Emotion Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

2006, Vol. 6, No. 2, 330 –334 1528-3542/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.330

Gender, Socioeconomic Status, Age, and Jealousy: Emotional Responses to

Infidelity in a National Sample

Melanie C. Green John Sabini

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Pennsylvania

The authors used a representative national sample (N ⫽ 777) to test the evolutionary hypothesis that men
would be more bothered by sexual infidelity and women by emotional infidelity, the Jealousy as a
Specific Innate Module (JSIM) effect. Our alternative conceptualization of jealousy suggests that there
are distinct emotional components of jealousy that did not evolve differently by gender. The authors
looked for effects of age, socioeconomic status (SES), and type of measure (continuous or dichotomous)
on jealousy. The authors did not find age or SES effects. Forced-choice items provided support for our
alternative view; both genders showed more anger and blame over sexual infidelity but more hurt feelings
over emotional infidelity. Continuous measures indicated more emotional response to sexual than
emotional infidelity among both genders.

Keywords: jealousy, emotion, evolution, sex differences

Evolutionary psychologists have devoted significant attention to
the question of gender differences in emotional responses to be-
trayal in romantic relationships (e.g., Buss, Larsen, Westen, &
Semmelroth, 1992; Buss, 2000; DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Harris
& Christenfeld, 1996; Sabini & Green, 2004; Sagarin, 2005). A
striking amount of data using forced-choice measures show that
women are more distressed over emotional infidelity (a partner
falling in love with another), whereas men are more upset over
sexual infidelity (a partner engaging in intercourse with another);
indeed, this pattern has been replicated in at least 22 samples (see
Harris, 2003, and Sabini & Green, 2004 for a list), although not in
every sample. However, more recent evidence suggests that this
effect may not be robust: specifically, it does not appear to repli-
cate in nonstudent samples or with continuous dependent variables
(see DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; Harris, 2003,
2005; Sabini & Green, 2004). The failure to find effects in non-
student samples suggests that the effect might be a) a life-stage
effect or b) an educational effect. In this study, we used a national
probabilistic sample to explore these questions.
Jealousy as a Specific Innate Module
Buss (e.g., Buss et al., 1992; Buss, 2000) sparked interest in the
evolutionary basis of jealousy by suggesting that genders face
Melanie C. Green, Department of Psychology, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill; John Sabini, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.
This research was made possible through Time-Sharing Experiments in
the Social Sciences. We are grateful to the National Science Foundation
and to Diana Mutz and Arthur Lupia, Principal Investigators for TESS.
This article is dedicated to the memory of John Sabini— collaborator,
mentor, and friend—who died from a sudden illness shortly after this
article was submitted.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Melanie
Green, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, CB#3270 Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270. E-mail:
mcgreen@email.unc.edu
330
different reproductive fitness challenges. Because of paternity
uncertainty, males should become more jealous over their mates’
sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity; sexual infidelity raises
the possibility of the evolutionary cost of devoting resources to the
offspring of another male. Females, in contrast, are certain about
their genetic link to their offspring, but face the threat that their
mates will withdraw resources from their offspring. Mates’ attach-
ment to another female is likely to lead to diversion of resources to
that female and her offspring. Thus, the theory suggests that
females are more likely to become upset by signs of resource
withdrawal (presaged by emotional infidelity) by their mates than
by signs of sexual infidelity. As a result of the replications men-
tioned here, this theory is the currently accepted wisdom about
evolved responses to infidelity.
Limitations on Jealousy As a Specific
Innate Module Findings
The jealousy as a specific innate module (JSIM) view is not
without its critics, however. Two major problems have been iden-
tified: reliance on undergraduate samples and lack of robustness
across measures.
Sears (1986), among others, has highlighted problems with
relying on undergraduate samples. For jealousy, one obvious pos-
sibility is that life stage or experience might play a role in re-
sponses to infidelity. For example, Harris (2000) found that within
her undergraduate sample, the results depended, at least for
women, on whether participants had been involved in a serious
relationship (see also Buss et al., 1992; although this effect was
not replicated in Sabini & Green, 2004). Undergraduates are less
likely to have been involved in such relationships than are older
adults.
Sabini and Green’s (2004) data suggested that the JSIM effect
was replicable but not robust; we replicated the effect but only
with undergraduates. On the other hand, adults recruited in public
places did not replicate the gender difference in responses to
emotional or sexual infidelity.
 BRIEF REPORTS
DeSteno and Salovey (1992) and DeSteno et al. (2002) found
that the JSIM effect appears only with dichotomous choice ques-
tions. Harris (2000) also noted the dependence of the result on
forced-choice methods (although see Geary, Rumsey, Bow-
Thomas, & Hoard, 1995; Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens, & Thompson,
2002, who found convergent results with Likert measures). Buss,
Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, et al. (1999) argue that continuous Likert
scale items obscure the relevant differences because of ceiling
effects. They claim that men and women find both sorts of infi-
delity so distressing that the measures lose sensitivity; instead,
