ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Jealousy is a multidimensional cognitive, emotional, behavioral and interpersonal phenomenon. Jealousy can be a destructive and often dangerous emotional and interpersonal response to threats to a valued relationship. Despite the importance of jealousy as an issue for couples, there has been relatively little attention to this problem. Jealousy is aformof angry, agitated worry, whose goal is to anticipate and avoid surprise and betrayal. A meta–emotional model is described, emphasizing the normalization of jealous emotion, distinguishing between “feeling” and “acting on” jealousy and linking jealousy to emotional processing, intolerance of uncertainty and thought fusion. Mindfulness and acceptance based approaches can be used that emphasize cultivating a capacity to distance and de–center from disturbing thoughts and feelings, overcoming attempts at experiential avoidance that may amplify jealousy, disrupting thought–reality fusion, and establishing a non–judgmental observing stance, from which adaptive behaviors may proceed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
for Jealousy
Robert L. Leahy and Dennis D. Tirch
American Institute for Cognitive Therapy
Jealousy is a multidimensional cognitive, emotional, behavioral and interpersonal phe-
nomenon. Jealousy can be a destructive and often dangerous emotional and interper-
sonal response to threats to a valued relationship. Despite the importance of jealousy as
an issue for couples, there has been relatively little attention to this problem. Jealousy is
aformofangry, agitated worry, whose goal is to anticipate and avoid surprise and be-
trayal. A meta–emotional model is described, emphasizing the normalization of jeal-
ous emotion, distinguishing between “feeling” and “acting on” jealousy and linking
jealousy to emotional processing, intolerance of uncertainty and thought fu-
sion. Mindfulness and acceptance based approaches can be used that emphasize cul-
tivating a capacity to distance and de–center from disturbing thoughts and feelings,
overcoming attempts at experiential avoidance that may amplify jealousy, disrupting
thought–reality fusion, and establishing a non–judgmental observing stance, from
which adaptive behaviors may proceed.
Jealousy is one of the most serious problems encountered in romantic relationships.
Jealousy leads to anxiety, depression, hopelessness, anger, intimidation, attempts to
control, violence—and, in some cases, death. A number of theories have been advanced
to account for jealousy. Evolutionary theory proposes that jealousy is a behavioral sys-
tem that has evolved to protect the individual’s “investment” in a relationship where
procreation is a possibility (Buss, 2000). According to this model males and females dif-
fer as to the triggers for jealousy, with males more threatened (and more jealous) over
sexual infidelity, while females are more threatened by emotional infidelity. Although
some research points to sex differences in reasons for jealousy (Buss, Larsen, Westen, &
Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; DeSteno & Salovey,
1996), other research suggests that these sex differences may partly be due to experi-
mental design artifacts (DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002). Moreover,
among heterosexual and homosexual couples, individuals recalled that emotional infi-
delity was more upsetting than sexual infidelity (Harris, 2002). Notwithstanding the
purported sex difference, evolutionary theory still has credibility as a distal cause of
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1(1), 18–32, 2008
© 2008 International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy
Send all correspondence to Robert L. Leahy, 136 East 57th Street, Suite 1101, New York, NY 10022.
Emails: and
jealousy since both males and females have genetic investment in protection of
White has suggested that jealousy can be understood in terms of cognitive apprais-
als, behavior and emotion activated during the development of a relationship (White,
1980, 1981; White & Mullen, 1989). According to this model, during the earliest
stages of a relationship there is little investment—so jealousy would be minimal. In a
well–established, long–lasting relationship there is less uncertainty, so jealousy would
also be less. The model predicts a curvilinear relationship between extremes of invest-
ment (very low, medium, very high) and jealousy. Knobloch, Solomon, and Cruz
(2001) have expanded this model to include the negotiation of “relationship uncer-
tainty” which attempts to integrate the development of commitment, relationship un-
certainty and attachment issues into a model that suggests that attachment anxiety
interacts with relationship uncertainty to determine jealousy.
Jealousy has also been linked to supposed deficits in self–esteem (Guerrero & Afifi,
1999), higher dependency (Ellis, 1996) and serotonergic effects (Marazziti et al.,
2003). Cognitive–behavioral approaches to jealousy have focused on correcting or
modifying dysfunctional interpretations or assumptions that give rise to jealousy
(Bishay, Tarrier, Dolan, Beckett, & Harwood, 1996; Dolan & Bishay, 1996; Ellis,
1996). However, these cognitive approaches are limited to traditional testing or chal-
lenging dysfunctional thoughts and have not included recent advances in cognitive–be-
havioral therapy. Thus, these contemporary approaches to jealousy may help us
understand the possible causes of jealousy, but may not provide a comprehensive ap-
proach to the treatment of jealousy. Similar limitations are found with other models of
jealousy. For example, the ethological model stresses protection of genetic investment,
the universality of jealousy, its existence across species, and the relationship factors that
increase jealousy (young partner, child bearing, sexual activity) (Buss, 2000), but etho-
logical theory does not provide a model of treatment. Feminist theory may stress the
power and control differential that may underlie jealousy, but it is unclear how an effec-
tive treatment model can be derived from this model. Psychodynamic models provide
intriguing conceptualizations of jealousy, based on theories of projection, paranoid
ideation, disrupted object relations, and models of insecure/ambivalent/angry attach-
ment patterns, but a structured treatment approach has not been advanced from this
perspective. Finally, Ellis’s REBT model (with its emphasis on “shoulds”, low
frustration tolerance, and labeling) can be invalidating and unrealistic and ignores the
possibility that there are times that jealousy is appropriate.
