Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology

  title={Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology},
  author={David M. Buss and Randy J. Larsen and Drew Westen and Jennifer Semmelroth},
  journal={Psychological Science},
  pages={251 - 256}
In species with internal female fertilization, males risk both lowered paternity probability and investment in rival gametes if their mates have sexual contact with other males. Females of such species do not risk lowered maternity probability through partner infidelity, but they do risk the diversion of their mates' commitment and resources to rival females. Three studies tested the hypothesis that sex differences in jealousy emerged in humans as solutions to the respective adaptive problems… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Sexual and Emotional Infidelity: Evolved Gender Differences in Jealousy Prove Robust and Replicable

  • D. Buss
  • Psychology, Biology
    Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2018
The 1992 article Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology reported three empirical studies using two different methods, forced-choice and physiological experiments that elevated the status of jealousy as an important emotion to be explained by any comprehensive theory of human emotions.

Sex Differences in Jealousy: A Population-Based Twin Study in Sweden

It is shown for the first time that variance in jealousy is to some extent explained by genetic factors, and a highly significant sex effect on the relationship between infidelity types is seen, indicating that men, relative to women, reported greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity than in responseto emotional infidelity.

S Sexual Jealousy

Over evolutionary history, human men have recurrently faced the challenge of finding and securing viable mating partners. Although humans evolved to form successive long-term relationships with one

Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution or Social Construction?

Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth claimed that sex differences in the dislike of sexual or emotional infidelity supported the socio-biological hypothesis of men (i.e., most men) having evolved

Sex differences in jealousy: evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement?

Findings suggest that the sex difference used to support the evolutionary view of jealousy likely represents a measurement artifact resulting from a format-induced effortful decision strategy and not an automatic, sex-specific response shaped by evolution.

Psychological gender mediates sex differences in jealousy

The authors argue that, based on a biosocial model proposed by Wood and Eagly (2002), sex differences in reactions to sexual versus emotional infidelity should be mediated via gender-role related

Investigating the emergence of sex differences in jealousy responses in a large community sample from an evolutionary perspective

Adolescent males found the sexual aspect of imagined infidelity more distressing than adolescent females did, and there was no effect of age on the jealousy responses, and age did not moderate the sex difference.

Sex Differences in Jealousy: Not Gone, Not Forgotten, and Not Explained by Alternative Hypotheses

More than a decade before there were systematic etnpirical tests of the proposition, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that men and women would differ psychologically in the weighting given to

Sex Differences in Jealousy in Response to Actual Infidelity

The present studies address two criticisms of the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy: (a) that the sex difference in jealousy emerges only in response to hypothetical infidelity scenarios,

Estrogens and relationship jealousy

The implications, at least for females, are that any evolved psychological, affective, or behavioral dispositions regarding reproduction-related relationships are potentially moderated by estradiol, and that the use of synthetic hormones may disrupt this relation.



Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset.

  • D. Buss
  • Psychology
    Journal of personality and social psychology
  • 1989
These studies provide modest support for the strategic conflict model and implicate the negative emotions of anger and upset as proximate mechanisms that alert men and women to strategic interference.

Jealous Conflict in Dating Couples

Using Raush, et al.'s (1974) method of studying interpersonal conflict through improvisation, it was found that persons in distant roles and experiencing jealousy used significantly more rejection and coercion than did subjects who experienced distance for nonjealous reasons.

Parental investment and sexual selection

The p,cnetics of sex nas now becn clarif ied, and Fishcr ( 1958 ) hrs produccd , n,od"l to cxplarn sex ratios at coDception, a nrodel recently extendcd to include special mccha_ nisms that operate under inbreeding (Hunrilron I96?).

Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide.

An evolutionary model predicts variations in the risk of violence as a function of the ages, sexes, and other characteristics of protagonists, and these predictions are upheld in tests with data on infanticides, parricides, and filicides.

Toward the Management of Heterosexual Jealousy

The findings of a recent study of extradyadic involvements and sexual jealousy among college-age couples are reported. Evidence is brought to bear in support of the principle finding that several

The psychology of jealousy and envy

I. Jealous and Envious Thoughts and Feelings 1. The Emotional Experiences of Envy and Jealousy, Parrott 2. The Organization of Jealousy Knowledge: Romantic Jealousy as a Blended Emotion, Sharpsteen

Jealousy: Theory, Research, and Clinical Strategies

An old and recurring theme in human relationships, jealousy has been captured in myth, drama, literature, dance, sculpture, and painting, as well as in the popular press. Jealousy is also a major

Mountain Bluebirds: Experimental Evidence Against Altruism

An experiment provided birds with the opportunity to behave truly altruistically, and only one consort fostered the young of her prospective mate, and her behavior was interpretable as a reproductive error.