people must explicitly compare infidelity types.
Sabini and Green’s (2004) data on nonstudent adults using
continuous measures found that both genders found sexual infi-
delity worse than emotional. The failure of the predicted pattern to
emerge was not attributable to a ceiling effect because females
(like males) rated the emotional infidelity as less provocative than
the sexual infidelity (consistent with DeSteno et al., 2002).
Given this controversy, in the current study, we examine both
forced-choice and continuous measures. Continuous measures
were counterbalanced to examine possible effects of comparing
sexual and emotional infidelity. We expected that the findings may
emerge more strongly on the dichotomous measures.
An Alternative to Jealousy As a Specific Innate Module:
Componential View of Jealousy
Following Harris (2003), Sabini and Green (2004) proposed as
an alternative to the JSIM view of jealousy a componential view:
that jealousy consists of a set of emotions that happen to serve the
reproductive role that Buss has proposed for jealousy but that did
not evolve for that purpose. We proposed specifically that both
men and women would be angrier and blame their partner more for
sexual infidelity than over emotional infidelity but would be more
hurt by emotional infidelity. Anger emerges when people believe
another person is responsible for some unacceptable behavior,
including sexual conduct (see Averill, 1982; Baumeister, Stillwell,
& Wotman, 1990; Sabini & Silver, 1982; Weiner, 1995). Sexual
behavior is likely to be viewed as deliberate and under one’s
control. Hurt feelings, on the other hand, are triggered by “rela-
tionship devaluation,” and a relationship may be more profoundly
devalued by emotional betrayal (e.g., Leary & Springer, 2001).
Falling in love may be seen as less controllable (and thus less
blameworthy). We know of no evidence to suggest that these
responses are sexually dimorphic, and, therefore, we would not
expect jealousy to be sexually dimorphic. This is what we found
both in college samples and in adult convenience samples. These
results leave open the possibility that these links between emotion,
sex, and the constituents of jealousy are not variable across age and
education and are not sexually dimorphic. The current sample
allows us to test the robustness of these effects as well as of the
JSIM phenomenon.
Why Are College Students Different From Nonstudent
Adults?
Why might the JSIM effect appear in undergraduates but not in
the adult sample? At least two hypotheses arise. First, consistent
with the evolutionary view, the JSIM module is innate but may be
sensitive to situational factors. It may be active only at certain
stages in one’s life, perhaps when one is (or was in our evolution-
331
ary history) about to procreate or in the midst of procreating. For
this reason, Buss et al. (1992) predicted that “male sexual jealousy
will diminish as the age of the male’s mate increases because her
reproductive value decreases” (p. 254).1 It is reasonable to imagine
that for our ancestors, the ages of 18 –22, the ages of undergrad-
uates, is just the period when concerns connected to reproduction
should be most acute.
A second possibility is that the JSIM effect is not innate but is
learned, presumably from one’s culture (see DeSteno et al., 2002,
for evidence that forced-choice JSIM results are likely the result of
effortful reasoning rather than “gut reactions”). Markus and
Kitayama (2004) have highlighted differences in socioeconomic
status (SES), particularly the divide between high school- versus
college-educated individuals, as an important cultural variable.
Although they focused on differences in models of agency, these
differences may extend to emotional expression, gender role ex-
pectations, or related factors that influence responses to infidelity.2
College-educated individuals may have been differentially ex-
posed to cultural models or norms that emphasize the importance
of sex for men and emotion for women.
Sabini and Green (2004) did not find age effects, but our
samples were not large enough to provide a strong test of age-
related differences. Our samples were also insufficiently diverse to
look for SES effects. The current study used much larger samples
and allowed us to raise these issues in a statistically serious way.
The Current Study
The current sample’s age distribution is matched to the U.S.
(adult) age distribution, allowing us to look seriously at age as a
marker of life stage effects. (The study also allowed examination
of the related life-stage markers of marital and parental status.) The
national sample also enabled us to test SES differences.
We used Time-Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences
(TESS) to examine the breadth of the JSIM findings as well as our
alternative approach on a representative sample of American
adults. TESS is a National Science Foundation-supported project
that uses large-scale, cooperative data-collection instruments. We
posed several research questions: a) Is the JSIM effect age-
dependent using the standard forced-choice measure? b) Does the
JSIM effect differ between higher and lower SES? c) Does the
componential finding vary with age and SES in this sample? d) Is
the componential finding sexually dimorphic? e) Does the JSIM
effect occur with continuous measures?
1
We did not measure mate age (which would provide the strongest test
of this idea), but partner ages are generally strongly correlated (above .90).
2
Another potentially relevant cultural variable is culture of honor
(CoH). Nisbett and Cohen have characterized the South and West of the
United States as CoH, which have an extreme concern with reputation as
well as a focus on male autonomy and purity of women (e.g., Nisbett &
Cohen, 1996; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). This framework suggests that
CoH men would be even more upset and angry over sexual infidelity than
other men. We compared participants who lived in the South and West
(CoH) with those who lived in the Northeast and Midwest (non-CoH). The
CoH hypothesis was not supported for either continuous or categorical
measures.
332 BRIEF REPORTS

