, 5, 141–149.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associa-
tions: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The
development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in het-
erosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(1), 101–117.
Rydell, R. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2007). Differentiating reactive and sus-
picious jealousy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 35(8), 1099–1114.
Scherer, K. R. (2015). When and why are emotions disturbed? Suggestions
based on theory and data from emotion research. Emotion Review, 7,
238–249.
16  Emotion Review Vol. 10 No. 4
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across
10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual prom-
iscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality,
18(4), 301–319.
Selterman, D. F., & Maier, M. A. (2013). Secure attachment and material
reward both attenuate romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion,
37(4), 765–775.
Sharpsteen, D. J. (1991). The organization of jealousy knowledge: Roman-
tic jealousy as a blended emotion. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology
of jealousy and envy (pp. 31–51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult
romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72(3), 627–640.
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evoca-
tion, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of
the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(6),
387–402.
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2007). Mate value discrepancy
as predictor of forgiveness and jealousy in romantic relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 207–223.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971–980.
Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Lambert, N.
M., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes
on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of
relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 102(2), 291–305.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in per-
sonal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–608.
Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2006). A relational turbulence model of
communication about irritations in romantic relationships. Communi-
cation Research, 33(5), 391–418.
Timmerman, L. M. (2001). Jealousy expression in long-distance romantic
relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX.
Tracy, J. L. (2014). An evolutionary approach to understanding distinct
emotions. Emotion Review, 6, 308–312.
Trevarthen, C. (2005). “Stepping away from the mirror: Pride and shame
in adventures of companionship” – Reflections on the nature and emo-
tional needs of infant intersubjectivity. In C. S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K. E.
Grossman, S. B. Hrdy, M. E. Lamb, S. W. Porges & N. Sachser (Eds.),
Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (pp. 55–84). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Volling, B. L., Yu, T., Gonzalez, R., Kennedy, D. E., Rosenberg, L., &
Oh, W. (2014). Children’s responses to mother–infant and father–infant
interaction with a baby sibling: Jealousy or joy? Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 28(5), 634–644.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emo-
tional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Hand-
book of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 5(4), 295–310.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clini-
cal strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wigman, S. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating sub-
groups of harassers: The roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy and
aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23(7), 557–568.
Worley, T., & Samp, J. (2014). Exploring the associations between relational
uncertainty, jealousy about partner’s friendships, and jealousy expres-
sion in dating relationships. Communication Studies, 65(4), 370–388.
Wright, M. F. (2017). Intimate partner aggression and adult attachment
insecurity: The mediation of jealousy and anger. Evolutionary Behav-
ioral Sciences, 11(2), 187–198.