Content uploaded by Brent A Mattingly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brent A Mattingly
Content may be subject to copyright.
Development of the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale
and the Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale
Brent A. Mattingly &Diane Whitson &
Melinda J. B. Mattingly
Published online: 15 June 2012
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Relatively little research exists regarding individuals who intentionally
induce jealousy in their romantic partners, which is partially due to the absence of
validated measures assessing romantic jealousy-induction behaviors and motivations.
In the current study, we developed measures and examined the correlates of romantic
jealousy-induction behaviors and motivations. Results indicated that the Romantic
Jealousy-Induction Scale was unifactorial and reliable, whereas the Motives for
Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale consisted of five theoretically meaningful and
reliable factors. In general, the romantic jealousy-induction behaviors and motives
were associated with greater experienced jealousy, greater attachment avoidance and
anxiety, lower relationship satisfaction and commitment, greater relationship alter-
natives, less passionate love, and greater game-playing and obsessive love.
Keywords Romantic jealousy .Romantic jealousy-induction .Scale
development .Romantic relationships
“My wife’s jealousy is getting ridiculous. The other day she looked at my
calendar and wanted to know who May was.”—Rodney Dangerfield
As Rodney Dangerfield humorously observed, jealousy is a prevalent emotional
experience, but one that can place stress and strain on the relationship. This is at least
partially due to fear and anger being the central components of experienced jealousy
(Guerrero et al. 2005). Although substantial research has examined the experience
and expression of jealousy, including the characteristics of individuals prone to
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
DOI 10.1007/s12144-012-9144-3
B. A. Mattingly (*)
Department of Psychology, Ashland University, 156 Schar College of Education, 401 College Avenue,
Ashland, OH 44805, USA
e-mail: bmatting@ashland.edu
D. Whitson :M. J. B. Mattingly
Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA
experience jealousy and the types of situations and rivals most likely to elicit feelings
of jealousy, often overlooked is the phenomenon of individuals who purposely evoke
feelings of jealousy in a romantic partner.
Partially due to the lack of research on the topic, there is no widely accepted
definition of jealousy-induction. Some researchers, for instance, have examined
jealousy-induction without explicitly operationalizing the construct (for example,
Cayanus and Booth-Butterfield 2004). The one known study to operationalize
jealousy-induction assumed it to be a “strategic process initiated by a desire to
achieve certain strategic goals”(Fleischmann et al. 2005, p. 49). Because this
definition does not distinguish the type of relationship, in the current study we
expanded this operationalization to include components of romantic jealousy.
Therefore, we defined romantic jealousy-induction as a strategic behavioral process
designed to elicit reactive, romantic jealousy from a partner in order to achieve a
specific goal. This revised definition in turn suggests that the process of inducing
romantic jealousy involves purposely eliciting a complex set of thoughts, feelings,
and actions from a romantic partner (that is, romantic jealousy) by making that
partner aware of a threat to his/her self-esteem or quality of the relationship (that is,
reactive jealousy) by generating the perception of a real or potential attraction to a
(perhaps imaginary) rival (compare to White 1981).
Romantic Jealousy-Inducing Behaviors
Previous research has found that jealousy-induction frequently occurs in romantic
relationships—upwards of 84% of participants in one study reported using a jealousy-
inducing behavior on one or more occasions (Brainerd et al. 1996). However, few
studies have examined the use of romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors. Cayanus and
Booth-Butterfield (2004) found that individuals high in exchange orientations (that is,
those who expect reciprocation of relational benefits), as well as those who were high
in communal orientations (that is, those who are concerned about the welfare of the
relational partner and do not expect immediately repayment of relational benefits),
tended to purposely evoke jealousy in a romantic partner.
Other research that has examined the use of romantic jealousy-induction tactics
relied upon a qualitative content analysis of participants’responses to open-ended
questions (for example, “Have you ever intentionally tried to make your partner
jealous?”). This research resulted in the categorization of five romantic jealousy-
inducing techniques: talking about past relationships, talking about current relation-
ships, flirting, dating or sexual contact with another, and lying about the existence of
arival(White1980). Subsequent research utilized this categorization by asking
participants to indicate the number of times they used each of the five romantic
jealousy-inducing behaviors (Brainerd et al. 1996) and the extent to which each
behavior accurately described their own behavior (Fleischmann et al. 2005).
Although this research reveals flirting, discussing current attractions to others, and
drawing attention to rivals to be the most popular methods of inducing romantic
jealousy (White 1980; Fleischmann et al. 2005), these methods are limited in that: (a)
individuals’jealousy-inducing behaviors were not quantitatively assessed, (b) the
range of jealousy-inducing behaviors was relatively narrow in scope, or (c) not all
264 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
participants reporting on their jealousy-inducing behaviors were romantically-
involved (by definition, romantic jealousy-induction occurs within the context of a
romantic relationship, so there is reason to question single participants’reports of
their hypothetical or prior behavior). In an attempt to resolve these limitations, we
sought to develop a comprehensive scale to assess romantically-involved individuals’
tendencies to induce jealousy in their partners.
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Motives
In addition to understanding how individuals induce romantic jealousy, researchers
have also explored why individuals induce romantic jealousy. Based on the qualita-
tive content analysis of participants’responses, White (1980) identified five broad
motives of romantic jealousy-induction: increasing rewards (a specific reward is
mentioned), bolstering self-esteem (need for approval), testing the relationship (in-
crease closeness or test the strength of the relationship), seeking revenge (induce
jealousy because partner has made him or her jealous), and punishing (desire to hurt
the partner). Additionally, Fleischmann et al. (2005) identified relational rewards and
relational revenge as two overarching goals of romantic jealousy-induction.
Moreover, romantic jealousy-induction behaviors may be affected by an individual’s
relational goals. That is, individuals may be concerned with mate-retention or obtain-
ing certain benefits from a partner who tends to be jealous (Sheets et al. 1997). As
with romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors, a comprehensive scale assessing motiva-
tions for romantic jealousy-induction is lacking.