Table 1
Percentage of Participants Reporting That Emotional Betrayal Is Worse Than Sexual by Gender
and Type of Effect

Males Females Sex difference

Variable % ␹2 p % ␹2 p ␹2 p

Upset 54.6 1.56 .21 67.9 25.00 .0005 7.06 .008

Hurt 57.4 4.17 .04 66.5 21.11 .0001 3.32 .07
Angry 27.0 40.04 .0001 41.9 5.03 .02 9.34 .002
Blame 38.1 10.71 .001 42.6 4.12 .04 0.81 .37
Partner leave 76.6 53.19 .0001 83.3 85.33 .0001 2.70 .10
You leave 52.4 .44 .51 60.5 8.42 .004 2.50 .11

Method
Participants
Participants were part of a representative national sample recruited
through TESS, administered by Knowledge Networks. (For sampling pro-
cedures, see www.experimentcentral.org.)
A total of 777 people (378 male; 399 female) participated online. Of
these, 74.6% were white, 10.9% were black, 9.3% were Hispanic, and
5.1% had “other” racial/ethnic background. The average age was 48
(standard deviation ⫽ 16). Approximately 15% had less than a high school
education, 30.9% had completed high school, 29.5% had some college, and
24.8% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The majority of the sample was
married (64%) and the remainder was single (18%), divorced (11.2%),
widowed (5.1%), or separated (1.7%). Almost all participants reported
having been in a serious relationship (including marriage); only 5.8% had
not, and 1.8% did not answer. Approximately one-fourth of the sample
(23.9%) had no children.3
Design
We used the same instructions as Buss, et al. (1992): participants were
asked to “think of a serious or committed relationship that you have had in
the past, that you currently have, or that you would like to have. Imagine
that you discover that the person with whom you’ve been seriously in-
volved became interested in someone else.”
For half of the sample, each respondent saw both intercourse (“now
imagine your partner having sexual intercourse with that person”) and
emotional attachment (“now imagine that your partner has fallen in love
and formed a deep emotional attachment to that person”) versions.
They rated how much the infidelity would cause them to be upset, hurt,
and angry on 1–7 scales anchored by “not at all” and “very.” They also
reported how much they would blame their partner, how likely it was that
their partner would leave them in that circumstance, and how likely they
would be to leave their partner. Half of these participants received the
emotion questions first and half received the intercourse questions first.
Taken together, these sets constitute a within-participant design, but the
first half of the data from each participant constitutes a between-
participants design.
The other half of the sample answered in forced-choice format; they
reported which of the infidelity types made them more upset, angry, and so
on. The design is 2 (gender) ⫻ 2 (sexual versus emotional infidelity) ⫻ 2
(dichotomous versus continuous measures).
Results
Forced-Choice Measures
Table 1 presents the percentage of participants of each gender
who reported that an emotional infidelity was worse than a sexual
one, the ␹2 measuring the association between sex versus emotion
and the dependent variables and the ␹2 for the gender difference.
A significant gender difference emerged on “upset” in the
