Abstract
Sex differences in jealousy are a well-established research finding that suggests men (relative to women) will find the sexual components of an infidelity more distressing, whereas women (relative to men) will find the emotional components of an infidelity more distressing. This study uses a relatively novel sample of participants (individuals who engage in consensual non-monogamy) to test both cultural and evolutionary influences on jealousy. In our study using hypothetical scenarios, we found that men (relative to women) were more upset about the sexual components of the infidelity and that women (relative to men) were more upset about the emotional components of the infidelity. This occurred in both samples to the same magnitude suggesting that the differences between the men and women may be driven by evolutionary influences. Additionally, we found a main effect of relationship type such that participants who engaged in consensual non-monogamy had lower levels of jealousy overall. As such, this study provides relatively unique evidence for the ultimate origins of sex differences in jealousy.
Sex differences in jealousy are among the most thoroughly investigated effects in the domain of evolutionary psychology (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Edlund, Sagarin, & Kinner, in press). According to the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy as offered by Buss et al., ancestral women's challenge of ensuring paternal investment exerted selective pressures that increased women's jealousy in response to emotional infidelity, whereas ancestral men's challenge of paternal uncertainty exerted selective pressures that increased men's jealousy in response to sexual infidelity (although see Edlund et al., 2019 for an alternative evolutionary account for the pattern of jealousy observed in males). Observing that women experience greater jealousy in response to emotional infidelity (relative to men) and that men experience greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity (relative to women) is known as the sex differences in jealousy effect.
Over the years, numerous challenges to the theory have been offered. For instance, DeSteno and colleagues (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; DeSteno, Bartlett, Bravermann, & Salovey, 2002) have suggested that men and women had differential interpretations of the forced-choice questions often used to test for sex differences in jealousy. DeSteno and colleagues suggested that women believe that men can have sex without emotional commitment, but not emotional commitment without sex and vice versa for men. This hypothesis (called the “double-shot” hypothesis), suggests that men and women differentially interpret the depth of commitment in the questions. However, Buss and colleagues (Buss et al., 1999) later demonstrated that the double-shot hypothesis cannot explain the relationship between sex and jealousy. Harris (2002) questioned whether sex differences in cognitive focus (not emotional jealousy) in response to actual experiences with infidelity mirrored hypothetical reactions and whether the effect in the hypothetical reaction literature was an artifact of the forced-choice measure. Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, and Sagarin (2006) later demonstrated that sex differences in jealousy in response to actual experiences with infidelity mirrored hypothetical reactions in both forced-choice and continuous measures. Importantly, meta-analyses have confirmed that this effect reliably emerges with both forced-choice (Harris, 2003) and continuous measures of jealousy (Sagarin et al., 2012). Further challenges have been suggested based on the theoretical perspective adopted by the researchers (Harris, 2003); however, other studies (Edlund et al., 2018) have suggested the theoretical perspective of the authorship team is not a limiting factor such that the sex difference in jealousy can be demonstrated by non-evolutionary psychologists.
However, it is important to note Wood and Eagly (2002) suggest that a number of sex differences seen today are due to societal gender roles along with a host of other factors (e.g., access to social and political power, patrilineal inheritance, etc.). They note that smaller gender differences are exhibited in societies that have higher rates of gender egalitarian values. The authors then go on to state: “…greater sexual jealousy expressed by men than women, and the prevalence of rape … are not human universals but tendencies that emerged as by-products of the patriarchal forms of social organization that developed under particular socioeconomic conditions” (p. 716).
However, numerous articles including Endendijk, van Baar, and Deković (2020) and Gangestad, Haselton, and Buss (2006) demonstrate that the societal norms as specified by Eagly and Wood can coexist with evolutionary influences at the same time. Further, research looking at the sex difference in jealousy in one of the most egalitarian countries in the world (Norway) have demonstrated that Eagly and Wood's hypothesis is not supported in empirical practice (Bendixen, Kennair, & Buss, 2015).
Historically, there have been a number of cultures (egalitarian cultures) that have modified their patterns of behaviors differently than the traditional relationships seen today (matriarchies, for example). The Mbuti Pygmies of Zaire for example are a classic hunter and gather tribe where equality is extremely valued (Woodburn, 1982). Many of those cultures no longer exist in today's world and as a result, we cannot test the implication of Wood and Eagly's theorizing regarding the sex difference in jealousy within these cultures. However, the suggestion that egalitarian forms of culture influence jealousy could be tested more directly with a population that is active today – people who engage in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships.