1
Therefore, we also sought to
develop a scale which assesses individuals’motives for inducing romantic jealousy.
Correlates of Romantic Jealousy-Induction
In addition to understanding individuals’rates and motivations for inducing romantic
jealousy, it is valuable to know what leads individuals to induce romantic jealousy.
Past research identifies a few individual difference and relational variables that are
related to romantic jealousy-induction. First, there appear to be sex differences in
rates of inducing romantic jealousy. Women induce romantic jealousy more frequent-
ly than men (White 1980), although recent research suggests that this difference may
no longer exist (Fleischmann et al. 2005).
Second, the use of romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors is also linked to an
individual’s level of involvement in a romantic relationship. White (1980) found that
women who rated themselves as more involved than their partner in the romantic
1
The lone exception is a “jealousy goals”scale by Fleischmann et al. (2005). However, this scale was
relatively narrow in scope, as only one item was created for each of White’s(1980) five motives and other
motives such as mate-retention (Sheets et al. 1997) were not assessed. Furthermore, and as noted when
discussing the need for a scale assessing romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors, participants were not
required to be romantically-involved. Methodologically, there is reason to question the validity of these
results when not all participants were reflecting on their current behaviors and goals. Thus, we felt that
developing a more comprehensive scale to be used only for romantically-involved participants was
necessary.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 265
relationship were more likely to report inducing romantic jealousy than women who
reported being less or equally involved in the romantic relationship as their partner.
However, other research indicates that no differences exist in the jealousy-inducing
patterns of individuals who experience inequity in relationship commitment (Sheets
et al. 1997).
Interestingly, although previous research examined the association between ro-
mantic jealousy-induction and variables such as sex and involvement in the romantic
relationship, the association between the experience/expression of romantic jealousy
and romantic jealousy-induction has not been investigated. Further attesting to the
ambiguity of the phenomenon, romantic jealousy-induction is associated with both
positive and negative relational outcomes (Fleischmann et al. 2005). Therefore,
research examining the correlates of romantic jealousy-induction paints, at best, an
inconsistent and incomplete picture. As a result (and as discussed below), in the
current study we explored possible correlates of individuals’romantic jealousy-
induction tendencies and motives.
Attachment as a Potential Correlate Individuals’early life experiences with their
primary caretakers lead individuals to develop attachments, or working models of the
self and others (for example, Bowlby 1977; Feeney 2006). These attachments consist
of two dimensions: attachment anxiety (that is, anxiety over abandonment) and
attachment avoidance (that is, discomfort with closeness) (Brennan et al. 1998).
Because romantic jealousy arises from a distressing and threatening relational situa-
tion, it likely activates the attachment system in order to manage the feelings and
behaviors that stem from relational threat (Simpson and Rholes 1994). As a result,
individuals’attachment anxiety is associated with romantic jealousy (Guerrero 1998;
Leak et al. 1998; Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick 1997). Specifically, individuals who are
high in attachment anxiety experience more jealous worry and suspicion than indi-
viduals low in attachment anxiety. This association is even stronger for individuals
with a preoccupied attachment style (that is, high attachment anxiety and low
attachment avoidance). More recent research indicates that both attachment anxiety
and attachment avoidance (that is, discomfort with intimacy) –but not the interaction
of the two –predict individuals’tendencies to induce romantic jealousy (Whitson and
Mattingly 2010). Therefore, we expected that both forms of attachment will be related
to romantic jealousy-induction tendencies and motives.
Investment Model Variables as Potential Correlates Jealousy serves as a warning to
the individual that the relationship is being threatened. In turn, it is likely that jealousy
and jealousy-induction are associated with individuals’assessment of the quality of the
relationship. The Investment Model of commitment is a robust model indicating that
individuals’commitment to a relationship (that is, emotional attachment to and desire to
remain in a relationship) is a function of increased satisfaction with the relationship
(determined by comparing relational rewards to costs), greater amount of investments
that would be lost if the relationship were to end (such as time, effort, money, shared
possessions, etcetera), and decreased quality of relationship alternatives (for example,
other potential relationships, spending time alone; Le and Agnew 2003; Rusbult 1980).
Previous research indicates that greater commitment is associated with increased
romantic jealousy in response to a threatening situation (Bevan 2008; Nadler and
266 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
Dotan 1992;Rydelletal.2004). Additionally, poorer alternatives to the current
romantic relationship are associated with more experienced romantic jealousy
(Hansen 1985;Rydelletal.2004), although other research suggests that this
association only holds for cognitive jealousy (for example, having more jealous
thoughts) whereas the opposite pattern occurs for emotional jealousy (that is,
individuals who perceive having high quality alternatives tend to experience a
greater emotional reaction when presented with a jealousy-invoking situation;
Bevan 2008).
Furthermore, lower satisfaction is associated with increased jealousy (Andersen et
al. 1995; Bevan 2008; Guerrero and Eloy 1992). However, when satisfied individuals
experience romantic jealousy, they are more likely to express it than those who are
less satisfied (Andersen et al. 1995; Hansen 1985). Finally, recent research indicates
that romantic jealousy-induction is associated with decreased satisfaction levels
(Dainton and Gross 2008). Because of the strong associations of satisfaction, quality
of alternatives, and commitment with experienced romantic jealousy, and because of
the theoretical similarity between experienced romantic jealousy and tendencies to
induce romantic jealousy (as well as recent research directly linking romantic
jealousy-induction and satisfaction), we expected that satisfaction, alternatives, and
commitment would be related to romantic jealousy-induction.
Love as a Potential Correlate Individuals’beliefs and attitudes about love (Lee
1973) may also be related to individuals’romantic jealousy-induction tendencies
and motives for two reasons. First, individuals who view love as sacred, passionate,
and selfless likely value their relationships more than individuals who view love as a
game or a logical analysis of a partner’s benefits and costs. In turn, relational threat
would likely be unsettling to those who cherish their relationships more. Second,
certain love attitudes are associated with relational quality. The love styles eros
(passionate love) and agape (selfless love) are positively associated with commitment
to, satisfaction with, and investments in individuals’current romantic relationships
and negatively associated with perceived quality of alternatives (Hendrick et al. 1988;
Morrow et al. 1995). Additionally, mania (obsessive love) is positively associated
with satisfaction, and is unrelated to commitment, investments, or quality of per-
ceived alternatives (Morrow et al. 1995). Furthermore, research indicates there is a
negative correlation between ludus (game-playing love) and commitment, satisfac-
tion, and investments and a positive association between ludus and alternatives
(Hendrick et al. 1988; Morrow et al. 1995).
