Motivation and Emotion, VoL 5, No, 4, 1981

A Model of Romantic Jealousy 1

Gregory L. White 2
University of Maryland

A definition o f romantic jealousy is offered and imbedded within a general

coping framework. Published and unpublished research is reviewed and
then ordered within this framework. It is suggested that viewing jealousy as
a "thing" like an emotion (anger), a behavior (competitive rivalry), or
thoughts (desires f o r exclusivity) is incomplete. Jealousy is viewed as a label
given to a complex o f interrelated emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
processes. New research is presented that suggests that jealousy is related to
certain features o f roman tic relationships.

The empirical study of romantic jealousy is in its infancy, though recently a

number of social psychologists have conducted laboratory and survey re-
search in this area (Berscheid & Fei, 1977; Bringle, Roach, Andler, &
Evenbeck, 1977, 1979; Buunk, 1980a, 1980b; Shettel-Neuber, Bryson, &
Young, 1978; White, 1977a, 1977b, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, 1981b). On the
other hand, there is a rich theoretical literature on jealousy contributed to
by biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, developmental psychologists,
and psychoanalytic writers (Bringle et al., 1979; Clanton & Smith, 1977;
White, 1977a). This literature attests to the complexity of jealousy, a com-
plexity that leaves the empirical researcher grasping for a conceptual frame-
work to order previous theory and research as well as to guide future
investigation. This article suggests a definition of romantic jealousy and a
conceptual model of its causes and consequences that will, it is hoped, serve
these functions. In addition, data replicating previous research on correlates

~The author wishes to thank Melissa Jaffee, Kathy Kephart, and Donna Schwartzman for their
help in administering and scoring the questionnaires. Computer time for data analysis was
donated by the Computer Science Center of the University of Maryland.
2Address all correspondence to Dr. Gregory L. White, Department of Psychology, University
of Mary!and, College Park, Maryland 20742.
295
0146-7239/81/ 1200-0295503.00/0© 1981PlenumPublishingCorporation
296 White

of jealousy (White, 1980b) are presented. These data, as well as published

and unpublished work by several authors, are embedded within the concep-
tual model outlined below.

DEFINITION

Romantic jealousy may be defined as a complex o f thoughts, feelings,

and actions that follow threats to self-esteem and~or threats to the existence
or quality o f the relationship when those threats are generated by the
perception o f a real or potential romantic attraction between one's partner
and a (perhaps imaginary) rival.
The twin threats to self and relationship are conceptually distinct yet
empirically difficult to untangle, as Freud (1922/1955) first suggested. A
number of theorists have also suggested that either or both threats are the
psychological roots of jealousy (Bohm, 1961; Fenichel, 1955; Jones, 1930;
Mead, 1931; Simmel, 1950, pp. 406-407; Spielman, 1971). These threats
may be rather narrow and situationally defined, as, for example, when
partner flirts at a party or remarks on the good looks of another at a time
when the person is feeling unattractive. Or the threats may seem all-encom-
passing and chronic to the relationship, as when partner repeatedly talks
about attractions to potential rivals, or frequently complains of
unhappiness with the relationship.
As this definition implies, it may be useful to think of jealousy as a
label given to particular configurations of thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors. From this point of view, jealousy is not an emotion, whether
considered as a basic or complex emotion. It is apparent that "jealous"
emotions differ from person to person, situation to situation, and culture to
culture. Likewise, jealousy should not be confused with actions like com-
petitive rivalry or with cognitive activities like comparison of self to rival or
derogation of one's partner.
The pattern of the interrelated feelings, thoughts, and actions of the
jealous person are assumed to be somewhat stable and enduring at the
individual, relationship, and cultural levels. For example, one person may
characteristically react to the threat to self-esteem with anger coupled with
sarcasm directed toward the romantic partner. At the relationship level,
people whose partners are less attracted to the relationship than themselves
may feel particularly depressed when jealous. At the cultural level, sexual
involvement of one's spouse with a rival may be nonthreatening if it gains
the person community esteem, while otherwise such involvements may be
felt as devastating attacks upon the self~cf. Hupka, 1977). What is concep-
tually important here is that jealousy is the pattern of the person's feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors in reaction to a romantic threat.
Jealousy Model 297