Consensually non-monogamous relationships
While monogamous relationships have been studied in detail, there is very little research done on consensually non-monogamous relationships. Consensually non-monogamous relationships are relationships where both partners agree to sexual or emotional relations outside of the primary pairbond (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2013). There are various different forms of CNM such as: open relationships, swinging and polyamory. Open relationships are categorized by an agreement between members of a romantic relationship that the members may have sexual relationships outside of the romantic couple. Swinging on the other hand is categorized by a couple engaging in extradyadic sexual relations with another romantic couple, usually at the same place and time (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015). Another example of CNM is polyamory. Polyamory is the belief/practice of engaging in a multitude of relationships with all members involved providing full consent. These relationships may be romantic or sexual in nature. All of the forms of CNM however have the important component of commitment in comparison to casual relationships. Those in consensual non-monogamous relationships have agreed upon all aspects of the sexual relationships both inside and outside of the relationship. Another aspect of CNM relationships that is somewhat different than many monogamous relationships is the focus on open and frank communication about relationships. All aspects of the relationship are communicated about openly and negotiated (rather than relying on common cultural assumptions). The commitment and communication aspects are key in fully understanding the dynamics of CNM.
Given our earlier discussion of gender role theory and the intersection of culture, it serves to briefly discuss whether CNM would represent a culture, a subculture, or something else. Our thinking on this is largely influenced by Gudykunst and Lee (2003) who suggest that: “… systems of knowledge used by relatively large numbers of people… ordering at the societal level [as opposed to]… ordering at lower levels… [referred to as] subculture. A subculture, therefore, involves a set of shared symbolic ideas held by a collectivity within a larger society.” (p. 17). Given the extant data on CNM and the shared ideas within this group of individuals suggesting that open and frank communication about the nature of the relationship/s and the negotiation of all of the rules of the relationship (rather than relying on commonly held views in the larger society) and the universally held view in CNM relationships that jealousy is forbidden within the negotiated confines of the relationship that CNM can best be considered a relationship subculture.
A recent study has explored the motivations for engaging in CNM. Wood, DeSantis, Desmarsis, and Milhausen (2021) looked at qualitative relationship data collected as part of a larger representative study looking at romantic relationships. They found six themes associated with entering into CNM: reasons related to autonomy, beliefs and value systems, relationality, sexuality, growth and expansion, and pragmatism. Wood et al. also stress that their findings demonstrate that CNM relationships are stable and fulfilling.
As commitment, communication, and trust are key in CNM, jealousy regarding consensual relationships is thus forbidden in order to maintain successful CNM relationships. As the CNM subculture condemns jealousy, there are a number of differences between those who are in CNM relationships and those who are in monogamous relationships. As discussed in Mogilski et al. (2019) there has been very little research on jealousy among those in CNM relationships. This area of research is especially important given the stance this community has on jealousy. By comparing CNM and monogamous individual's reactions to emotion and physical “extra-pair involvement” Mogilski et al. (2019), found that monogamous men were the group of participants most distressed by the extra-pair sexual relations (monogamous men had higher levels of sexual jealousy than monogamous women, CNM men, and CNM women). It was also found that monogamous women were the most distressed by emotional relations (monogamous women had higher levels of emotional jealousy than monogamous men, CNM men, and CNM women), supporting prior literature. Interestingly, there were no sex differences seen between the CNM participants in terms of jealousy. CNM individuals believed that consent on the extra-pair relationship being of upmost importance; however, CNM women did rate the importance of their primary partner not cheating sexually as more important. In addition, CNM individuals on average reported thinking of the extra-pair involvement more frequently. In all, while differences were seen between monogamous and CNM individuals in terms of jealousy, cheating was still frowned upon between all parties. These results shed light on what factors may lead to jealousy in monogamous versus CNM relationships.
Personality and its intersection with jealousy and CNM
In the realm of the sex difference in jealousy, very few studies have reported moderators to the sex difference in jealousy. One exception to this is the work done by Levy and Kelly (2010). Among the findings noted by Levy and Kelly was an increased propensity for securely attached men to be more bothered by the emotional aspects of an infidelity (compared to insecurely attached men). Beyond this, although a number of studies have explored the sex difference in jealousy and explored possible moderators for the effect, little evidence has been found indicating possible moderation of this effect.
In the realm of CNM relationships, one study that has explored personality as it relates to CNM relationships was done by Conley, Matsick, Moors, and Ziegler (2017). In this study, Conley et al. examined the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and attachment dimensions and how they are related to the attitudes of individuals towards consensual non-monogamy and ones willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy. They found that an avoidant attachment style was positively correlated with attitudes towards CNM as well as a willingness to engage in CNM. They also found that openness to experience lead to more positive attitudes towards consensual non-monogamy and a greater desire to engage in it, while conscientiousness was predictive of negative attitudes towards consensual non-monogamy and a less willingness to engage in it. However, despite this initial research, limited research has explored the Big Five in the context of CNM.