In summary, those who endorse an eros or agape love style are committed to and
invested in their romantic relationship and perceive there to be unattractive alter-
natives to their relationship, those who endorse a ludus love style are less committed
and invested in their relationship and view there to be attractive alternatives, and
those who endorse a manic love style are more satisfied (but not committed).
Furthermore, there is emerging evidence that love styles are directly related to
romantic jealousy, such that mania and agape are both positively related to the
experience/expression of romantic jealousy (Kanemasa et al. 2004). Taken together,
because (a) love styles are related to relationship quality (for example, Morrow et al.
1995), (b) relationship quality is associated with romantic jealousy (for example,
Rydell et al. 2004), and (c) love styles are associated with romantic jealousy
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 267
(Kanemasa et al. 2004), we expected individuals’attitudes about love would be
related to romantic jealousy-induction tendencies and motives.
Current Study
There were three main goals of the current study. First, we sought to develop a valid
and reliable scale assessing individuals’romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors.
Second, we sought to develop a valid and reliable scale assessing individuals’varying
motives for inducing romantic jealousy. Third, and largely due to the dearth of
research examining correlates of romantic jealousy-induction, we sought to examine
whether experienced romantic jealousy, attachment orientations, relational quality
variables, love styles, and sex were associated with romantic jealousy inducing
behaviors and motives. Even though it is possible that romantic jealousy-induction
would be related to these possible correlates in the same manner as experienced
romantic jealousy, the lack of research directly linking experienced romantic jealousy
and romantic jealousy-induction prevented us from making specific predictions.
Therefore, these analyses were exploratory in nature.
Method
Participants
One hundred ninety-nine undergraduates (146 female, 52 male) currently involved in a
romantic relationship participated in an online study. However, because some partic-
ipants completed the online survey in an unrealistically short amount of time, in turn
leading to skewed completion time data, a natural log transformation was conducted on
participants’completion times. Those participants whose transformed completion time
was more than 1.5 standard deviations from the mean transformed time were eliminated
from the data set, as there was reason to suspect their data was invalid. As a result, the
final sample consisted of 179 romantically-involved undergraduates (132 female, 47
male). The majority of participants were Caucasian (83.5%; 9.7% Asian/Pacific
Islander; 1.7% African American; 1.1% Latino/a; 1.1% biracial; and 2.8% other),
exclusively dating their partner (69.1%; 15.2% dating casually; 11.8% dating regularly;
2.2% engaged; and 1.7% married), in love (76.7%), and not cohabitating with their
partner (92.2%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 44 (M019.4, SD 02.4).
Participants’romantic relationships ranged in length from one month to over 12
years (M017.2 months, Mdn010.0, SD019.7), though the vast majority (80.3%) of
relationships were at least three months in duration, suggesting that most participants
were reporting on a committed relationship.
Measures
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Because one goal of our study was to create a scale
which assesses individuals’romantic jealousy-induction behaviors, we generated a
total of 18 items based on the five global romantic jealousy-inducing behaviors
268 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
identified by White (1980) (that is, talking about past relationships, talking about
current relationships, flirting, dating/sexual contact with another, and lying about the
existence of a rival). We based the instructions preceding these items, as well as the
structure of each item, on Pfeiffer and Wong’s(1989) Multidimensional Jealousy
Scale. Specifically, the instructions of the jealousy-induction scale stated: “In the
following questions, your romantic partner will be referred to as ‘X’. Please respond
to the following items by circling the appropriate response.”Participants rated each
item on a seven-point scale (1 0strongly disagree,70strongly agree). The items are
presented in Table 1. Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 were generated to assess talking about past
relationships, items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were generated to assess talking about current
relationships, items 10, 11, and 12 were generated to assess flirting, items 13, 14, 15,
and 16 were generated to assess dating/sexual contact with another, and items 17 and
18 were generated to assess lying about the existence of a rival.
2
Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy A second goal of our study was to develop a
scale assessing individuals’motives for inducing romantic jealousy in their romantic
partner. Therefore, we generated 23 items based on the romantic jealousy-induction
motives identified by White (1980) and Fleischmann et al. (2005; that is, increasing
rewards, bolstering self-esteem/need for approval, testing the relationship/increase
closeness, seeking revenge, and punishing), Sheets and colleagues (1997) (that is,
mate retention), Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) (that is, enhance relationship
security/quality), and Brainerd and colleagues (1996) (that is, increase one’s power/
control in the relationship, and to behave aggressively). One sentence stem preceded
all 23 items: “On the occasions in which I try to make my partner jealous, I do so
because…”. Participants rated each item on a seven-point scale (10strongly disagree,
70strongly agree). The items are presented in Table 2.
Experienced Romantic Jealousy We used the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS;
Pfeiffer and Wong 1989) to assess participants’experiences of romantic jealousy. The
MJS consists of three eight-item subscales: thoughts (“How often do you have the
following thoughts about X?”), emotions (“How would you emotionally react to the
following situations?”), and behaviors (“How often do you engage in the following
behaviors?”). Sample items are: “I suspect that X is seeing someone of the opposite
sex”(thoughts;10never,70all the time), “A member of the opposite sex is trying to
get close to X all the time”(emotions;10very pleased,70very upset), and “I call X
unexpectedly, just to see if he/she is there”(behaviors;10never,70all the time).
Each subscale demonstrated good reliability in the current study: thoughts (α0.91),
emotions (α0.81), and behaviors (α0.86).
