Sex differences in jealousy: the (Lack of) influence of researcher theoretical perspective

Sex differences in jealousy: the (Lack of) influence of researcher theoretical perspective. John Edlund et al. The Journal of Social Psycholog, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1365686

According to the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), 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. 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. This effect has been explored in several ways (see Edlund & Sagarin, 2017 for a comprehensive review). Most relevant to the goals of this paper are the approaches taken by Sheets and Wolfe (2001), in which participants were asked to imagine an infidelity and respond to forced-choice questions , and the approach taken by Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, and Sagarin (2006), in which participants were asked to respond on continuous items .

However, this sex difference in jealousy effect has not been without significant controversy in the literature. For instance, DeSteno and colleagues (DeSteno, Bartlett, Bravermann, & Salovey, 2002) have suggested that men and women had differential interpretations of the forced-choice questions (called the “double-shot” hypothesis); however, Buss and colleagues (Buss et al., 1999) later demonstrated that the double-shot hypothesis cannot explain the relationship between participant 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 and colleagues (Edlund et al., 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, 2002) and continuous measures of jealousy (Sagarin et al., 2012).  One significant point of contention in the literature, and the one addressed in the current study, is whether successfully observing a sex difference in jealousy effect is driven by the theoretical perspective of the researchers. Many of the studies attempting to refute the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy have been published in general psychological journals (e.g., Psychological Science) and in social psychology journals (e.g., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin). Conversely, many of the studies supporting the sex difference in jealousy have been published in journals oriented toward evolutionary psychology (e.g., Evolutionary Psychology). This discrepancy is highlighted by Edlund and Sagarin (2017), who demonstrate the differences in the publication outlets, but they do not offer evidence as to whether the theoretical perspective of the researchers is the driving factor in the eventual publication outlets.

Given the disparate nature of the researchers on both sides of the debate and the resultant diversity in the outlets in which their findings have been published, one of the goals of the present research was to bring diverse researchers together (many of whom have never published with one another) to investigate whether theoretical perspective impacted the sex difference in jealousy. We also sought to provide another replication of the sex difference in jealousy effect while examining both continuous and forced-choice measures. Finally, we sought to extend the sex difference in jealousy literature by incorporating an individual difference measure – a self-perceived measure of how high quality a mate one is (i.e., mate value) – as a potential moderator of the sex difference in jealousy effect. For instance, research has shown that mate value moderates one’s preferences in a mate (e.g., Edlund & Sagarin, 2010; Reeve, Kelly, & Welling, 2017), as well as one’s intention to commit an infidelity (Starratt, Weekes-Shackelford, & Shackelford, 2017). As such, given mate value’s impact on intentions towards infidelity, we wanted to explore if it would similarly impact the reactions to an infidelity.

[...]

In summary, we have demonstrated that the sex difference in jealousy occurs in both forcedchoice and continuous response scale formats. We also demonstrated that the theoretical perspective of the researchers has no bearing on the results obtained when using identical tools. Finally, we have demonstrated that mate value moderates the sex difference in jealousy.