direction that JSIM would predict (a greater percentage of women
were more upset over emotional infidelity). However, contrary to
the JSIM prediction, a majority of men also selected emotional
infidelity as more bothersome (although not significantly so).
We conducted logistic regressions predicting sexual/emotional
choice by gender, education, marital status, age, race (coded as
white/nonwhite), household income, whether the individual lived
in a dual-income household, and whether the individual had chil-
dren. Demographics other than gender, specifically age and edu-
cation (our marker of SES), were not significantly related to
responses.4
We divided the sample into those with a high school diploma or
less and those with some college or college/advanced degrees.
Again, SES did not affect selection of emotional versus sexual
infidelity (Tarone’s ␹2[1] ⫽ .04, p ⬎ .1). There were no effects of
SES for men (␹2[1: N ⫽ 185] ⫽ 1.26, p ⬎ .1) or women (␹2[1:
N ⫽ 196] ⫽ 1.89, p ⬎ .1).
Alternative Model
Hurt, anger, and blame. Replicating our prior studies with
nonstudent adults (Sabini & Green, 2004), we found that a major-
ity of both genders said they would be more hurt by an emotional
infidelity but would be more angry and would blame their partner
more for a sexual infidelity. There was a significant gender dif-
ference for anger such that men were even more likely than women
to be angered by sexual infidelity. A trend toward a gender
difference on hurt also emerged; women were more likely to report
feeling hurt by emotional infidelity.
Effect on relationship. Again replicating our previous result,
both genders were more likely to believe their partners were going
to leave them as a result of an emotional rather than a sexual
infidelity. Both men and women were also more likely to say they
would leave their partners over an emotional infidelity (but this
effect was not significant for males).
3
TESS limits the number of “participant/questions” available to each
researcher; additional questions reduce the sample size. Therefore, we did
not ask about sexual orientation, partner age, or other less central variables.
4
The only effect to achieve conventional significance levels was that
whites were more likely to blame their partner for sexual infidelity
(Wald ⫽ 4.21, p ⬍ .05).
 BRIEF REPORTS 333

Table 2
Mean and (Standard Deviations) of Ratings by Gender of Participants, Whether They Are Rating
a Sexual or Emotional Affair, and Whether They Rated Sexual or Emotional Infidelity First

Males Females

Sex Emotion Sex Emotion

EmoF SexF EmoF SexF EmoF SexF EmoF SexF

Upset 6.41 6.21 6.14 5.85 6.71 6.46 6.41 6.33

(1.35) (1.50) (1.46) (1.42) (.98) (1.34) (1.26) (1.41)
Hurt 6.41 6.01 6.09 5.97 6.68 6.53 6.40 6.38
(1.32) (1.65) (1.54) (1.42) (1.01) (1.15) (1.33) (1.43)
Angry 6.21 5.78 5.59 5.15 6.58 6.21 5.97 6.11
(1.51) (1.65) (1.76) (1.75) (1.13) (1.44) (1.55) (1.60)
Blame 5.94 5.87 5.20 5.45 6.53 6.24 5.84 6.10
(1.72) (1.52) (1.80) (1.88) (1.13) (1.40) (1.46) (1.45)
You leave 5.63 5.23 4.60 5.61 5.45 5.29 5.08 5.91
(1.99) (1.94) (2.27) (1.76) (2.07) (1.95) (2.16) (1.63)
Partner leaves 5.30 4.66 4.59 5.38 4.54 4.44 4.45 5.51
(1.81) (1.95) (2.01) (1.83) (2.10) (2.09) (2.17) (1.68)