The model that we advance here is that jealousy is a form of worry, which we character-
ize as angry, agitated worry. We distinguish between the emotion of jealousy and the
strategies that are activated that maintain or increase jealousy or that attempt to exercise
control (over thoughts, feelings and the relationship) and attempts to minimize per-
sonal threat. Our model integrates traditional cognitive theory of schematic processing
(of threat to the relationship) (e.g., Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985), with
metacognitive and meta–emotional models (Leahy, 2001a; Wells, 1997), acceptance
and commitment therapy (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2003) and mindfulness based
approaches (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). Moreover, individuals differ in the in-
terpersonal strategies employed in the face of jealousy—sometimes utilizing interroga-
tion, reassurance–seeking, provoking, hedging, and attacking. Our view is that the
action that follows from jealousy can be self–verifying, but ultimately self–defeating. We
shall briefly outline each of these factors here. The integrative CBT model is outlined in
Figure 1.
Schematic Processing. As with any anxiety disorder, jealousy is characterized by
hyperawareness of threat (Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985). Thus, the jealous individ-
ual is likely to misinterpret neutral information as a threat to the relationship and to en-
gage in attentional bias—for example, mind–reading (“She is interested in him”),
personalizing (“He is reading the paper because he no longer finds me attractive and in-
teresting”), fortune–telling (“She is going to leave me”), and overgeneralizing (“He’s
always doing that”).
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model of Jealousy
Emotional Schemas. Similar to other fears that are exacerbated by the belief that “If
I am afraid, then it is dangerous," the jealous individual uses his emotional intensity as
evidence that the threat is real. However, just as the individual uses her emotions to eval-
uate reality, there is a corresponding belief that one cannot tolerate uncomfortable emo-
tions (Leahy, 2002, 2007). This includes emotional schemas that one’s jealousy is out of
control, dangerous, or a “bad sign”. Other emotional schemas include the belief that
ambivalence about one’s partner—or the partner’s ambivalence about the patient—
cannot be tolerated.
Personal Core Beliefs. Jealousy is often related to core beliefs about the self and oth-
ers. Problematic core beliefs include thoughts that one is unlovable, flawed, doomed, or
entitled to special treatment. Beliefs about others may include thoughts that others are
not trustworthy, rejecting, abandoning, manipulative, or inferior. Thus, the individual
with a core belief that he is sexually undesirable would be more likely to be jealous
(Dolan & Bishay, 1996).
Meta–Cognitive Processes. Similar to worry and rumination, the jealous individual
believes that their jealous hypervigilance will prevent any surprises, prepare them for the
worst, or allow them to catch things before they fall apart (Wells & Carter, 2001; Wells
& Papageorgiou, 1998). The jealous individual, similar to the worrier, fears letting his
guard down, lest he be caught unaware of the danger. He has high cognitive self–con-
sciousness, continually scanning his mind for jealous thoughts or memories. Similar to
the worrier, he is caught in a dilemma—believing that his jealousy protects him, but also
believing that his jealousy is “out of control.” Consequently, he attempts to “control” his
jealousy by suppressing, seeking reassurance, or avoiding the situations that give rise to
jealousy (Wells, 2004).
Intolerance of Uncertainty. Similar to the worrier, the jealous individual believes
that uncertainty about her partner’s “real” interests is intolerable and, consequently, at-
tempts to eliminate this uncertainty through looking for “clues,” seeking reassurance, or
“testing” the partner. This seldom results in a satisfactory resolution, thereby fueling
more demands for certainty (Dugas, Gosselin, & Ladouceur, 2001).
Pathological Interpersonal Coping. The jealous individual believes that he must
“take action”, gain control and find out “what is really going on.” Consequently, he acti-
vates problematic interpersonal coping that often leads to greater insecurity (Borkovec,
Newman, & Castonguay, 2003; Erickson & Newman, 2007). This includes reassur-
ance seeking, degrading competitors, attacking partner, controlling partner, surveilling
partner, deferring to partner, threatening to leave, hedging through infidelity, or
substance abuse.
Develop a Case Conceptualization
Similar to other cognitive therapy treatment models, the present model begins with a
case conceptualization on which the therapist and patient may collaborate (Beck, 1995;
Persons, 1993). Figure 1 provides a general template for such a case conceptualization.
The general outline suggests that evolution has led to the emergence of jealousy as a pro-
tective strategy that is universal and adaptive in certain situations. This serves the purpose
of “depathologizing” the experience of jealousy, providing some validation to the right
to “have a feeling.” Significant early and later relationship issues may be identified—for
example, threats to family of origin (threats of or actual separation of parents, infidelity,
or betrayal in adult relationships) and cultural values associated with sexuality, gender
roles, and romantic idealization. Core beliefs about self may include thoughts that one is
basically unlovable, ugly, defective, or vulnerable to being manipulated. Situational
triggers may vary from neutral (attending a party) to non–existent (insecurity when the
partner is at work) to provocative (partner having dinner with a former lover).
These factors may give rise to cognitive, emotional, behavioral and interpersonal
coping strategies to face potential threat to the relationship. The therapist will explore
the emergence of hypervigilance, attempts to find certainty, reassurance seeking, emo-
tional coping strategies and beliefs, hedging, control, and attempts to punish the partner
and devalue perceived competition.
Validate and Inquire. The therapist empathizes and validates the emotion of jeal-
ousy while questioning the degree, persistence, and the impact on pathological coping:
“It’s one thing to feel jealous, but another thing to punish your partner.” Validation can
link jealousy to evolutionary theory (“natural instincts to protect yourself”), the value of
commitment and honesty in relationships, and the desire to feel understood (Gilbert,
1998; Leahy, 2005a). Validation is an essential component because the jealous partner
is often dismissed and criticized for his jealousy. Inquiry can examine the extremity of
the response, while validating the right to have the emotion of jealousy. This sets up a di-
alectic—–“You have feelings of jealousy, but the response may or may not be extreme”
(Leahy, 2001b; Linehan, 1993).