Attachment The Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan et al. 1998)
is a 36 item measure consisting of two 18-item subscales assessing attachment
avoidance and attachment anxiety. Participants rated each item on a seven-point scale
(10strongly disagree,70strongly agree). Sample items are: “Just when my partner
2
These items were initially used in a previous study (Whitson and Mattingly 2010), but we did not seek to
develop a psychometrically valid and reliable measure of romantic jealousy-induction in that study, nor
were any analyses conducted investigating the psychometric properties of the items.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 269
starts to get close to me, I find myself pulling away”(attachment avoidance), and “I
worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them”
(attachment anxiety). Both subscales demonstrated good reliability in the current
study: avoidance (α0.93) and anxiety (α0.91).
Relationship Quality The Investment Model Scale (IMS; Rusbult et al. 1998) con-
sists of four subscales assessing satisfaction level (five items; for example, “I feel
satisfied with our relationship”), quality of alternatives (five items; for example, “My
needs for intimacy, companionship, etcetera, could easily be fulfilled by an alternative
relationship”), investment size (five items; for example, “I have put a great deal into our
Table 1 Factor loadings for romantic jealousy-induction items
Items Two Factor
Solution
One Factor
Solution
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1
1. I talk with X about my past romantic relationships in order to make
X jealous.
.59 .84
2. I talk with X about my past “hookups”in order to make X jealous. .66 .84
3. I talk with X about my past crushes in order to make X jealous. .83 .87
4. I talk with X about my previous dates with others in order to make
X jealous.
.62 .86
5. I talk with X about my opposite-sex friendships in order to make
X jealous.
.95 .80
6. I talk with X about my opposite-sex classmates in order to make X
jealous.
.80 .83
7. I talk with X about my same-sex friendships in order to make X jealous. .52 .72
8. I talk with X about my same-sex classmates in order to make X jealous. .64 .80
9. I talk with X about my family in order to make X jealous. .72 .80
10. I flirt with people in front of X in order to make X jealous. .51 .43 .86
11. I tell X when others flirt with me in order to make X jealous. .98 .79
12. I talk with X about people whom I find attractive in order to make X
jealous.
.69 .87
13. I tell X when others express romantic interest (e.g., being asked out
on a date, being “hit on”) in me in order to make X jealous.
.95 .82
14. While we were casually dating, I would tell X about others whom
I had recently gone on dates with in order to make X jealous.
.62 .74
15. I tell X about my previous sexual encounters with others in order
to make X jealous.
.37 .57 .85
16. I tell X about strong emotional connections I have had with others in
order to make X jealous.
.32 .57 .81
17. I falsely tell X that others are romantically interested in me in order
to make X jealous.
.99 .76
18. I falsely tell X that others are sexually interested in me in order
to make X jealous.
.96 .77
Eigenvalues 11.89 1.19 11.89
Variance Accounted For 66.0% 6.6% 66.0%
Factor loadings with an absolute value less than .32 have been omitted
270 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
relationship that I would lose if our relationship were to end”), and commitment (seven
items; for example, “I want our relationship to last for a very long time”). Participants
rated items on a nine-point scale (00do not agree at all,80completely agree). All
subscales demonstrated adequate reliability in the current study: satisfaction (α0.94),
quality of alternatives (α0.89), investment size (α0.85), and commitment (α0.90).
Love Styles The Love Attitudes Scale-Short Form (LAS; Hendrick et al. 1998)
consists of six four-item subscales, each assessing a different style of love: eros
(passionate love; for example, “My partner and I have the right physical ‘chemistry’
between us”), ludus (game-playing love; for example, “I have sometimes had to keep
Table 2 Factor loadings for motives for inducing romantic jealousy items
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
1. I want my partner to spend more time with me .79
2. I want my partner to take me out more .50 .40
3. I want more attention from my partner .74
4. I feel inadequate .82
5. I want to remind my partner that I am special .60 .34
6. I need to remind myself that I am special to my partner .61
7. I feel insecure about myself .83
8. I want to see if my partner still cares about me .52 .39
9. I want to test my partner’s love for me .56 .33
10. I want my partner to think that I have other
relationship options
.61
11. I want my partner to feel possessive of me .43 .48
12. I am angry at my partner for previously making
me jealous
.79
13. My partner is trying to make me jealous .74
14. I want to get revenge because my partner had
made me jealous
.70
15. My partner and I are having an argument .84
16. I want to punish my partner for something bad
he/she has done
.70
17. I want to hurt my partner’s feelings .60
18. I don’t want my partner to leave me .83
19. I want to feel secure about my relationship .87
20. I want assurance that my relationship is strong .76
21. I want to gain power over my partner .75
22. I want to be able to control my partner/relationship .78 .35
23. I need to relieve my frustrations
Eigenvalues 10.77 2.52 1.38 1.16 1.04
Variance accounted for 46.8% 10.9% 6.0% 5.0% 4.5%
Mean 3.38 2.40 2.20 3.63 2.98
Factor loadings with an absolute value less than .32 have been omitted. Factor loadings in bold designate
with which factor each item is associated
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 271
my partner from finding out about other lovers”), agape (altruistic love; for example,
“I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his/hers”),
storge (friendship love; for example, “Our love is the best kind because it grew out of
a long friendship”), pragma (logical love; for example, “A main consideration in
choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my family”), and mania
(obsessive love; for example, “When my partner doesn’t pay attention to me, I feel
sick all over”). Participants rated items on a five-point scale (10strongly disagree,50
strongly agree). Five of the six subscales demonstrated adequate reliability in the
current study: eros (α0.75), ludus (α0.71), agape (α0.74), storge (α0.82), pragma
(α0.71), and mania (α0.65).
Results
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Factor Analysis
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation on the 18
romantic jealousy-induction items to determine the factor structure of the romantic
jealousy-induction scale. Because we did not assume the resulting factors to be orthog-
onal (as all items assessed romantic jealousy-induction behaviors), we used oblimin
rotation. Two factors emerged accounting for a total of 72.6% of the variance (see Table 1
for factor loadings). The first factor accounted for 66.0% of the overall variance, and
consisted of items regarding talking about past relationships, talking about current
relationships, flirting, and dating/sexual contact with another. The second factor
accounted for 6.6% of the overall variance, and consisted of items regarding talking
about the current relationship and lying about the existence of a rival.