OUTC 0 M ES
0
0

TIT It

r~

<~

II It

<
298 White

A Conceptual Model of the Jealousy Complex

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the jealousy complex that is

meant to order past research and guide future research. This model borrows
on work of Lazarus and his colleagues on the coping process (Lazarus,
1966; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton, 1970; Lazarus & Launier, 1979). The
model separates the complex into five global sets of variables and processes.
Primary appraisal variables (PAs) are factors that influence the degree to
which the person perceives a threat to self/relationship from real or
potential attractions between partner and rival(s). These variables are in-
fluential in two ways. First, they may affect estimates of how strong the
potential is for attraction between partner and rival. Second, they are
related to the magnitude of threat perceived from the potential attraction.
Secondary appraisal variables (SAs) are processes that reflect the develop-
ment of coping strategies that may reduce the threat(s). Examples would
include an attributional search for partner's interest in another (Buunk,
1980a; White, 1981a), comparison of oneself to a rival, and assessment of
one's alternatives to the relationship. After threat is perceived, the person
experiences a variety of emotional reactions (ERs) that may include anger,
depression, vengefulness, guilt, and anxiety over perceived loss of control.
Both the secondary appraisal processes and the nature and strength of the
emotional reactions affect the enactment of coping behaviors(CBs). A wide
range of such behaviors is possible, many may be enacted simultaneously,
while others appear incompatible (Buunk, 1980b). Some of these reactions
may not appear likely to preserve the threatened relationship, such as
physical assault (Whitehurst, 1971). In such cases, it is assumed that coping
behaviors are at least an attempt to reduce the threat to self-esteem. Finally,
a number of outcomes result from engagement of the jealousy complex.
One outcome is feedback into the complex itself, with coping responses
reducing or increasing threat, either directly or by modifying the influences
of primary appraisal variables. Other outcomes extend into other parts of
the relationship. The couple may negotiate norms regulating extrarelation-
ship sexual behavior. Other possible outcomes include increased attraction
to partner, the development of roles (e.g., the "insecure" partner), and
activities designed to strengthen the relationship.

PRIMARY APPRAISAL: THE PERCEPTION OF THREAT

A number of studies have identified variables that may be concep-

tualized as primary appraisal variables. Hupka has developed an
Interpersonal Relations Scale, or IRS, in a series of three factor-analytic
studies involving 1,072 college students (Rusch & Hupka, 1977; Hupka &
Jealousy Model 299

Bachelor, 1979). Items were selected for face validity. Factor analysis
revealed six factors including Dependency (Life wouldn't have much
meaning without him/her), Sexual Possessiveness (I want my lover to enjoy
sex only with me), Self-Deprecation/Envy (I feel empty inside when I see a
successful relationship), Trust (I have confidence that my lover is not
cheating behind my back), Threat to Exclusive Relationship (When
somebody hugs my lover, I get sick inside), and Competition/Vindictive-
ness (I always try to "even the score"). Only the Self-Deprecation factor was
negatively correlated with self-esteem.
Rosmarin, Chambless, and LaPointe (1979) reported a jealousy scale
called the Survey of Interpersonal Reactions, or SIR. Their scale of 36 items
resulted from factor-analytic refinements of an original 218-item pool. Sev-
eral testing samples were used. Factor analysis yielded five stable factors for
the final scale. They are Anxious Attachment (I feel miserable or neglected
when .....and I are separated), Exclusivity-Beliefs (If two people truly love
each other, they will feel no need for other relationships), Exclusivity-
Feelings/Behavior ( W h e n ~ e x p r e s s e d interest in someone else, I feel un-
comfortable), Egoistic Suspicion (I worry a tot about our relationship; I
often a c c u s e _ _ o f not caring about me), and Individuation (I
l e t _ _ s p e n d his/her time the way he/she wants to; I e n c o u r a g e _ _ t o go
to activities without me). SIR total score correlated .60 with a simple self-
rating of jealousy and .64 with Rusch and Hupka's (1977) IRS. The scale
total correlates negatively with self-esteem.
Bringle et al. (1979) reported a measure of "dispositional jealousy"
called the Self-Report Jealousy Scale. Four types of jealousy are
measured-social, sexual, family, and work jealousy. The four are inter-
correlated enough (mean r = .42) for Bringle et al. to regard the scale as a
"unidimensional measure of the general intensity of jealousy." Bringle et al.
(1977) also report that the scale is negatively correlated with self-esteem and
attitudes towm'd women and that those persons high on external locus of
control are more dispositionally jealous. Bringle and Williams (1979) report
that sensitizers are more likely than repressors to report themselves as
jealous.
Benedictson (1977) factor-analyzed a pool of face-valid romantic jeal-
ousy items, finding five factors: Need for Attention, Need for Intimacy,
Moodiness/Emotionality, Self-Confidence, and Envy. Mathes and Severa
(1976) report that a 28-item face-valid scale of jealousy is negatively
correlated with questions assessing the degree of "separate identity" or in-
dividuation in the relationship.
White (1980b) gave a six-item Self-descriptive Jealousy Scale to a
sample of 150 romantic couples. A number of potential correlates suggested
in the theoretical literature were examined in regression analyses. For both
men and women, jealousy was positively related to Feelings of Inadequacy
300 White