Assess Motivation to Change. The therapist helps the patient evaluate the costs and
benefits of jealousy—for example, the benefits may include not being surprised, avoid-
ing the dissolution of the relationship and developing the motivation to either improve
or leave the relationship. Costs may include anxiety, anger, helplessness and relationship
conflict. Resistance to modifying jealousy may include the belief that feeling less jealous
is “granting permission” to being hurt or may reduce one’s effective self–defense against
betrayal and humiliation (Leahy, 2005b; Wells & Carter, 2001).
Distinguish between Productive and Unproductive Jealousy. The therapist evaluates
if the jealousy can lead to any productive action, such as assertion about rules of conduct
or specific action to improve communication and reward within the relationship. Un-
productive jealousy does not lead to productive action and is characterized by worry and
rumination over events that cannot be controlled (Leahy, 2003; 2005b; Wells, 1997).
Defuse Thoughts and Feelings. Metacognitive and acceptance–based interventions
can assist the patient in distancing from and de–literalizing thoughts and emotions that
escalate the jealousy. Similar to worry and rumination, the patient may have heightened
cognitive self–consciousness, believe that his jealousy protects him, view jealous
thoughts as potentially out of control and requiring suppression, and believe that he will
suffer negative consequences because of these thoughts. These beliefs are similar to
metacognitive beliefs and strategies for worry, rumination and anger (Papageorgiou,
2006; Papageorgiou & Wells, 2001; Simpson & Papageorgiou, 2003).
The patient presenting with pathological jealousy may experience their
threat–based cognitions as literal representations of the outside world, rather than sim-
ply as the contents of their stream of consciousness. Defusion techniques can serve to
change the context in which these thoughts are experienced, thereby changing the func-
tion of the angry and agitated worries involved in problematic jealousy (Hayes,
Strosahl, & Wilson, 2003).
Use Mindful Awareness. The therapist assists the patient in employing a mindful
“observing” stance towards their experience of jealousy in the present moment. Such a
strategy would involve the suspension of control–based strategies, urges to act upon
emotions, and attempts at interpersonal manipulation. Rather than coercing or protest-
ing, the patient can practice an intentional, non–judgmental, and accepting awareness of
their internal responses to each participant’s behavior, and of events independent of the
relationship (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). In such a way, the patient may learn to
let go of habitual patterns of responding to perceived threats, and may begin to have the
space and time to make more informed and reality based decisions regarding the
relationship to jealousy and partner.
Practice Acceptance. This phase of treatment recognizes that uncertainty is part of
any relationship and accepting uncertainty as inevitable does not mean giving up one’s
rights. Furthermore, struggling to suppress the experience of jealousy and jealousy
based predictions may paradoxically increase their frequency (Wenzlaff & Wegner,
2000). The therapist assists the patient in recognizing that you cannot control the part-
ner’s thoughts and actions and that you may not even be able to prevent the experience
of jealous feelings or thoughts, but that you can choose ways to respond to jealousy
(Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2003; Linehan, 1993).
Use Uncertainty Training. Like worry, jealousy involves intolerance of uncertainty
about negative events. The therapist asks the patient to examine the costs and benefits of
uncertainty, examples of uncertainty acceptance in daily life, and practice flooding one-
self with the uncertainty message (“I can never be sure if my partner will betray me”)
(Dugas, Buhr, & Ladouceur, 2004; Leahy, 2005b).
Teach Emotion Regulation Skills. Dialectical Behavior Therapy skills can assist the
patient in managing the intensity of the emotion. This can include examining emotional
myths, improving the moment, and stress reduction techniques (Linehan, 1993). The
patient can also be encouraged to use self–imposed “time–out” when jealousy and anger
escalate, so that she can remove herself temporarily from interactions with the partner
until she has used her emotion regulation skills.
Examine Emotional Schemas. Patients who are jealous often have dysfunctional be-
liefs about their emotions and the emotions of their partner. These beliefs include the
following: “I cannot accept my feeling,” “I shouldn’t feel this way,” “I should not feel
ambivalent,” “I need to get rid of an unpleasant emotion immediately,” “If I allow my-
self to feel this way, I will be overwhelmed,” “Other people cause me to have these feel-
ings,” “If I ruminate or worry I might be able to get certainty,” and other beliefs about
emotion and coping with emotion (Leahy, 2002, 2007). Cognitive therapy techniques
and behavioral and experiential experiments can be used to test out these beliefs and
strategies about emotion. Emotion intolerance and over–control of emotion can be re-
placed by self–validation, acceptance, and emotion regulation skills.
Examine Cognitive Biases. This phase of treatment employs traditional cognitive
therapy techniques such as eliciting automatic thoughts (“Mind–reading,” “personaliz-
ing,” “labeling”) and vertical descent (“If my partner is attracted to someone it means
she will leave me which means I am a loser and no one would want me”). The therapist
can examine the costs and benefits, evidence for and against, double–standard tech-
nique, and alternative interpretations.
Examine Personal Schemas. Jealousy is often related to personal schemas about de-
fectiveness, unlovability, or sexual attractiveness. These schemas can be examined in
terms of origin of the schema, costs–benefits of the schema, and the use of other schema
focused techniques (Leahy, 2003; Leahy, Beck, & Beck, 2005; Young, Klosko, &
Weishaar, 2003).
Decastrophize Potential Loss. Jealousy is often an anxious appraisal that the loss of a
relationship would be devastating. The patient can examine the meaning of the loss: “If
this ended, I would be humiliated,” “I could never trust anyone,” “This confirms I am
unlovable,” and “I would not be able to take care of myself.” Beliefs about the
essentiality of a specific relationship for one’s life can be tested by examining alternatives
available for a meaningful life independent of the relationship, including how life had
meaning prior to the relationship.
Modify Assumptions about Coercive Control. Jealous partners often have beliefs that
they can coerce their partner into “staying,” by punishing them, devaluing the competi-
tion, and threatening self–harm. These beliefs can be examined in terms of setting up a
self–fulfilling prophecy—that the partner will leave because of the coercion, not neces-
sarily because of another option.