As shown in Table 1(under the heading Two Factor Solution), items designed to
assess talking about current relationships were split between the two factors (specif-
ically, two items assessing opposite-sex relationships loaded on the first factor,
whereas three items assessing same-sex and family relationships loaded on the
second factor). Furthermore, three items (specifically, flirting in front of others,
talking about previous sexual encounters, and talking about previous emotional
connections) loaded higher than .32 on both factors, which is the recommended
cut-off point for meaningful factor loadings (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
Because of the issue with cross-loadings, as well as the problems that neither factor
had a clear and unique theme and that the second factor accounted for considerably
less variance than the first factor, the two-factor solution was difficult to interpret.
Thus, we conducted a separate factor analysis in which only one factor was extracted.
A reliable one-factor solution with adequate factor loadings would in turn suggest
that all 18 items assessed the same type of behavior (that is, jealousy-induction
tendencies). This one-factor solution accounted for 66.0% of the variance.
As shown in Table 1(under the heading One Factor Solution), all items had factor
loadings greater than .71. Additionally, the one-factor solution demonstrated good
reliability, α0.97, and this reliability estimate would have decreased in strength had
any of the 18 items been removed from the scale. As a result, we preferred the one-
factor solution to the two-factor solution because: (a) the one-factor solution was
more parsimonious and easier to interpret, (b) the one-factor solution demonstrated
272 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
good reliability, and (c) the difference in variance accounted for between the two
solutions was relatively small (that is, 6.6%). Thus, we termed the final one-factor 18-
item scale the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale.
3
Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Factor Analysis
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation on the 23
motives for inducing romantic jealousy items to determine the factor structure of the
motives for inducing romantic jealousy scale. As with the Romantic Jealousy-
Induction Scale, we did not assume the resulting factors to be orthogonal, thus, we
used oblimin rotation. Five factors emerged accounting for a total of 73.3% of the
variance (see Table 2for factor loadings).
The first factor accounted for 46.8% of the overall variance and contained six
items. We labeled it testing/strengthening the relationship, as the factor consisted of
items regarding spending more time with the partner, reminding the partner that the
individual is special, and determining the partner’s love for the individual. The
second factor accounted for 10.9% of the overall variance and contained five items.
We labeled it revenge, as the factor consisted of items regarding anger and a desire to
punish the partner due to the partner’s prior negative behavior. The third factor
accounted for 6.0% of the overall variance and contained five items. We labeled it
power/control, as the factor consisted of items regarding an individual’s desire to gain
leverage over the partner. The fourth factor accounted for 5.0% of the overall variance
and contained three items. We labeled it security, as the factor consisted of items
regarding individuals’desires for and preoccupations with relationship security. The
fifth factor accounted for 4.5% of the overall variance and consisted of three items.
We labeled it self-esteem, as the factor consisted of items regarding individuals’
insecurities with themselves.
There were a total of six items that had factor loadings greater than .32 on more
than one factor, but in each case, we placed the items in the factors with which they
had the strongest loading. This in turn resulted in us placing these items in the factors
with which there was the greatest conceptual similarity. One item did not load on any
of the six factors (that is, “I need to relieve my frustrations”), and thus we dropped it
from the scale. Each subscale demonstrated good reliability: testing/strengthening
relationship (α0.90), revenge (α0.88), power/control (α0.84), security (α0.94),
3
We also explored whether extracting five factors would result in factors corresponding to those identified
by White (1980). The five-factor solution accounted for a total of 85.1% of the variance, but three of the
factors had eigenvalues less than 1.00, and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggest that only those factors
with eigenvalues of 1.00 or greater should be retained. However, the five factors seemed to largely reflect
the types of behaviors identified by White. Factor 1 consisted of items 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and these items
appear to assess flirting/talking about current romantic relationships. Factor 2 consisted of items 17 and 18
(as well as a small cross-loading of .37 on item 10), and these items appear to assess lying about the
existence of a rival. Factor 3 consisted of items 7, 8, and 9, and these items appear to assess talking about
current non-romantic relationships. Factor 4 consisted of items 1, 2, 3, and 4 (as well as a small cross-
loading of .34 on item 15), and these items appear to assess talking about past relationships. Factor 5
consisted of items 14, 15, and 16, and these items appear to assess dating/sexual contact with another.
Furthermore, each factor (excluding items that had small cross-loadings) had good reliability (all αs >.88).
Even so, the five-factor solution required us to force the creation of three factors that do not meet the
minimal eigenvalue requirement. In turn, we feel that the one-factor solution is preferable to the five-factor
solution, although use of the five-factor solution may be merited in certain situations.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 273
and self-esteem (α0.86). Collectively, we termed these five subscales the Motives for
Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale. As shown in Table 3, all the subscales were
significantly positively correlated with one another, rs0.30 to .69, ps<.001.
Correlates of Romantic Jealousy-Induction and Motives for Inducing Romantic
Jealousy
We ran zero-order correlations to assess the relationships between the Romantic
Jealousy-Induction Scale, the Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy subscales,
the MJS subscales, the ECR subscales, the IMS subscales, and the LAS subscales
(see Table 3).
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Correlates Romantic jealousy-induction was signifi-
cantly positively correlated with all five motives for inducing romantic jealousy
(r0.46 for testing/strengthening relationship,r0.56 for revenge,r0.68 for power/
control,r0.27 for security, and r0.43 for self-esteem), indicating that each motive for
inducing romantic jealousy is associated with individuals’romantic jealousy-
induction behaviors. Individuals’tendency to induce romantic jealousy was also
significantly positively correlated with jealous thoughts (r0.35) and behaviors
(r0.45)—but not significantly correlated with jealous emotions—indicating that
individuals who possess more jealous thoughts and behave in a jealous fashion are
more likely to induce romantic jealousy in their romantic partners.