as a partner in the relationship (Have there ever been times when you felt no
matter how hard you tried you couldn't make your partner happy) and Ex-
clusivity (I expect that my partner should be sexually faithful to me). For
males, jealousy was negatively related to Self-Esteem and positively related
to Self-Esteem Dependence (I feel that my opinion of myself is strongly
influenced by what my partner thinks of me; it hurts me when my partner
criticizes the things I do) and Sex-Role Traditionalism (Women have an
obligation to be faithful to their husbands). For females, jealousy was also
positively related to Dependence on the relationship (Would you agree that
your relationship with your partner is just about the best relationship you
could hope to have with anybody?). White (1981b) also reports that the
partner who feels relatively more involved in the relationship is more likely
to be jealous, a relationship independent of the person's self-esteem. White
(1980c) has replicated the Bringle and Williams (1979) finding that subjects
who describe themselves as jealous are more likely to have an external locus
of control and to be sensitizers.
Examination of these factor-analytic results and scale correlates shows
some degree of convergence. The following variables emerge in two or more
studies: (1) sexual exclusivity (Benedictson, 1977; Rosmarin et al., 1979;
Rusch & Hupka, 1977; White, 1980b); (2) low self-esteem/feelings of in-
adequacy as a partner (Bringle et al., 1977; Rosmarin et al., 1979; Rusch &
Hupka, 1977; White, 1980b, 198 lb); (3) self-esteem dependence/deindivid-
uation (Mathes and Severa, 1976; Rosmarin et al., 1979; White, 1980b); (4)
dependence on relationship (Benedictson, 1977; Rosmarin et al., 1979;
Rusch & Hupka, 1977; White, 1980b); (5) sensitization to threat (Bringle &
Williams, 1979; White, 1980c); (6) external locus of control (Bringle et al.,
1977; White, 1980c); (7) sex-role traditionalism/attitudes toward women
(Bringle et ai., 1977; White, 1980b). In addition, White (1981b) has shown
that greater relative involvement predicted positively to jealousy.
The following study was conducted to gather additional support for
the hypotheses that sexual exclusivity, feelings of inadequacy, self-esteem
dependence, dependence on the relationship, and greater relative involve-
ment in the relationship would be positively correlated with self-ratings of
romantic jealousy, while self-esteem would be negatively correlated.

METHOD

Subjects
Eighty-one males and 144 females volunteered for course credit for a
questionnaire on "relationships." All respondents had been dating a partner
Jealousy Model 301

at least 1 month prior to questionnaire administration. Mean age was 21.2

years (~ = 6.1 years); median age was 19.7. Males and females did not dif-
fer in age or in likelihood of occupying one of four relationship statuses-
27.6070 were casually dating, 48.8°/o were seriously dating (dating one
partner), 4.9070 were cohabiting, and 18.7070 were engaged or married.
Casual daters had been dating the partner about whom they responded on
the questionnaire a mean of 15.2 months, serious daters a mean of 21.4
months, cohabitants a mean of 24.6 months, and engaged/married a mean
of 72.1 months.