Build Relationship Enhancement Skills. Since many relationships can focus on jeal-
ousy to the exclusion of productive behavior, the therapist can assist the patient in de-
creasing destructive behavior (withholding, contempt, stone–walling, criticizing,
labeling, and mind–reading) and increasing positive behavior (positive tracking, re-
ward, active listening skills, developing shared activities, and validating the partner that
one’s jealousy has been damaging)
Commit to Self–Care. Jealousy tethers one’s feelings to the actions and thoughts of
another person in an angry, struggling dependency. The therapist can focus the patient
on personal goals and values that are independent of the other person. Thus, the patient
can be encouraged to develop supportive friendships, independent activities and inter-
ests, involvement in community activities, and valued work. This can reduce the sense of
desperate dependency and over–focus on the relationship.
The patient was a 37–year old Caucasian male, who originally presented for the treat-
ment of panic attacks and persistent intrusive thoughts. His intrusive thoughts involved
a fear that he might accidentally impregnate his long–term girlfriend. After he success-
fully completed a short–term CBT intervention for panic disorder, and effectively em-
ployed verbal exposure and reappraisal of meta–cognitions involving obsessive
thoughts, the primary focus of the sessions was on his experience of intense jealousy
regarding his partner.
As the patient had already been introduced to some of the fundamental compo-
nents of the CBT model of anxiety and dysfunctional thinking earlier in his therapy, he
reported a belief that his subsequent work to address jealousy was based on a “solid
foundation.” The multi–modal CBT model that was employed followed the steps out-
lined in “The Worry Cure,” (Leahy, 2005b) and the patient used this book as a compen-
dium of homework assignments, and as a reference throughout the course of therapy.
Develop a Case Conceptualization
The treatment of jealousy began with the development of a case conceptualization,
based on an assessment of his relationship to his problematic thoughts, feelings and be-
haviors associated with jealousy. The patient explained that he trusted his girlfriend a
great deal. She had never given him any “cause to be jealous” in the past. In fact, he re-
ported that she had never engaged in any infidelity throughout the course of her entire
relationship history. He felt enormously guilty for experiencing jealous feelings. He also
expressed embarrassment over his construction of imaginary scenarios during which he
would expose his girlfriend as having been unfaithful, and he would walk out.
The patient and therapist reviewed situations that had triggered jealousy in the
past. The patient was encouraged to focus on the earliest internal or external cue that he
could remember in these situations, and to begin his description of the situation from
just before that point. These triggers and cues were placed in a hierarchy of intensity and
the degree of distress they brought on.
During this assessment of jealousy related triggers, the patient’s examples were
highly detailed, and illustrated a prototypical pattern underlying his response. The pa-
tient reported that he and his partner spent a great deal of time together, when they were
not at work. The vast majority of their social and free time was spent in shared activities.
Also, the patient explained that he and his partner worked together at the same firm. Al-
though they did not see much of each other during the day, this did lead to frequent con-
tact and a sense of connection throughout the business day. When the patient concluded
his business day, he would typically meet his girlfriend and head home together.
On occasion, she would be delayed with her own work, or would be involved in af-
ter–work social gatherings. Both of these situations involved her spending time with
men. At such times, the patient would begin to feel a “flush” of jealousy. This jealousy
was particularly pronounced when his girlfriend appeared “evasive” or “secretive” about
the nature of her meeting with men. The patient would typically respond to this with a
series of overt behaviors and internal responses. His observable behavior usually in-
cluded a persistent, if polite, “interrogation” of his girlfriend. He would attempt to seem
unconcerned while repeatedly asking her for more details. This strategy would usually
become rather transparent to her and she would then provide reassurance that she was
trustworthy and faithful. After receiving this reassurance, the patient would cease his
questioning, and spend his time in isolated worry and rumination. Persistent “what if”
cognitions regarding her potential infidelity would flood his mind, followed by harsh
self–criticism for having these feelings and thoughts in the first place.
Validate and Inquire
Following this assessment, a psychoeducational intervention involving the nature of
jealousy proceeded. The patient and therapist discussed jealousy as a form of anxious,
angry and agitated worry. As such, jealous cognitions were explained as functioning as a
threat perception mechanism. An evolutionary model, which described jealousy as a
simple response to the perception of a potential threat to the patient’s relationship was
discussed. Rather than viewing the initial “spark” of jealousy as a problematic or patho-
logical reaction, the patient was encouraged to observe this response as a valid and
“all–too–human” tendency, which could be dealt with, coped with, or simply sat with
rather than acted upon. The patient and therapist clarified the aim of the treatment as in-
volving the cultivation of an ability to notice, tolerate, and regulate the jealousy response
rather than as an attempt to avoid any feelings of jealousy and apprehension altogether.
Rather than pursuing a goal of “not being jealous,” the patient was taught to distinguish
between“productive” and “non–productive” jealousy based predictions, and the
foundation for a flexible response strategy was put in place.
Assess Motivation to Change
The next step in the treatment involved assessing the patient’s motivation to change. Al-
though the patient described an intense desire to “get a handle” on his jealousy, he ad-
mitted some ambivalence about this. In truth, he still held on to a belief that his
hypervigilance and jealousy–based predictions may be protecting him and his relation-
ship from future problems. The patient and therapist reviewed his history of struggling
with jealousy, and explored the costs and benefits of his continuing to relate to his part-
ner and his jealousy in the way he had been ‘Upon review, the costs of buying into jeal-
ous thoughts, and struggling against both his experience and his girlfriend’ seemed to
clearly outweigh the benefits.
Between sessions, the patient was given a modified “Worry Log” (“Jealous Cogni-
tion Log”) which he would use to document the times, places, and situations, during
which he would feel intense jealousy. He would also use the log to rate his anxiety in
these situations, and to examine his jealousy based predictions.