Hypotheses
As Rubel and Bogaert (2015) suggest, jealousy is an emotion condemned in CNM relationships. While jealousy has been seen even in CNM relationships (as seen in Mogilski et al. (2019)), it is hypothesized that those in CNM relationships will have lower rates of jealousy than participants in monogamous relationships (Valentova, de Moraes, & Varella, 2020). As CNM subculture dictates that jealousy is unacceptable, it was predicted that this practice will be associated with lower rates of jealousy overall regardless of gender.
Given the ubiquity of the sex differences in jealousy in cross-cultural studies (e.g., Buunk & Hupka, 1987; Edlund et al., 2018), we predicted that the sex difference in jealousy would replicate in this study. Successful replication should take the form of a significant interaction such that men, compared to women, would show relatively greater distress about the sexual components than the emotional components of an infidelity. As noted by Edlund and Sagarin (2014), the prediction specifies an interaction of a particular form (i.e., the difference between men's distress about the sexual components of an infidelity minus men's distress about the emotional components of an infidelity will be greater than the difference between women's distress about the sexual components of an infidelity minus women's distress about the emotional components of an infidelity). It does not specify anything regarding the simple effects of infidelity type within each sex or the simple effects of sex within each infidelity type.
Exploratory Questions: We included measures of the big five personality traits, the dark triad, mate value, and sociosexuality. In the interests of not engaging in HARKING (Kerr, 1998) we are listing these as exploratory measures as we did not make an a priori hypotheses about what we would find (we simply viewed this as an exploratory part of this study).
Methods
Participants
There were 134 participants in the study with an average age of 24.57 (SD = 8.97). Of the 134 participants, 52 identified as women and 52 identified as men. Forty-two of these participants identified as consensually non-monogamous and sixty-two identified as monogamous. There were 25 consensually non-monogamous males and 17 consensually non-monogamous females and 27 males and 35 females that identified as monogamous. The data from thirty participants were excluded due to failure to complete a significant portion of the study (>5% missing data).
Procedure
The monogamous participants were drawn from an introduction to psychology course at a large private university in the northeastern region of the United States. Participant recruitment occurred as part of a subject pool and these participants received course credit for their participation.
The CNM participants were drawn from a closed Facebook group dedicated to CNM and mTurk. The survey was advertised on three separate occasions in the Facebook group, offering participants a chance to be entered into a raffle for a fifty-dollar gift certificate. For the mTurk portion of the sample, participants were first required to complete a five-question prescreening survey in which the participant received 0.05 USD. Once participants had made it through the prescreening survey, eligible participants (participants who reported engaging in a CNM relationship) were offered entrance into the core study in which they were paid 2.00 USD for their time and were also entered in for a chance to win a gift card.
After consenting, participants answered a number of demographic questions (age, biological sex, sexual orientation, relationship type, relationship status). Importantly, we assessed CNM status in both the pretest and in the main part of the study (to ensure that we had recruited someone who engages in CNM or monogamous relationship). After completing demographics, participants read scenarios that were intended to elicit jealousy from the participants. These scenarios were based on the questions asked in Edlund et al. (2019), but were adapted to be appropriate for the CNM subculture (see appendix for questions). Participants reported on their levels of comfort (reverse-scored), insecurity, jealousy, and pleasure (reverse-scored) on a seven-point scale where higher levels indicted more negative emotions. The four items were summed to an overall negativity score.
Finally, participants completed the following personality measures: Sociosexual Orientation survey (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), the Big Five Inventory (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998), the Mate Value Scale (Edlund & Sagarin, 2014), and the Dark Triad-Short Version (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed.
Results
A single omnibus analysis was used in order to test hypotheses one and two. A 2 (sex: male, female) x 2 (relationship type: CNM, monogamous) x 2 (jealousy: sexual, emotional) MANOVA with the type of emotional response included as the DVs.
Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis one suggested that participants in a CNM relationship would have lower levels of jealousy overall compared to participants in a monogamous relationship (given the subcultural expectations). This hypothesis was supported as participants in CNM relationships had lower levels of averaged jealousy (M =15.78, SD = 0.85) compared to participants who were monogamous (M = 23.51, SD =0.68), Fmaineffect(1, 91)=41.30 P<0.001, ƞpartial2 = 0.312.
Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis two suggested that the sex difference in jealousy would replicate in our samples. Evidence for this would occur if there was a significant interaction between sex and the type of infidelity such that men, compared to women, would show relatively greater distress about the sexual components than the emotional components of an infidelity. A significant interaction of the predicted form emerged, Finteraction(1, 96) = 5.924, P= 0.017, ƞpartial2 = 0.058, with men showing a greater difference than women in their response to the sexual components of an infidelity than in response to the emotional components of an infidelity (men's response to the sexual components: M = 20.67, SD = 6.95, men's response to the emotional components: M= 19.44, SD= 6.40, women's response to the sexual components: M=20.76, SD = 6.56, women's response to the emotional components: M= 20.76, SD = 6.54). Furthermore, the three way interaction between sex, relationship type, and jealousy type was not significant, Finteraction(1, 96)=0.666, P= 0.417, ƞpartial2 = 0.001. This suggests that although the type of relationship had an influence in the main effect (overall levels of jealousy) it did not differentially impact the relative views of the men and women in response to the types of jealousy.
For our exploratory analyses, our analysis strategy was to see if there were any personality differences between the consensually non-monogamous and monogamous groups using ANOVA.
Our first set of exploratory analyses compared the groups on the Big Five personality traits. We found that the non-monogamous population scored higher (M= 28.235, SD= 0.916) on Neuroticism than the monogamous population (M= 25.625, SD= 0.844), F (1, 72) = 4.006, P = 0.049, ƞpartial2 = 0.053. We also found that the non-monogamous population scored lower (M= 46.794, SD =1.903) on Agreeableness than the monogamous population (M = 51.125, SD = 1.755) although this finding was only marginally significant, F (1, 72) = 2.799, P = 0.099, ƞpartial2 = 0.037. The other analyses using the Big Five did not have any significant effects (p's > 0.15).
Our second set of exploratory analyses compared the groups on the Dark Triad personality traits. We found that the non-monogamous population (M =28.235, SD =0.916) scored higher on Narcissism than the monogamous population (M = 25.625, SD =0.844), F (1, 72) = 4.391, P = 0.040, ƞpartial2 = 0.057. We found that the non-monogamous population scored higher (M =23.882, SD =1.190), on Psychopathology than the monogamous population (M = 18.125, SD = 1.097), F (1, 72) = 12.663, P = 0.001, ƞpartial2 = 0.150. We found that the non-monogamous population scored higher on Machiavellianism (M =29.088, SD =1.094) than the monogamous population (M = 26.225, SD = 1.009) although this effect was only marginally significant, F(1, 72) = 3.703, P = 0.058, ƞpartial2 = 0.049.
Our third set of exploratory analyses looked at the relationship between Sociosexuality and the consensually non-monogamous and monogamous groups. We found that the non-monogamous population scored higher on Sociosexuality (M =74.206, SD =6.134) than the monogamous population (M = 46.950, SD = 5.655), F(1, 72) = 10.673, P = 0.002, ƞpartial2 = 0.129.
Our fourth set of exploratory analyses found that there was no difference between the monogamous group and the non-monogamous on Mate Value (P = 0.151). Our fifth set of exploratory analyses found that the various personality traits did not influence the sex difference in jealousy (p's >0.15).
Discussion
In this study, we explored the sex difference in jealousy while comparing two different groups – monogamous participants (similar to most previously published studies) and a relatively novel group of participants – participants who engage in CNM relationships. We also compared the CNM participants with our monogamous participants on a number of personality traits. Finally, we explored the personality traits in our analyses looking at the sex difference in jealousy (to see if any of the traits moderated the sex difference in jealousy).
Given the subcultural expectations associated with CNM, we expected that participants who were in a CNM relationship would experience lower levels of jealousy compared to participants who were in a monogamous relationship; indeed, this is exactly what we found in our study. The jealousy levels of the CNM participants was much lower than was found in the monogamous relationships.
We also expected to find the traditional sex difference in jealousy effect in both populations. This is exactly what we found. We found a significant interaction between the type of jealousy and the sex of the participant such that men were relatively more bothered by the sexual infidelity. This occurred equally across the CNM and monogamous relationship types and was not moderated by the type of relationship (outside of the aforementioned main effect of type of relationship).
What do these conclusions tell us in the overall picture of the sex difference in jealousy? These data suggest that Buss, Edlund, Shackelford, and colleagues are likely correct in their view that the sex difference in jealousy is an evolutionarily influenced phenomena that ties into the different reproductive challenges our ancestors faced. Most importantly, it highlights the points that Edlund and Sagarin (2017) discussed concerning the nature of the response scale used for the sex difference in jealousy. They stated that numerous influences would impact the point estimates of jealousy. Some of the influences can include (sub-)culture group such as CNM (as demonstrated in this study), but that evolved predispositions matter as well (and they matter consistently); numerous other factors can play a role as well (which are outside the scope of this article to detail).