Sca/es

Respondents took a Relationships Questionnaire with a number of

scales designed to gather data to test the present hypotheses and others not
reported here. For purposes of this study, respondents replied to seven
scales. Two of these (Self-Evaluation Dependency and Feelings of Inade-
quacy) were reported by White (1980b). The others are refinements of scales
reported by White (1977a, 1977b, 1980b). All scales were developed by giving
large pretest samples (Ns > 100) face-valid items measuring the theoretical
construct of interest. Factor analysis and item analysis were used to reduce
the number of items yielding factor-pure unidimensional scales with high
internal consistency. These scales were then validated on another pretest
sample. The internal consistency reliabilities reported here are based on the
current sample size of 225. Scale descriptions, sample items, and reliabilities
are presented below. All scales used a 5-point response format with appro-
priately labeled end points.
Chronic Jealousy Scale. Six items measured the person's tendency to
view self as chronically jealous in romantic relationships. Items include
"How jealous a person are you generally?" and "Do you think of yourself as
a person who can get jealous easily?" Coefficient alpha reliability is .81.
Relationship Jealousy Scale. SL. items measured the person's view of
self as jealous or not jealous in the current romantic relationship. Sample
items are "compared to your other romantic relationship, are you more or
less jealous in this one?" and "How intense are your feelings of jealousy in
your current relationship?" Coefficient alpha is .83. White (1980c) presents
further reliability and validity information on the Chronic Jealousy and Re-
lationship Jealousy scales. In the current sample the r between the two was
.71 (p < .001).
Self-Evaluation Dependency. Eight items measure the degree to which
the person's self-esteem is affected by partner's judgments. Items include "I
would get depressed if my partner thought I wasn't good enough for
him/her" and "I am pretty happy with myself regardless of what my partner
thinks." Coefficient alpha is .80.
302 White

Self-Esteem. Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Scale was used.

Reliability was .91.
Feelings of Inadequacy. Ten items measure the degree to which the
person feels inadequate as a partner in the current relationship. Conceptual-
ly, this scale represents the degree to which partner's perceived dissatisfac-
tion with the relationship is self-attributed. Items include "I wish I were a
different person so my relationship would be better," "I like how I am
around my partner," and "I feel confident of my ability to keep the relation-
ship growing." Coefficient alpha is .82.
Sexual Exclusivity. Six items measure desire for a sexually exclusive
relationship, including "I expect that my partner should be sexually faithful
to me" and "I wouldn't be upset if my partner were physically intimate with
another person." Coefficient alpha is .74.
Relative Involvement-Effort. White (1981 b) had used a single item to
assess perception of greater relative involvement in the relationship. Sub-
sequent factor-analytic work and theoretical considerations suggest two
aspects of relative involvement: (1) the perception of greater effort put into
the relationship and (2) the perception of relative dependency on the re-
lationship. Relative Involvement,Effort is a measure of the former and
includes five items such as "Who spends more time and energy maintaining
your relationship?" and "Who is more likely to make efforts to improve the
relationship?" Coefficient alpha is .70.
Relative Involvement-Dependence. The second aspect of relative in-
volvement was measured by five items like "Who gets the most out of the re-
lationship?" and "Who would lose the most if the relationship ended?"
Coefficient alpha is .53.
Dependence on the Relationship. Six items assess the level of depen-
dency on the relationship in light of alternatives. Dependency is different
from the perception of relative dependency assessed by the previous scale.
Items include "Would you agree that your relationship with your partner is
just about the best relationship you could hope to have with anyone?" and
"I think it would be difficult to find a substitute for my relationship with my
partner." Coefficient alpha is .69.
Social Desirability. All subjects were administered the Crowne-
Marlow Scale of Social Desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).
Correlations between this scale and the others were low, ranging from - . 18
with Feelings of Inadequacy to .14 for Dependence on the Relationship.
Thus, the responses to these scales are relatively free of respondent bias to
present self in a socially desirable manner.
 Table L Intercorrelations A m o n g Scales a
Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) Chronic jealousy - .715 .383 .332 .315 .487 -.023 .077 -.165
(2) Relationship jealousy .706 - .242 .294 .304 .486 .152 .092 .000
(3) Self-evaluation .111 .109 - .106 .271 .285 .230 .392 -.095
dependency
(4) Feelings of .340 .390 .128 - .068 .225 .082 - .272 -.306
inadequacy
(5) Sexual exclusivity ~118 .078 . t69 - .209 - .119 - .004 .442 - .090
(6) Relative involvement- .185 .183 -.055 -.092 .096 - .197 .t64 -.211
effort
(7) Relative involvement- -- .022 .078 .247 .061 .196 .142 ,- .199 .030
dependency
(8) Dependence .214 .t44 .359 - .254 .323 - .046 .254 - .099
(9) Self-esteem -,155 -.157 -.293 -.553 ,066 ,022 -.22t -,087 -
"Males' data ( N = 81) above diagonal, females' data (N = 144) below.
304 White