Use Mindful Awareness and Practice Acceptance
During the next session, the patient brought in his Jealous Cognitions Log and the ther-
apist and patient debriefed around those times during the week when the patient felt
jealous. The patient and therapist then began a brief period of training in mindful aware-
ness and tolerance of difficult emotional experiences. The patient and therapist reviewed
the applied concept of “radical acceptance,” whereby the patient might adopt an observ-
ing stance and examine his reality not in the way he feared or insisted it to be, but as it is
in the present moment. The patient was taught to notice the initial flush of jealousy in
the body. This was facilitated in session by engaging in a brief affect–induction proce-
dure involving an imaginary situation that would typically evoke jealousy. Following
this experiential example, the patient was taught a fundamental mindfulness of the
breath exercise. This 7–minute exercise involved focusing a nonjudgmental and accept-
ing awareness upon the physical sensations involved in the act of breathing. When dis-
tracting thoughts, images and feelings would arise, the patient was taught to address
these with an observing stance, merely labeling the experience, and gently directing at-
tention back to the breath. The patient began to practice this daily as a “preparatory” ex-
ercise for the applied mindfulness and acceptance techniques involved in coping with
jealousy. These techniques appealed to the patient, as he had greatly enjoyed the
“relaxation” and stress reducing effects found in a yoga class, which he found similar.
Defuse Thoughts and Feelings and Teach Emotion Regulation Skills
As an initial “applied mindfulness” activity, the patient was taught to draw his attention
to his breath, to pause, and to notice the overall sensation of jealousy as it arose both in
sessions and in daily life. He was then encouraged to label the emotion using a “feeling
word.” Often this word was simply “jealous,” but it also could be “angry” or “frustrated”
depending upon the situation. After labeling this emotion, the patient was encouraged
to “dis–identify” or “de–fuse” from the emotion, by simply recognizing the emotion as
an event in his mind, rather than an all–consuming perspective with which he was iden-
tified. The patient and therapist used “coping cards” to provide self–validating state-
ments readily outside of session. These statements were focused on the patient’s ability
to tolerate distress and discomfort, and emphasized viewing anxiety as a manageable re-
sponse of the mind. Some also involved a re–appraisal of the jealousy. These statements
included “Jealousy is a normal emotional response,” “I can handle this without acting
out my emotions,” or simply “I can make space for this feeling and observe my
thoughts.” Additionally, the patient was taught ways of externalizing these thoughts in
the service of cognitive defusion. In fact, the patient improvised a defusion himself,
imagining the thoughts as billowing words written across the sky by a skywriting
airplane, which would gradually break up and fade into the air with time.
The patient reported that this process of distancing and self–validation felt “imme-
diately helpful” and he speculated that practicing this would help him to “be his own
therapist.” The patient’s homework after this session included the continued use of the
“Jealousy Log” and the regular practice of mindful acceptance and tolerance of
emotional responses.
After a week of working with these mindfulness exercises, the patient returned to
his next session concerned that he had avoided or procrastinated on this exercise, as he
had only practiced it three times during the week. Further discussion indicated that the
patient had simply failed to plan a regular time and place to engage in this exercise. This
simple detail allowed the patient to engage in a more disciplined practice over the next
several weeks.
Distinguish Between Productive and Unproductive Jealousy
During a subsequent session, the focus was on distinguishing between productive and
un–productive cognitions related to jealousy. The patient defined productive jealousy
worries as those that identified a plausible, reasonable problem with a viable and action-
able solution that was in the patient’s power to address. For example, if the patient had
actually discovered that his partner had been lying to him about something, he could ap-
propriately and effectively communicate with her about his observation and his re-
sponse and seek some sort of dialogue. The patient was clear that the jealous cognitions
he had been experiencing were unproductive, and appeared more unproductive as
greater rational attention was directed toward them.
Modify Assumptions About Coercive Control and Build
Relationship Enhancement Skills
At this point, the patient and therapist also discussed the need to implement effective
and ethically sound strategies for acting on any productive worries related to jealousy.
The patient and therapist reviewed the many practical and moral costs of verbally or
physically acting out on the basis of any frustration or hostility that may accompany jeal-
ousy. As the patient had no history of acting out and also had sufficient insight to see
that his jealousy based cognitions and predictions were baseless and unproductive, this
component of the intervention was easily addressed. By examining the possibility of
productive and unproductive cognitions and emotions, the patient reportedly felt fur-
ther validated with regards to the legitimacy of his emotional response, while not feeling
compelled to buy into his jealous thoughts. Rather than engage in experiential avoid-
ance or thought suppression through trying to “not be jealous” the patient was actively
engaging with his emotions and cognitions in an adaptive way. Homework included
ongoing use of relaxing breath and coping cards, self–validation, the log of jealous
cognitions, and the rating of jealousy based worries as productive or unproductive.
Use Uncertainty Training
During the assessment of the patient’s problems with jealousy, as well as during his ear-
lier treatment for anxiety disorder symptoms, the patient’s reluctance to accept and tol-
erate uncertainty became clear. Furthermore, a primary method of dealing with his
unacceptable intrusive thoughts and jealous cognitions appeared to be a combination of
futile attempts to suppress such thoughts, with a concomitant barrage of self–criticism
for his having such thoughts “in the first place.”
In order to facilitate his ability to overcome attempts at experiential avoidance, and
to assist in tolerance of uncertainty, the therapist employed metacognitive and exposure
based techniques for tolerating uncertainty. A primary technique employed was a form
of verbal exposure known as “uncertainty training.” During this homework exercise, the
patient would repeat the phrase “It is always possible that my girlfriend has been cheat-
ing,” over and over again, out loud, for a period of 15 minutes each day. As is the case
with other forms of verbal exposure, the patient recorded his level of anxiety upon re-
peating the phrase every three minutes during the exercise. After one week of daily prac-
tice, the patient reported dramatically decreased anxiety when engaging in the practice
and when considering the uncertainty of his girlfriend’s fidelity.