This study is one of a very limited number of studies to explore potential differences between individuals participating in CNM and monogamous relationships. We found that people in CNM relationships were higher in Neuroticism, marginally lower in Agreeableness, higher in Narcissism, higher in Psychopathology, marginally higher in Machiavellianism, and were higher in Sociosexuality. However, the remainder of the Big Five personality traits were found to be not significant and the Mate Value scores were also found to be not significant. This pattern of findings largely mirrors attitudes that have been found about monogamous people's attitudes towards CNM, but we have expanded this to looking at people who practice CNM and compared directly to a monogamous cohort.
One limitation (and opportunity for future research) is the fact that we did not collect enough data from the various sub-types of CNM relationships (instead, our sample size was aimed towards the overall sex difference in jealousy effect). It is possible that the different subtypes of CNM relationships will show different jealousy patterns (although we think this is somewhat unlikely). However, this open question was not able to be answered in our sample. Another limitation was the inclusion of questions related to the sex difference in jealousy. Many of the members from the Facebook group pointed out that these questions are much more relevant to monogamous relationships than they are in CNM (although they reported that did not influence their personality ratings).
Conclusion
In this study, we explored the sex difference in jealousy in monogamous and CNM samples. We found that the sex difference in jealousy is replicable in both the monogamous and CNM samples. Additionally, we found a cultural influence on jealousy in the CNM sample (where jealousy was significantly lower than in the monogamous sample). All told, this study supports the supposition offered by Edlund and Sagarin (2017) that numerous factors influence men's and women's responses to sexual and emotional infidelity and that evolved predispositions are one of the important factors.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a faculty research fund grant awarded to the first author and a student research fund grant awarded to the third author. We also wish to thank Brad J. Sagarin for helpful comments and suggestions on a draft.
References
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212–216.
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., and Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., … Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 125–150.
Buunk, B., & Hupka, R. B. (1987). Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. Journal of Sex Research, 23(1), 12–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551338.
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1103.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367–372.
Edlund, J. E., Buller, D. J., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., Sagarin, B. J., & Ojedokun, O. (2019). The sex difference in jealousy: Lost certainty or lost opportunities? Psychological Reports, 122(2), 575–592.
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Nichols, A. L., McCarthy, R. J., Wood, S. E., Scherer, C. R., … Walker, R. (2018). Sex differences in jealousy: The (Lack of) influence of researcher theoretical perspective. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 515–520.
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 147470490600400137.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy: A 25-year retrospective. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 259–302). Academic Press.
Edlund, J. E., Sagarin, B. J., & Kinner, K. M. G. (in press). Sex differences in jealousy: The state of the theory. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of human mating. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, #–##.
Endendijk J. J., van Baar A. L., & Deković M..(2020). He is a Stud, She is a Slut! A meta-analysis on the continued existence of sexual double Standards. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319891310.
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/29.2.253.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13(1), 7–12.
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 Review, 7, 102–128.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
Levy, K. N., & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy A contribution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21, 168–173.
Mogilski, J. K., Reeve, S. D., Nicolas, S. C., Donaldson, S. H., Mitchell, V. E., & Welling, L. L. (2019). Jealousy, consent, and compersion within monogamous and consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1811–1828.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113.
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Zengel, B., & Skowronski, J. J. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595–614.
Valentova, J. V., de Moraes, A., & Varella, M. A. C. (2020). Gender, sexual orientation and type of relationship influence individual differences in jealousy: A large Brazilian sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109805.
Wood, J., De Santis, C., Desmarais, S., & Milhausen, R. (2021). Motivations for engaging in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1253–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01873-x.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727.
Woodburn, J. (1982). Egalitarian societies. Man, 431–451.
Appendix
You find out that your partner(s) have been seeing an individual(s). They make it clear to you that nothing sexual has occurred and that they are only emotionally involved. However, this may change in the future following the established rules of your relationship.
You find out that your partner(s) have been seeing an individual(s). They make it clear to you that nothing emotional has occurred and that they are only sexually involved. However, this may change in the future following the established rules of your relationship.
Rate on a scale of 1–7, where 1 is extremely negative and 7 is extremely positive:
a. How comfortable you would feel.
b. How insecure you would feel.
c. How jealous you would feel.
d. How pleased you would feel.
