Sex differences in jealousy: a meta-analytic examination

被引:75
|
作者
Sagarin, Brad J. [1 ]
Martin, Amy L. [1 ]
Coutinho, Savia A. [1 ]
Edlund, John E. [2 ]
Patel, Lily [1 ]
Skowronski, John J. [1 ]
Zengel, Bettina [1 ]
机构
[1] No Illinois Univ, Dept Psychol, De Kalb, IL 60115 USA
[2] Rochester Inst Technol, Rochester, NY 14623 USA
关键词
Jealousy; Evolution; Sex differences; Meta-analysis; EMOTIONAL RESPONSES; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES; EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY; IMAGINED INFIDELITY; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; SELF; EXPERIENCES; DISTRESS; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.02.006
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy predicts sex differences in responses to sexual infidelities and emotional infidelities. Critics have argued that such differences are absent in studies that use continuous measures to assess responses to hypothetical infidelities or in studies that assess responses to real infidelities. These criticisms were tested in two random-effects meta-analyses of 40 published and unpublished papers (providing 209 effect sizes from 47 independent samples) that measured sex differences in jealousy using continuous measures. A significant, theory-supportive sex difference emerged across 45 independent samples using continuous measures of responses to hypothetical infidelities, g*=0.258, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.188, 0.328], p<.00001. Measured emotion significantly moderated effect size. Effects were strongest when measures assessed distress/upset (g*=0.337) and jealousy (g*=0.309). Other commonly measured negative emotions yielded weaker effects, including hurt (g*=0.161), anger (g*=0.074), and disgust (g*=0.012). Across the 45 independent samples, six significant moderators emerged: random sampling, population type (student vs. nonstudent samples), age, inclusion of a forced-choice question, number of points in the response scale, and year of publication. A significant, theory-supportive effect also emerged across seven studies assessing reactions to actual infidelities, g*=0.234, 95% CI [0.020, 0.448], p=.03. Results demonstrate that the sex difference in jealousy neither is an artifact of response format nor is limited to responses to hypothetical infidelities. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:595 / 614
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Meta-Analytic Review
    Grijalva, Emily
    Newman, Daniel A.
    Tay, Louis
    Donnellan, M. Brent
    Harms, P. D.
    Robins, Richard W.
    Yan, Taiyi
    PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2015, 141 (02) : 261 - 310
  • [22] Meta-Analytic Evidence Against Sex Differences in Infants' and Toddlers' Preference for Prosocial Agents
    Margoni, Francesco
    Block, Katharina
    Hamlin, Kiley
    Zmyj, Norbert
    Schmader, Toni
    DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 59 (02) : 229 - 235
  • [24] Sex differences in verbal aggression use in romantic relationships: a meta-analytic study and review
    Stockdale, Laura
    Tackett, Sarah
    Coyne, Sarah M.
    JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH, 2013, 5 (03) : 167 - 178
  • [26] A meta-analytic evaluation of sex differences in meningococcal disease incidence rates in 10 countries
    Green, Manfred S.
    Schwartz, Naama
    Peer, Victoria
    EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2020, 148
  • [27] A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net
    Payne, Stephanie C.
    Youngcourt, Satoris S.
    Beaubien, J. Matthew
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 92 (01) : 128 - 150
  • [28] Meta-Analytic Examination of the Base-Rate Fallacy
    Allen, Mike
    Preiss, Raymond W.
    Gayle, Barbara Mae
    COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, 2006, 23 (01) : 45 - 51
  • [29] Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope
    Alarcon, Gene M.
    Bowling, Nathan A.
    Khazon, Steven
    PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2013, 54 (07) : 821 - 827
  • [30] A Meta-Analytic Examination of Work and General Locus of Control
    Wang, Qiang
    Bowling, Nathan A.
    Eschleman, Kevin J.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 95 (04) : 761 - 768