Examine Cognitive Biases and Decatastrophize Potential Loss
After establishing this attitude of acceptance, implementing a regular mindfulness prac-
tice, working with affect tolerance, and increasing tolerance for uncertainty, the focus
turned to responding to dysfunctional jealousy cognitions. The patient employed
“cost/benefit” analyses of his thoughts, imagined and de–catastrophized the “worst case
scenario” that could emerge if his worried and jealous predictions were true, and exam-
ined the evidence for and against the cognitions that were troubling him. Many of these
techniques were familiar to him as he had employed them in the treatment of his earlier
problems with anxiety. Throughout any exercises in rational responding, the patient
was encouraged to adopt an “emotionally intelligent” attitude: rather than attempting
to argue down these thoughts, the patient and therapist began by recognizing these
thoughts as mental events and not reality itself. From this perspective, the patient would
emphasize labeling his emotions and contact with his emotions as they arose, employing
earlier methods of self–validation. Only from this point did the cognitive challenging
occur, and the patient was invited to engage in it with nearly a sense of play. By mind-
fully distancing himself from his jealous cognitions, the patient reported that he was
better able to apply cognitive therapy techniques to both craft more rational responses
to real–life situations and to consistently recognize the distinction between his thoughts
and “things in the world.” The patient reported that by not “identifying” with these
thoughts, they held less sway over him. Further, the patient suggested that this perspec-
tive allowed him to disengage from struggle against his “negative” experience, and base
his assessments of situations on a more reality based “headset.”
Examine Personal Schemas and Emotional Schemas
The therapist and patient together discussed ways that emotional schemas and assump-
tions about emotional experiences might be involved in the patient’s habitual patterns of
emotional avoidance. The patient reported that he had been raised by a domineering
and “traditional” male father, who had discouraged any outward display of emotion.
According to the patient the only expressions of emotion that were tolerable in his fam-
ily of origin were displays of aggression or frustration. The patient identified such emo-
tional schemas as, “Having fears and experiencing emotions makes me weak” and “I’m
not going to put up with feeling insecure” as key core beliefs about his emotions in his
relationship. The patient wrote a letter to the source of his schema, challenging the va-
lidity of the emotional dismissiveness in his family of origin. In addition, he kept a data
log to gather evidence to counter these negative emotional schemas on a daily basis.
Commit to Self–Care
The patient reported that the entire range of techniques employed had significantly re-
duced his distress regarding his response to “flashes” of jealousy. Although he might still
experience jealous feelings from time to time, he was reportedly far better able to recog-
nize the irrationality of the assumptions underlying them and to “keep them in perspec-
tive” while carrying on with a successful relationship. In order to help the patient build
upon his shift in perspective, the patient and therapist concluded their work in the area
of jealousy by engaging in skills training sessions concerning active listening, effectively
giving and receiving feedback, and validating his partner’s concerns and emotions. Ac-
cording to the patient’s report after a period of one year from the completion of this
phase of his work, he rarely experiences pathological or significantly distressing bouts of
jealousy and jealousy based worries.
Jealousy is often a destructive and refractory problem in relationships, sometimes result-
ing in the feared consequences it attempts to prevent. We have outlined an integrative
cognitive–behavioral model for conceptualizing and treating pathological jealousy,
while also recognizing the wisdom in validating the legitimacy of these emotions. By
conceptualizing jealousy as a form of agitated, angry worry, we can provide therapists
with the many advantageous interventions drawn from a variety of theoretical orienta-
tions. This integrative approach recognizes that thoughts, emotions, behaviors and rela-
tionships are all part of a single system and that interventions at all points can maximize
therapeutic effectiveness. Unlike prior approaches that stressed “personal insecurity” or
“distorted thinking,” the current approach incorporates meta–cognitive, meta–emo-
tional, and acceptance and mindfulness techniques. These techniques allow the patient
to accept discomfort, emotion, and uncertainty which may be an inevitable part of any
Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. L. (1985).
Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspec-
tive. New York: Basic Books.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond.
New York: Guilford.
Harwood, S. (1996). Morbid jealousy: A cog-
nitive outlook. Journal of Cognitive Psychother-
apy, 10, 9–22.
G. (2003). Cognitive–behavioral therapy for
generalized anxiety disorder with integrations
from interpersonal and experiential therapies.
CNS Spectrums, 8(5), 382–389.
Buss, D. M. (2000). Dangerous passion: Why jealousy is
as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth,
J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolu-
tion, physiology, and psychology. Psychological
Science, 3, 251–255.
Buunk, B., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M.
(1996). Sexual and cultural differences in jeal-
ousy: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany,
and the United States. Psychological Science, 7,
Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of mea-
surement? Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 83(5), 1103–1116.
DeSteno, D., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary ori-
gins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning
the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science,
7, 367–372.
Dolan, M., & Bishay, N. (1996). The effectiveness of
cognitive therapy in the treatment of non–psy-
chotic morbid jealousy. British Journal of Psychi-
atry, 168(5), 588–593.
Dugas, M. J., Buhr, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). The
role of intolerance of uncertainty in the etiol-
ogy and maintenance of generalized anxiety
S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder:
Advances in research and practice (pp.
143–163). New York: Guilford.
Dugas, M. J., Gosselin, P., & Ladouceur, R. (2001).
Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investi-
gating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research, 25, 13–22.
Ellis, A. (1996). The treatment of morbid jealousy: A
rational emotive behavior therapy approach.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(1),
Erickson, T. M., & Newman, M. G. (2007). Interper-
sonal and emotional processes in generalized
anxiety disorder analogues during social inter-
action tasks. Behavior Therapy, 38(4), 364–377.