RESULTS

C o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g scales are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e I for b o t h males a n d

females. T h e seven predictor scales were s i m u l t a n e o u s l y regressed o n each
o f the t w o j e a l o u s y scales because the low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g
predictors s u p p o r t e d their d i s c r i m i n a n t validity a n d because n o theoretical
r a t i o n a l e existed for stepwise procedures. Results are presented for each sex
in T a b l e II.

Chronic Jealousy

Results s u b s t a n t i a l l y replicate those o f W h i t e (1980b). Feelings o f

i n a d e q u a c y a n d sexual exclusivity were positively related to c h r o n i c j e a l o u s y
for b o t h sexes, t h o u g h for males feelings o f i n a d e q u a c y showed o n l y a t r e n d
(p < .08). S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n d e p e n d e n c y was related to m a l e s ' self-ratings b u t
n o t to females', while d e p e n d e n c y was related o n l y to females' ratings. U n -
like W h i t e ' s (1980b) f i n d i n g s , self-esteem was here u n r e l a t e d to j e a l o u s y .

Table II. Simultaneous Regression Analyses

Males Females
.Predictor Betaa F Beta F
Chronic jealousy as the dependent variable
Self-evaluation dependency .272 7.01d .145 2.36
Feelings of inadequacy .189 3.38b .353 10.49a
Sexual exclusivity .237 5.26~ .234 6.72c
Relative involvement-effort .398 16.62d .205 5.78"
Relative involvement-dependency -.155 2.71b -.094 1.08
Dependence - . 121 1.07 .217 4.66~
Self-esteem .040 .18 .023 .046
Males: R = .650F(7,73) -- 7.64,p < ..001
Females: R = .497 F(7,136) = 5.10, p < .001.
Relationship jealousy as the dependent variable
Self-evaluation dependency .060 .30 .098 1.06
Feeling of inadequacy .160 2.11 .463 17.88a
Sexual exclusivity .273 6.13c .161 3.13b
Relative involvement-effort .414 15.74d .206 5.77c
Relative involvement-dependency .062 .38 .014 .02
Dependence - .094 .56 .098 .95
Self-esteem .047 .21 .107 .98
Males: R = .580 F(7,73) = 5.39, p < .001
Females: R = .490 F(7,136) = 4.91, p < .001
~Standardized regression coefficient.
bp < .10.
~p < .05.
~, < .Ol.
Jealousy Made| 305

Table II1. Sex Differences in Scale Means

Scale Males Females t
Chronic jealousy 10.93 11.48 .81
Relationship jealousy 10,24 9,73 .71
Self-evaluation dependency 19,57 20.71 1.44
Feelings of inadequacy 12.72 12.56 .17
Sexual exclusivity 16.35 17,40 1.95 p < .05
Relative involvement-effort 8.38 7.97 1,28
Relative involvement-dependency 9.93 10.73 1,73 p < , 10
Dependence 17.09 I7,42 .51
Self-esteem 31.97 32,89 1.17

For both sexes, the person who felt that he or she was putting
relatively more effort into the relationship than partner was more likely to
rate self as jealous. There was also a tendency (p < .10) for the relatively
more dependent men (those higher on the relative involvement-dependency
scale) to rate themselves as less jealous.