Romantic jealousy-induction was also significantly positively correlated with both
attachment avoidance (r0.36) and attachment anxiety (r0.45), indicating that indi-
viduals with less secure attachments are more likely to induce romantic jealousy.
Additionally, individuals’tendencies to induce romantic jealousy were associated
with lower satisfaction (r0−.38), more relationship alternatives (r0.34), and lower
commitment (r0−.34), collectively indicating that individuals with poorer quality
relationships are more likely to induce romantic jealousy in their partners. Finally,
romantic jealousy-induction was significantly negatively associated with eros (pas-
sionate love; r0−.39), and significantly positively associated with ludus (game-play-
ing love; r0.26) and mania (obsessive love; r0.36), indicating that individuals who
report inducing romantic jealousy are obsessive lovers who think love is a game and
whose relationships are not characterized by intimacy.
Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Correlates All five motives for inducing
romantic jealousy were significantly positively correlated with jealous thoughts
(r0.44 for testing/strengthening relationship,r0.44 for revenge,r0.37 for power/
control,r0.34 for security,andr0.36 for self-esteem) and behaviors (r0.43 for
testing/strengthening relationship,r0.46 for revenge,r0.40 for power/control,
r0.28 for security, and r0.31 for self-esteem)—but not significantly correlated with
jealous emotions—indicating that individuals who possess more jealous thoughts and
behave jealously are motivated by all five motives for inducing romantic jealousy.
Additionally, both attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety were significantly
positively correlated with all five motives, with the one exception being that the
security motive is not significantly related to attachment avoidance [r0.18 (avoid-
ance) and r0.61 (anxiety) for testing/strengthening relationship,r0.18 and r0.39 for
274 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
Table 3 Correlations between romantic jealousy-induction, motives for inducing romantic jealousy, experienced jealousy, attachment, investment model, and love styles
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
1. INDUCE .46 .56 .68 .27 .43 .35 .06 .45 .36 .45 −.38 .34 −.08 −.34 −.39 .26 −.14 −.14 .12 .36
2. TEST –.55 .65 .67 .69 .44 .13 .43 .18 .61 −.30 .20 .03 −.10 −.18 .18 −.01 −.13 .08 .49
3. REV –.63 .30 .50 .44 .03 .46 .18 .39 −.31 .19 .05 −.18 −.18 .18 −.10 −.07 .09 .36
4. POWER –.49 .57 .37 .04 .40 .28 .45 −.29 .23 −.04 −.22 −.25 .27 −.09 −.14 .15 .34
5. SECURE –.54 .34 −.03 .28 .05 .47 −.10 .10 .06 .04 −.05 .10 .07 −.05 .00 .39
6. SELF –.36 .03 .31 .35 .55 −.36 .23 −.04 −.20 −.29 .08 −.01 −.18 −.01 .30
7. JEAL-T –.06 .45 .24 .45 −.41 .28 −.09 −.25 −.22 .16 −.09 −.17 −.04 .41
8. JEAL-E –.31 −.16 .21 .15 −.07 .18 .12 .12 −.14 .17 −.09 .03 .25
9. JEAL-B –.03 .46 −.11 .11 .19 −.05 −.10 .21 .06 −.03 .09 .48
10. AVOID –.27 −.63 .40 −.53 −.68 −.67 .24 −.38 −.29 .06 −.01
11. ANX –−.30 .29 .06 −.14 −.27 .20 .12 −.10 .02 .60
12. SAT –−.40 .53 .74 .71 −.22 .37 .34 .08 −.08
13. ALT –−.32 −.50 −.43 .35 −.24 −.22 −.10 .08
14. INV –.64 .52 −.14 .48 .26 .11 .18
15. COM –.72 −.32 .50 .32 .04 .08
16. Eros –−.26 .38 .34 −.01 −.05
17. Ludus –−.11 −.12 .13 .17
18. Agape –.25 .02 .29
19. Storge –.07 .05
20. Pragma –.12
21. Mania –
Correlations of |r|> .14 are significant at the p< .05 level. INDUCE Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale; TEST testing/strengthening relationship subscale of the Motives for
Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale (MIRJS); REV revenge subscale of the MIRJS; POWER power/control subscale of the MIRJS; SECURE security subscale of the MIRJS; SELF
self-esteem subscale of the MIRJS; JEAL-T thoughts subscale of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS); JEAL-E emotions subscale of the MJS; JEAL-B behaviors subscale of
the MJS; AVOID attachment avoidance subscale of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale; ANX attachment anxiety subscale of the ECR; SATsatisfaction subscale of
the Investment Model Scale (IMS); ALT alternatives subscale of the IMS; INV investments subscale of the IMS; COM commitment subscale of the IMS
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 275
revenge,r0.28 and r0.45 for power/control,r0.05 and r0.47 for security, and r0.35
and r0.55 for self-esteem], thus indicating that insecurely attached individuals are
more motivated to induce romantic jealousy for a variety of reasons.
Furthermore, four of the five motives for inducing romantic jealousy (that is, all
but security) were associated with lower satisfaction (r0−.30 for testing/strengthen-
ing relationship,r0−.31 for revenge,r0−.29 for power/control, and r0−.36 for self-
esteem), more relationship alternatives (r0.20 for testing/strengthening relationship,
r0.19 for revenge,r0.23 for power/control, and r0.23 for self-esteem), and lower
commitment (with the one exception being that testing/strengthening the relationship
was not significantly associated with commitment: r0-.18 for revenge,r0-.22 for
power/control, and r0-.20 for self-esteem). Finally, testing/strengthening the rela-
tionship,revenge, and power/control were all associated with less eros (rs0−.18,
−.18, −.25, respectively), greater ludus (rs0.18, .18, .27, respectively), and greater
mania (rs0.49, .36, .34, respectively). Power/control was also associated with higher
levels of pragma (r0.15), security was only associated with higher mania (r0.39), and
self-esteem was associated with lower eros (r0−.29) and storge (r0−.18) but higher
levels of mania (r0.30).