Gilbert, P. (1998). The evolved basis and adaptive
functions of cognitive distortions. British Jour-
nal of Medical Psychology, 71, 447–463.
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1999). Toward a
goal–oriented approach for understanding
communicative responses to jealousy. Western
Journal of Communication, 63(2), 216–249.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in
heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psycholog-
ical Science, 13(1).
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2003).
Acceptance and commitment therapy : An experi-
ential approach to behavior change.NewYork:
Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G.
(2001). The role of relationship development
and attachment in the experience of romantic
jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8, 205–224.
Leahy, R. L. (2001a, November). Emotional schemas
in cognitive therapy. Paper presented at the As-
sociation for the Advancement of Behavior
Therapy, Philadelphia, PA.
Leahy, R. L. (2001b). Overcoming resistance in cogni-
tive therapy.NewYork:Guilford.
Leahy, R. L. (2002). A model of emotional schemas.
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9(3),
Leahy, R. L. (2003). Cognitive therapy techniques: A
practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Leahy, R. L. (2005a). A social–cognitive model of val-
idation. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion:
Conceptualisations, research, and use in psycho-
therapy (pp. 195–217). London: Routledge.
Leahy, R. L. (2005b). The worry cure: Seven steps to stop
worry from stopping you.NewYork:Har
mony/Random House.
Leahy, R. L. (2007). Emotional schemas and resis-
tance to change in anxiety disorders. Cognitive
and Behavioral Practice, 14(1), 36–45.
Leahy, R. L., Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (2005). Cogni-
tive therapy of personality disorders. In S.
Strack (Ed.), Personology: Essays in honor of Theo-
dore Millon. New York: Wiley.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive–behavioral treat-
ment of borderline personality disorder.New
York: Guilford.
Marazziti, D., Rucci, P., Nasso, E. D., Masala, I.,
Baroni, S., Rossi, A. et al. (2003). Jealousy and
subthreshold psychopathology: A serotonergic
link. Neuropsychobiology, 47, 12–16.
Papageorgiou, C. (2006). Worry and its psychological
disorders: Theory, assessment and treatment.
In G. C. L. Davey & A. Wells (Eds.), Worry
and rumination: Styles of persistent negative
thinking in anxiety and depression (pp. 21–40).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Papageorgiou, C., & Wells, A. (2001). Metacognitive
beliefs about rumination in major depression.
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 8, 160–163.
Persons, J. B. (1993). Case conceptualization in cogni-
H. Rosen (Eds.), Cognitive therapies in action:
Evolving innovative practice (pp. 33–53). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
(2002). Mindfulness–based cognitive therapy for
depression: A new approach to preventing relapse.
New York: Guilford.
Simpson, C., & Papageorgiou, C. (2003).
Metacognitive beliefs about rumination in an-
ger. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 10(1),
Wells, A. (1997). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders :
A practice manual and conceptual guide.New
York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Wells, A. (2004). A cognitive model of GAD:
Metacognitions and pathological worry. In R.
(Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in
research and practice.NewYork:Guilford
Wells, A., & Carter, K. (2001). Further tests of a cog-
nitive model of generalized anxiety disorder:
Metacognitions and worry in GAD, panic dis-
order, social phobia, depression, and
nonpatients. Behavior Therapy, 32(1).
Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Relationships
between worry, obsessive–compulsive symp-
toms and meta–cognitive beliefs. Behaviour Re-
search and Therapy, 36, 899–913.
Wenzlaff, R. M., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought
suppression. In S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Annual re-
view of psychology (Vol. 51, pp. 59–91). Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
White, G. L. (1980). Inducing jealousy: A power per-
spective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 6, 222–227.
White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy.
Motivation and Emotion, 5, 295–310.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory,
research, and clinical strategies.NewYork:
Guilford Press.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. (2003).
Schema therapy: A practioner’s guide.NewYork:
... Αντίστοιχα, στην προσπάθεια να εμπλουτίσουμε τις γνώσεις για θέματα που συσχετίζονται με την αντιμετώπιση της παθολογικής ζήλειας, είναι χρήσιμο να εντάξουμε τα ευρήματα της Εξελικτικής θεωρίας της ζήλειας στη διατύπωση περίπτωσης. Η διατύπωση περίπτωσης (case formulation), είναι μία περιγραφή του προβλήματος που στόχο έχει να γίνουν σαφείς και αντιληπτοί α) οι προδιαθεσικοί παράγοντες, β) οι παράγοντες που ενεργοποιούν το πρόβλημα, γ) οι παράγοντες που το συντηρούν, και η οποία αποτελεί τη βάση ώστε να ξεκινήσει η διαδικασία τροποποίησης της σκέψης (Leahy & Tirch, 2008). ...
... Αυτό δεν επαρκεί όμως για την κατασκευή μίας προσέγγισης για τη θεραπεία της πα-θολογικής ερωτικής ζήλειας. Περιορισμοί φαίνεται να παρουσιάζονται στα περισσότερα θεωρητικά μοντέλα για την ερωτική ζήλεια (Leahy & Tirch, 2008). Στόχος μιας σύγχρονης θεραπευτικής προσέγγισης που θα ενσωματώνει απαρτιωτικά τα νεώτερα ερευνητικά δεδομένα θα πρέπει να είναι οι θεραπευόμενοι να αποδέχονται και να αντέχουν τα άβολα συναισθήματα και την αβεβαιότητα που είναι αναπόφευκτα στις ερωτικές σχέσεις και παράλληλα οι θεραπευτές να μπορούν να αναγνωρίζουν ότι αυτά τα συναισθήματα έχουν λόγο ύπαρξης και ότι σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις, η ζήλεια μπορεί είναι η κατάλληλη συναισθηματική αντίδραση. ...