Relationship Jealousy

Though the Relationship and Chronic Jealousy scales were moderately

correlated (r = .71), the pattern of significant scale correlates was
somewhat different. For both sexes, the more sexually exclusive and those
who had put relatively more effort into the relationship were likely to be
jealous in their current relationships. (The effect of sexual exclusivity was at
p < .08 for females.) Women who felt themselves inadequate as partners
were more likely to be jealous in their relationships, while jealousy and in-
adequacy were unrelated for males.

Sex Differences in Scale Means

Table III presents the means for each scale separately by sex, along
with t testss for significance of mean difference. Females were more
sexually exclusive than males and also showed a trend to score higher on the
Relative Involvement-Effort scale. Otherwise, no sex differences emerged.
The failure to find a sex difference in either jealousy scale is consistent with
the failure to find such a difference in any of the published or unpublished
work reviewed earlier.

DISCUSSION

Jealousy was defined earlier as a reaction to threats to self-esteem

and/or to the quality or existence of the romantic relationship. Each of the
 306 White

potential correlates of the jealousy scales were chosen on the hypothesis that
the variable affected the primary appraisal of these two threats. It is impos-
sible to determine, however, in this cross-sectional study, the degree to
which these primary appraisal variables are affected by the person's
attempts to cope with his or her jealousy.
These results substantially replicate White's earlier findings (White,
1980b, 1981b) and are additional evidence for the predictive utility of the
variables summarized from previous published and unpublished empirical
research. The results also indicate that the factors influencing the person's
rating of himself as chronically or typically jealous in relationships are
somewhat different from those influencing the person's rating of himself as
jealous in his or her current romantic relationship. Since White's (1980b)
correlates were replicated here for the Chronic Jealousy scale, it may be as-
sumed that his earlier six-item Self-Descriptive Jealousy Scale largely
tapped the person's tendency to think of himself as chronically jealous.
Feelings of inadequacy as a partner, sexual exclusivity, and having put
relatively more effort into the relationship were positively related to both
chronic and relationship jealousy for both sexes, while self-esteem and
being relatively more dependent on the relationship were unrelated to
jealousy (there was a trend for relative dependence to be negatively related
to male chronic jealousy).
From the primary appraisal perspective, the person who feels
inadequate as a partner is aware of partner's dissatisfaction with him or her
and likely to be sensitive to the potential for the relationship to end.
Whether or not the partner is actually attracted to another, the inadequate-
feeling person is likely to be sensitized to the potential rival relationship as
well as to the possibility that such relationships may be more attractive to
the partner than the current one. The resulting perceived threat to self and/or
relationship should engender jealousy.
Similarly, the person who feels she or he has put more time, effort,
and energy into the relationship may be particularly sensitive to potential
threats to this investment. Also, the perception of putting relatively more
effort into the relationship may concur with a suspicion that the partner is
less in love. This ego threat should also make the person sensitive to
potential attractions.
Sexual exclusivity may stem from many sources, but such expectations
are clearly related to a desire to maintain relationship and to prevent threats
to self that could be posed by a sexual rival (White, 1980b). It is not surpris-
ing that those with strong expectations of sexual exclusivity are especially
alert to potential threats from sexual rivals, and may be likely to over-
estimate the threat from real attractions between partners and others.
The failure to demonstrate that people low in self-esteem are more
jealous argues against the popular conception that jealousy is a sign of
Jealousy Model 307

general insecurity. White (1980b) found a weak relationship between self-

esteem and (chronic) jealousy for males, but not for females. White (1981b)
showed that the effect of self-esteem on jealousy was indirect. Self-esteem
was not correlated with (chronic) jealousy, but it was negatively correlated
with feelings of inadequacy, which, as here, were positively correlated with
jealousy. Bringle et al. (1977) did find self-esteem to be negatively related to
dispositionat jealousy, but since his dispositional jealousy scale includes
jealousies other than romantic jealousy it is difficult to interpret that result.
The lack of effect of greater relative dependency suggests that the
threats to self and/or relationship from a real or potential rival are able to
engage jealousy regardless of the relative harm that might result from a
breakup. This concept of greater relative harm is different from concep-
tualizing relative dependency as less relative availability of alternative
romantic relationships, which White (1981b) argues is positively related to
jealousy.