Socioeconomic status. There were no significant effects of Discussion

SES on any variable.
Continuous Measures
Table 2 presents the mean ratings for the emotions by gender,
infidelity type, and whether participants responded to sex or emo-
tion first.
Comparing the first set of questions answered by each partici-
pant provides a between-participants design. Multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) showed a significant effect of infidelity
type (F[6, 359] ⫽ 2.78, p ⬍ .05) and of gender (F[6, 359] ⫽ 2.79,
p ⬍ .05) but no interaction (F[6, 359] ⬍ 1, p ⬎ .50). We then
conducted 2 (gender) ⫻ 2 (infidelity type) analyses of variance on
each dependent variable. Men and women differed in their re-
sponses, but contrary to the JSIM hypothesis, none of the interac-
tions with sexual versus emotional infidelity were significant (all
Fs ⬍ 1.4, ps ⬎ .20). In terms of sex versus emotion differences
collapsing across gender, although the means were in the expected
direction (individuals are more upset, hurt, and think their partner
is more likely to leave over emotion, but show more anger, blame,
and are more likely to leave their partner over sex), the only
significant differences were for blame (F[1, 364] ⫽ 11.57, p ⬍
.01) and leave partner (F[1, 364] ⫽ 4.02, p ⬍ .05).5
Socioeconomic status. A 2 (gender) ⫻ 2 (infidelity type) ⫻ 2
(SES) MANOVA revealed significant main effects of gender and
infidelity type as well as an SES ⫻ infidelity type interaction (F[6,
369] ⫽ 2.75, p ⬍ .05). On individual variables, these interactions
were significant for hurt (F[1, 374] ⫽ 5.34, p ⬍ .05) and angry
(F[1, 374] ⫽ 3.74, p ⬍ .06). Low SES respondents were slightly
more hurt over sex than emotion (Memotion ⫽ 5.84; Msex ⫽ 6.17),
whereas high SES individuals were more hurt by emotion
(Memotion ⫽ 6.57; Msex ⫽ 6.07). Low SES individuals were angrier
over sex than emotion (Memotion ⫽ 5.40; Msex ⫽ 5.89), and high
SES were slightly angrier over emotion (Memotion ⫽ 5.96; Msex ⫽
5.71). SES did not interact with gender and the three-way inter-
actions were not significant.
Our results provided strong support for the similarity of emo-
tional responses to infidelity, across gender, age, and SES; these
responses did not support the widely reported JSIM hypothesis.
We now reprise our major questions subsequently.
Did the JSIM effect appear in a national sample with forced-
choice measures? The JSIM effect did not emerge strongly; a
direct replication of whether individuals would be more upset by a
sexual or an emotional infidelity revealed that a majority of both
genders were more upset by an emotional infidelity. However, this
effect was larger among women, which would be consistent with
a JSIM prediction; similarly, men were angrier than women over
sexual infidelity. Nonetheless, it appears that a strong form of
JSIM effect (in which males should be more upset by sexual
infidelity) is not robust in nonstudent adults.
Were there age or SES effects on the JSIM phenomena? We
found no evidence of age or SES effects on men’s or women’s
reports of whether sexual or emotional infidelity would upset them
more. It is important to note that although negative results are
always perilous to interpret, these negative results are less perilous
than most because they used a) a probabilistic national sample, b)
well-established procedures, and c) a sizable number of partici-
pants. The negative result is not easily attributed to inappropriate
procedures or a lack of power.
The fact that life-stage results do not emerge here provides a
theoretical advance about the nature of these effects; whatever
5
One could also examine these data within-participants by calculating
the difference on each variable between participants’ rating of sex and
emotion (sex ⫺ emotion); as a result of space constraints, we only sum-
marize these analyses here. Using difference scores, individuals showed
stronger emotional responses to sexual versus emotional infidelity on all
measures, replicating DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, and Salovey (2002)
and Sabini and Green (2004), study 3. In regression analyses including all
demographics, there was no effect of education. The only age effect was
that older men were more likely to believe that a partner would leave over
sexual infidelity (b ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05), and older men were marginally more
likely to leave over emotional infidelity (b ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .09).
334 BRIEF REPORTS
mechanisms account for emotional responses to infidelity appear
to be active throughout the lifespan. Jealousy responses were also
not moderated by whether individuals already had children, their
income, or other factors that might show differences if these
mechanisms were sensitive to situational factors. These results are
consistent with the more parsimonious account that jealousy is
comprised of lower-level emotional states (e.g., anger and hurt),
which may be triggered by a variety of events.
The lack of SES effects also speaks to the generality of jealousy
mechanisms. Similarly, differences in social class were an obvious
potential explanation for differences between college samples and
other samples.
Was a more differentiated conception of jealousy supported by