Sex Differences in Inducing Romantic Jealousy
Because previous research provides contradictory evidence regarding sex differences
in rates of romantic jealousy-induction (Fleischmann et al. 2005; White 1980), we
conducted independent samples t-tests to examine if there were any sex differences
on the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale or the five subscales of the Motives for
Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale. In none of the six analyses did men’sand
women’s behavior or motives differ from one another, ts< 0.70, ps >.46, |ds| < .13,
indicating that both sexes induce romantic jealousy at equal rates and do so for similar
reasons.
Discussion
Romantic jealousy-induction is a strategic behavioral process designed to elicit
reactive, romantic jealousy from a partner in order to achieve a specific goal.
Individuals can induce romantic jealousy in a variety of ways and for various reasons
(for example, White 1980). Because very few measures of romantic jealousy-
induction had been previously developed, and because these previous measures
possessed methodological limitations, in the current study we developed measures
which assessed (a) the types of behaviors individuals enact to induce romantic
jealousy, and (b) the motivations individuals possess for inducing romantic jealousy.
We also examined the correlates of romantic jealousy-induction.
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale
The first purpose of the current study was to develop a measure which assessed
individuals’romantic jealousy-induction behaviors. Although past qualitative re-
search indicated that there are five unique types of romantic jealousy-induction
276 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
behaviors (White 1980), the results of the current study provide preliminary evidence
that such a distinction is not supported quantitatively. Instead, the reliable and
parsimonious one-factor Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale is indicative that any
categorization of romantic jealousy-induction behaviors may be artificial and unnec-
essary. That is, the fact that an individual is attempting to induce romantic jealousy at
all may be of greater importance than which specific actions he/she is enacting.
Furthermore, the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale demonstrated convergent valid-
ity, in that individuals’tendencies to induce romantic jealousy were related to the
greater experience of jealous thoughts and behaviors, more insecure attachment (in
the form of greater attachment avoidance and anxiety), poorer relationship quality
(that is, lower satisfaction and commitment and greater quality of alternatives), and
less passionate but greater obsessive and game-playing love. Replicating recent
research (Fleischmann et al. 2005), but contradicting older findings (White 1980),
we found that men and women induce romantic jealousy in their partners at equal
rates. Taken together, it becomes clear that romantic jealousy-induction is a behavior
that is either the cause or consequence of undesirable intra- and interpersonal factors.
Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale
The second purpose of the current study was to develop a measure which assessed
individuals’motivations for inducing romantic jealousy in their romantic partners.
Supportive of past research, the current study revealed five motivations for individ-
uals’romantic jealousy-induction behaviors in the Motives for Inducing Romantic
Jealousy Scale. First, testing/strengthening relationship occurs when individuals
induce romantic jealousy to test their partner’s love or to strengthen the current
relationship. Second, revenge occurs when individuals are upset with their partner
over his/her negative behavior and wish to reciprocate the negativity. Third, power/
control occurs when an individual desires to gain leverage over the partner. Fourth,
security occurs when an individual induces romantic jealousy because of his/her
preoccupations with relationship security. Fifth, self-esteem occurs when individuals
induce romantic jealousy because they are insecure with themselves.
As with the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale, the Motives for Inducing
Romantic Jealousy Scale demonstrated convergent validity. With very few excep-
tions, each motivation for inducing romantic jealousy was related to the greater
experience of jealous thoughts and behaviors, more insecure attachment (that is, high
attachment avoidance and anxiety), and poorer relationship quality (that is, lower
satisfaction and commitment and greater quality of alternatives). Additionally, test-
ing/strengthening the relationship and revenge were both characterized by less
passionate but greater obsessive and game-playing love, power/control was charac-
terized by less passionate but greater obsessive, game-playing, and practical love,
security was characterized by greater obsessive love, and self-esteem was character-
ized by less passionate and friendship-like but greater obsessive love.
Furthermore, the absence of sex differences on the motivations suggests that men
and women’s reasons for inducing romantic jealousy are virtually identical. As was
the case with the romantic jealousy-induction behaviors, it appears that individuals
who induce romantic jealousy for any reason may be doing so because of (or may
have their motivations influenced by) negative intra- and interpersonal factors.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 277
Utility of the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale and the Motives for Inducing
Romantic Jealousy Scale
In addition to demonstrating convergent validity, both the Romantic Jealousy-
Induction Scale and the Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale may demon-
strate predictive validity in relational domains. For example, the current study
indicates that both the frequency of and motivations for inducing romantic jealousy
are associated with poor relational outcomes. Although potentially cyclical in cau-
sality, future research could examine more closely whether tendencies to induce
romantic jealousy damage relationships, or if individuals in declining relationships
use romantic jealousy-induction as a last resort to save the relationship. Additionally,
although each motive is associated with decreased satisfaction and commitment,
longitudinal research could provide evidence that certain motives (for example,
revenge,power/control) are more likely to damage a relationship over extended
periods of time than other motives (for example, testing/strengthening the relation-
ship,security).
Furthermore, both scales may predict relational conflict. Partners who are dissim-
ilar in their acceptance of romantic jealousy-induction may be more prone to conflict,
as past research generally indicates that individuals with similar attributes have more
positive relational outcomes (for example, Caspi and Herbener 1990; Frazier et al.
1996). This seems especially likely if Partner A prefers not to induce romantic
jealousy whereas Partner B does so quite regularly. Partner A may become displeased
with Partner B’s regular attempts to induce romantic jealousy, whereas Partner B may
interpret Partner A’slack of romantic jealousy-induction as a sign that the relationship
is troubled. However, similarity in romantic jealousy-induction may not always be
positive. Partners who both induce romantic jealousy because of revenge motives
may constantly be in strife, whereas partners who both induce romantic jealousy
because of strengthening motives may actually improve their relationship. Future
research could certainly examine which combinations of similarity and complemen-
tarity would result in the healthiest (or most turbulent) relationships.
The utility of the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale and the Motives for Inducing
Romantic Jealousy Scale need not be limited to be research domains. Marital
counselors and therapists could potentially use these scales to gain insight into
individuals’negative relational behaviors. This would in turn allow therapists to
identify the types of individuals who are likely to induce romantic jealousy.