Sex Differences in Scale Correlates

Women who rated themselves dependent on the relationship were

more chronically jealous, a finding that did not hold for relationship jea-
lousy or for males. Males who were particularly sensitive to their partners'
evaluations of them were also more likely to be chronically jealous, but not
necessarily jealous in their current relationship. Esteem-dependence in
females was unrelated to jealousy. To understand these differences from the
primary appraisal perspective, it is helpful to consider how sex roles may be
differentially related to the Chronic and Relationship Jealousy scales.
The Chronic Jealousy scale probably taps into the person's self-image
as jealous or not. This self-image is the person's shorthand for the
cumulative impact of the experience of jealousy over the course of several
romantic attractions and relationships. However, when answering the Rela-
tionship Jealousy scale, respondents may not have been accessing their self-
image but rather may have been thinking of specific feelings, actions, and
circumstances involving jealousy in their current romantic relationship. As
with most such specific recollections, recent events are usually more
influential than distant events.
It is assumed that sex roles may have a much stronger impact on the
development of the self-image of oneself as jealous or not than on the more
specific particulars presumably accessed by the Relationship Jealousy scale.
The constancy and strength of sex roles would operate over several
romantic relationships, thereby influencing the developing self-image.
If this argument is correct, then the sex differences make sense within
the primary appraisal perspective. A woman's material and social status, as
308 White

well as her identity, appears to be more related to the maintenance of a close

romantic relationship than is generally true for males (Bernard, 1972;
O'Leary, 1977; Peplau, 1978). This dependency would sensitize the female
to threats to the relationship more than it would for males. Research on
"swinging" and other alternative sexual life-styles has shown that women
are much more fearful of losing their marriages if they enter such relation-
ships than are men (Denfeld, 1974; Varni, 1974). A dependent male, though
acknowledging that the romantic relationship was better than alternative
romantic relationships, may have relatively more available alternative
sources of material and social status as well as of self-esteem and identity,
and would be less sensitized to a potential threat to the romantic relationship
itself (Lundgren & Schaub, 1974).
However, to the extent that their self-esteem is dependent upon their
partner's appraisals of themselves, men hut not women are likely to rate
themselves as chronically jealous. One explanation of the sex difference is
that males' relative lack of concern for and skills in interpersonal relations
(O'Leary, 1977), coupled with men's greater restriction of intimacy to their
romantic relationships (Booth, 1972; Gross, 1978; Lewis, 1978), would
result in self-evaluative dependent males being more likely than self-evalua
tive dependent females to interpret partner's attractions to others as a rejec-
tion of self or as dissatisfaction with the relationship.

B e y o n d Primary Appraisal

This research was focused on variables that were assumed to affect the
primary appraisal of threats triggering jealousy. The model presented in this
paper also suggests additional components of the jealousy complex. Some
research relevant to these other components already exists. For example,
Shettel-Neuber et al. (1978) showed experimental subjects a videotape of a
jealousy-inducing party situation and had them rate how they would feel
and behave in such a situation. Buunk (1980a) and White (1981a) have
studied the secondary appraisal process of the jealous person's perception
of partner's motives for attraction to a rival. White (1981c) related social
comparison to rival and motive attribution to coping behaviors. It is hoped
that the model of jealousy offered here will serve to coordinate and
integrate future research.

REFERENCES

Benedictson, C. The development of a scalefor the assessment of jealousy. Paper presented at

the meetingof the Southeastern PsychologicalAssociation, May 1977.
Bernard, J. Thefuture of marriage. NewYork: World, 1972.
Jealousy Mode] 309