dichotomous data? Individuals of both genders were angrier and
blamed their partners more for sexual infidelities but were more
hurt by emotional ones, thus supporting a view of jealousy as a
complex of emotions and replicating Sabini and Green (2004). It is
clear that using a more diverse set of emotion measures, beyond
“upset or distressed,” provides useful information.
Did the JSIM effect appear with continuous measures? The
continuous measures did not support the JSIM effect. In a
between-subjects analysis, there were no significant interactions
between gender and infidelity type on upset or the other dependent
variables. The JSIM effect does not appear robust over continuous
measures.
The current study thus provides further confirmation of the
methodological limitations of the sex difference. To explain this
discrepancy, DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, and Salovey (2002)
suggested that a forced-choice format induces individuals to use a
more effortful decision strategy. They found that under cognitive
load, the sex difference on forced-choice measures disappears,
which suggests that responses to infidelity are not modular and
automatic, as JSIM predicts.
Of course, some mystery remains as to why the JSIM effect is
robust in college samples but not in adult samples. Education alone
does not account for these differences. Perhaps unmeasured vari-
ables such as sensitivity to social norms, stereotypes about male
versus female sexuality, or some aspect of relationship experience
will explain this discrepancy.
Conclusions
In summary, these results weigh against the view that jealousy
evolved as a special module. Rather, our findings provide addi-
tional support for the view of jealousy as comprised of distinct
emotions that are triggered by different events or aspects of events.
These triggers are not substantially different for men and women,
and they do not appear to be moderated by differences in individ-
uals’ life stage or life circumstances.
References
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and
perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narra-
tives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
994 –1005.
Buss, D., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differ-
ences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychologi-
cal Science, 3, 251–255.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary
as love and sex. New York: Free Press.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim,
H. K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and
beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses in the United
States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125–150.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanisms or artifact of measure-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103–1116.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1992). Evolutionary origins of sex differ-
ences in jealousy? Questioning the ‘fitness’ of the model. Psychological
Science, 7, 367–372.
Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995).
Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex
differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 16, 355–383.
Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity:
The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082–1091.
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy,
including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal
violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view, 7, 102–128.
Harris, C. R. (2005). Male and female jealousy, still more similar than
different: Reply to Sagarin (2005). Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 76 – 86.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason.
Psychological Science, 7, 364 –366.
Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. A. (2001). Hurt feelings: The neglected
emotion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly. Washington, DC:
APA Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Models of agency: Sociocultural
diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman & J.
Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 49. Cross-
cultural differences in perspectives on self. Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of
violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex
differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice,
continuous rating scale, and physiological responses on the same sub-
jects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 83–94.
Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and
emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples,
and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1375–
1388.
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities of everyday life (pp. 163–182).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy:
Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review,
9, 62–75.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a
narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity:
Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory
of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
Received July 8, 2005
Revision received October 3, 2005
Accepted October 28, 2005 䡲