Knowing this information may enable the therapist to teach the couple more con-
structive behaviors and cognitions that would satisfy each motive. For example, if an
individual induces romantic jealousy because of strengthening motives, the therapist
could provide evidence that other behaviors (for example, novel and challenging
activities; Aron et al. 2000) have been shown to improve relationship quality, and that
these activities are more constructive than inducing romantic jealousy.
Limitations
Although the current study provides evidence that the frequency of and motivations
for inducing romantic jealousy are associated with poorer relationship quality, the use
of a traditional undergraduate sample suggests that the results should be interpreted
278 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
with caution. For example, it is possible that for these young adults, the different types of
romantic jealousy-induction behaviors are seen as being qualitatively similar, whereas
older adults (who have had substantially more experience with romantic relationships)
may cognitively differentiate between the behaviors (for example, talking about past
relationships may be somewhat necessary for older adults, as there is an increased
likelihood that there may be children from these past relationships, whereas lying about
the existence of a rival may be seen as considerably more manipulative).
Similarly, few participants in the current study were married, which may bias the
results. It is possible that romantic jealousy-induction is less common in marital
relationships than dating relationships. Dating relationships are likely to be more
fluid, as they are characterized by lower levels of commitment. As such, dating
individuals may be more prone to inducing romantic jealousy as a way of feeling
secure or testing the relationship. Marital relationships, on the other hand, are marked
by greater stability. Married individuals may only be likely to induce romantic
jealousy as a way of testing the relationship when substantial conflict arises (as many
individuals would recognize that minor conflicts are unlikely to permanently damage
the relationship).
A final limitation of the current study is that the sample contained an underrepre-
sentation of African Americans and Latinos (as well as other ethnicities). Though the
population from which the sample was drawn is predominantly Caucasian, the
sample still is non-representative of the university’s population in terms of ethnicity.
Although we know of no theoretical reason why the factor structure of the romantic
jealousy-induction items or the motivations for inducing romantic jealousy items
should be contingent upon ethnicity/race, it would be advantageous for future
research to replicate the factor structures with a more representative sample.
Conclusion
Jealousy is a prevalent emotional experience that places stress and strain on a
relationship. However, some individuals purposely induce romantic jealousy in their
romantic partners, and they do so for various reasons (most of which are intending to
improve the relationship). Unbeknownst to these individuals, doing so may actually
be damaging the relationship they are attempting to preserve. The development of the
Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale and the Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy
Scale are likely to assist researchers in further exploring the consequences (and
potential benefits) of romantic jealousy-induction.
References
Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Romantic jealousy and relational
satisfaction: a look at the impact of jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 8,
77–85.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284.
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and
partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 279
Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: questioning the investment
model. Southern Communication Journal, 73,42–67.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 130,
201–210.
Brainerd, E. G., Hunter, P. A., Moore, D., & Thompson, T. R. (1996). Jealousy induction as a predictor of
power and the use of other control methods in heterosexual relationships. Psychological Reports, 7,
1319–1325.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measures of adult attachment: An
integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation-
ships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford.
Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: assortative marriage and the consistency of
personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250–258.
Cayanus, J. L., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2004). Relationship orientation, jealousy, and equity: an exam-
ination of jealousy evoking and positive communicative responses. Communication Quarterly, 52,
237–250.
Dainton, M., & Gross, J. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships. Communication
Research Reports, 25, 179–191.
Feeney, B. C. (2006). An attachment theory perspective on the interplay between intrapersonal and
interpersonal processes. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 133–159). New York: Guilford Press.
Fleischmann, A. A., Spitzberg, B. H., Andersen, P. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2005). Tickling the monster:
jealousy induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22,49–73.
Frazier, P. A., Byer, A. L., Fischer, A. R., Wright, D. M., & DeBord, K. A. (1996). Adult attachment style
and partner choice: correlational and experimental findings. Personal Relationships, 3,117–136.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment style differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy.
Personal Relationships, 5, 273–291.
Guerrero, L. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Relational satisfaction and jealousy across marital types. Commu-
nication Reports, 5(1), 23–31.
Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. R., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005). Romantic jealousy: emotions and communica-
tive responses. Personal Relationships, 12, 233–252.
Hansen, G. L. (1985). Perceived threats and marital jealousy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 262–268.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationship: love, satisfaction, and staying
together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980–988.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: short form. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15, 147–159.
Kanemasa, Y., Taniguchi, J., Daibo, I., & Ishimori, M. (2004). Love styles and romantic love experiences in
Japan. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 265–282.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: a meta-analysis of the
investment model. Personal Relationships, 10,37–57.
Leak, G. K., Gardner, L. E., & Parsons, C. J. (1998). Jealousy and romantic attachment: a replication and
extension. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22,21–27.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Ontario: New Press.
Morrow, G. D., Clark, E. M., & Brock, K. F. (1995). Individual and partner love styles: implications for the
quality of romantic involvements. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 363–387.
Nadler, A., & Dotan, I. (1992). Commitment and rival attractiveness: their effects on male and female
reactions to jealousy-arousing situations. Sex Roles, 26, 293–310.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6, 181–196.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment
model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model scale: measuring commitment
level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Bringle, R. B. (2004). Jealousy and commitment: perceived threat and
the effect of relationship alternatives. Personal Relationships, 11, 451–468.
Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627–640.
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance, and
relationship stability: an exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 18, 387–402.
280 Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base relationships in adulthood. In K.
Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.Attachment processes
in adulthood (pp. 181–204). Bristol: Kingsley.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
White, G. L. (1980). Inducing jealousy: a power perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
6, 222–227.
White, G. L. (1981). Jealousy and partner’s perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44(1), 24–30.
Whitson, D., & Mattingly, B. A. (2010). Waking the green-eyed monster: attachment styles and jealousy
induction in romantic relationships. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 15,24–29.
Curr Psychol (2012) 31:263–281 281