Berscheid, E., & Fei, J. Romantic Iove and sexual jealousy. In G. Clanton & L. G. Smith
(Eds.), Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Bohm, E. Jealousy. In A. Ellis & A. Abarbanel (Eds.), The encyclopedia of sexual behavior
(Vol. 1), New York: Hawthorn, 1961.
Booth, A. Sex and social participation. American SociologicalReview, 1972, 37, 183-193.
Bringle, R. G., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. Correlates orjealousy. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1977.
Bringle, R. G., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. Measuring the intensity of jealous
reactions. Journal Supplement Abstract Service 1979, Ms. 1832.
Bringle, R. G., & Williams, L. J. Parental-offspring similarity on jealousy and related person-
ality dimensions. Motivation and Emotion, 1979, 3, 265-286.
Buunk, B. Attributions and jealousy. Paper presented at the meeting of the 22nd International
Congress of Psychology, Leipzig, July 1980. (a)
Bunk, B. Jealousy: Coping with extramarital relationships of the spouse. In D. Mangusson
(chair), Stress and coping processes-Psychodynamic and psychological approaches.
Symposium presented at the meeting of the 22rid InternationalCongress of Psychology,
Leipzig, July 1980. (b)
Clanton, G., & Smith, L. G. Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Denfeld, D. Dropouts from swinging: The marriage counselor as informant. In J. R. Smith &
L. G. Smith (Eds~), Beyond monogamy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1974.
Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neuroses. London: Roufledge and Kegan Paul, 1955.
Freud, S. Some neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia, and homosexuality. Standard
edition (Vol. 18). London: Hogarth Press, 1955. (Originally published, 1922).
Gross, A. E. The male role and heterosexual behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 1978, 34, 362-
367.
Hupka, R. B. Societal and individual roles in the expression of jealousy. Paper presented at the
85th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,
August 1977.
Hupka, R. B., & Bachelor, B. Validation of a scale to measure romantic jealousy. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Diego, April
1979.
Jones, E, Jealousy. Die Psychoanalytische Bewegung, 1930, 2.
Klein, M., & Rivlere, J. Love, hate, and reparation. New York: Norton, 1964.
Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the copingprocess. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M. Toward a cognitive theory of emotion. In M.
Arnold (Ed.)~ Feelings and emotions. New York: Academic, 1970.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In
L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactionalpsychology. New York:
Plenum, 1979.
Lewis, R. A. Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social lssues, 1978, 34, 108-i21.
Lundgren, D. C., & Schaub, M. R. Sex differences in the social bases of self esteem. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New
Orleans, 1974.
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. Jealousy. Unpublished manuscript, Western Illinois University,
1976.
Mead, M. Jealousy: Primitive and civilized. In S. D. Schmalhausen & V. F. Calverton (Eds.),
Woman's coming of age. New York: Liveright, 193I.
O'Leary, V. E. 7bward understanding women. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1977.
Peplau, L. A. Power in dating reltionships, tn J. Freedman (Ed.), Women: Afeministperspec-
tive. Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1978.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1965.
Rosmarin, D. M., Chambless, D. L., & LaPointe, K. The survey of interpersonal reactions:
An inventory for the measurement of jealousy. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Georgia, 1979,
310 White

Rusch, P. A., & Hupka, R. B. Development and validation of a scale to measure romantic jea-
lousy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association,
Seattle, April 1977.
Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J. B., & Young, L. E. Physical attractiveness of the "other" person
and jealousy. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 612-615.
Simmel, G. The sociology ofGeorg Simmel (Kurt Wolff, Ed.). New York: Free Press, 1950.
Spielman, P. M. Envy and jealousy. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1971, 40, 59-82.
Varni, C. A. An exploratory study of spouse swapping. In J. R. Smith & L. G. Smith (Eds.),
Beyond monogamy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
White, G. L. Social psychology of romantic jealousy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37, 5449B-
5450B. (University Microfilms No. 77-7700). (a)
White, G. L. Inequality of emotional involvement, power, and jealousy in romantic couples.
Paper presented at the 85th annual convention of the American Psychological As-
sociation, San Francisco, August 1977. (b)
White, G. L. Inducing Jealousy: A power perspective. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 1980, 6, 222-227.
White, G. L. Some correlates of romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality, 1980. (b)
White, G. L. Validation of three jealousy scales. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Maryland, College Partk, 1980. (c)
White, G, L. Jealousy and partner's perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 1981, 44, 24-30. (a)
White, G. L. Relative involvement, inadequacy, and jealousy: A test of a causal model. Alter-
native Lifestyles, 1981. (b)
White, G. L. Social comparison, motive attribution, alternative assessment, and coping with
jealousy. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological As-
sociation, Los Angeles, t981. (c)
Whitehurst, R. N. Violence potential in extramarital sexual responses. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 1971,33, 683-681.