Romantic jealousy is a commonly experienced complex of feelings, which in its pathological expression leads to personal misery, problematic relations and problems for the partner of the person experiencing it. Research in romantic jealousy has began since the ‘40s, when Alfred Kinsey noted that men tend to be more preoccupied withthe sexual aspect of a partner’s sexual infidelity, whereas women tend to worry most about lost attention, sentimental investment and love from their partner. More recently researchers have attempted to explainthe sexual difference in jealousy as an innate module, through the evolution theory and have attracted the attention of the scientific community, as well as much criticism. Supporters of sociocognitive theories attempt to place jealousy as an innate module in their theory. Cognitive behavioural therapies have started including jealousy as such a module in their case conceptualization of pathological jealousy.
... Pikiran-pikiran negatif, seperti tidak dipercayai, ditolak, ditinggalkan, direndahkan, dll terusmenerus tertanam dalam diri sehingga mempengaruhi orang tersebut dalam memandang dan berelasi dengan orang lain. Melalui teknik-teknik meta-cognitive, meta-emotional yang diterapkan dalam Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Robert L Leahy membuktikan bahwa metode ini mampu mengoreksi, men-design kembali pikiran-pikiran yang menyimpang (distorted thinking) dan ketidaknyamanan diri (personal insecurity), yang berpengaruh pada menurunnya tingkat kecemburuan seseorang (Robert L. Leahy dan Dennis D. Tirch, 2008). ...
... Although this interpretation is somewhat speculative, it is consistent with research showing that individuals who non-retributively communicate with their partner about their jealousy report greater relationship satisfaction (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995). Moreover, rumination over a partner's extradyadic involvement appears to contribute to cognitive jealousy's deleterious effect on relationship satisfaction (Elphinston, Feeney, Noller, Connor, & Fitzgerald, 2013), and mindful awareness of jealous rumination and its antecedents is effective in treating clinical jealousy (Kellett & Totterdell, 2013; see also Leahy & Tirch, 2008). Other evidence indicates that cognitive reframing is successful in altering behavioral responses to a partner's extra-pair involvement. ...
Full-text available
Evolutionary psychological research has studied romantic jealousy extensively within monogamous relationships, but has largely ignored jealousy among partners who mutually consent to forming extra-pair relationships (i.e., consensual non-monogamy; CNM). We examined monogamous (n = 529) and CNM (n = 159) individuals’ reactions to imagining their romantic partner(s)’s extra-pair involvement. For each romantic partner, men and women completed measures of relationship jealousy and reacted to scenarios of their partner’s extra-pair emotional and sexual involvement. Scenarios prompted participants to indicate which type of involvement would be more distressing and more enjoyable. They also described whether or not participants had consented to their partner’s extradyadic relationship. Monogamous men were more distressed by a partner’s extradyadic sexual versus emotional involvement (and a partner’s emotional involvement was more enjoyable) whether the scenario was consensual or not. Monogamous women were more distressed by a partner’s emotional versus sexual involvement (and a partner’s sexual involvement was more enjoyable) for consensual, but not non-consensual, scenarios. There were no gender differences among CNM participants. Monogamous individuals reported greater emotional distress toward a partner’s imagined extradyadic involvement, whereas CNM individuals reported thinking about their partner’s extra-pair relationships more frequently. Monogamous (vs. CNM) individuals reported greater confidence that their partner would never cheat on them (i.e., enter another relationship without their consent), and CNM participants were more confident that their primary versus secondary partner would never cheat, although this effect was stronger among CNM women. Moreover, CNM participants rated that it was more important that their primary versus secondary partner did not cheat, and reported greater distress imagining that their primary versus secondary partner had cheated. Women in CNM relationships rated it more important that their partner did not cheat sexually than emotionally. Finally, we replicated previous research showing that monogamous individuals mate guard more than CNM individuals, who mate guard their primary versus secondary partner more frequently. Future directions for developing evolutionary and romantic relationship research on CNM are discussed.
... OMJ has also attracted theoretical attention from psychodynamic (Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994), cognitive (Tarrier, Beckett, Harwood, & Bishay, 1990), cognitive-behavioral (Leahy & Tirch, 2008), behavioral (Crowe, 1995), and evolutionary perspectives (Buss, 2013). Associated wellconceived treatments based on these theories, however, have been slow in development and then sluggish in any credible testing. ...
Full-text available
The evidence base for integrative forms of psychotherapy for obsessive morbid jealousy (OMJ) is very limited and so this study sought to examine the effectiveness of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) in a small case series. Three A/B with extended follow-up single case experimental designs (SCEDs) were completed, with 1 male and 2 female patients presenting with OMJ. Results indicate that on the daily ideographic jealousy measures (across and within each case) there was evidence of significant reductions in morbid jealousy (and other associated symptoms) during the treatment phase. Treatment effects were also seen to be maintained over the follow-up period in these ideographic measures. On the primary nomothetic measure, all cases were classed as “nonjealous” by follow-up. Partner violence was extinguished across all cases. This article provides evidence of CAT offering promise as a suitable OMJ treatment option. Methodological limitations, theoretical insights, and treatment implications are all discussed.
Full-text available
El objetivo de este estudio fue reducir los niveles de celos en seis mujeres, estudiantes universitarias, con edades entre los 18 y 35 años de edad, que presentaban celos patológicos. El proceso terapéutico utilizado se basó en la guía de intervención cognitivo comportamental para el manejo de los celos en la relación de pareja. La intervención tuvo una duración de dos meses y se desarrolló en siete sesiones, bajo un diseño AB y con seguimiento a los 6 meses a dos de las consultantes. Los resultados muestran una disminución en el puntaje de la Escala Interpersonal de Celos. Se encontraron diferencias significativas en los resultados globales de la escala en la aplicación pre y pos test (p<,05), así como en la frecuencia de conductas asociadas al problema. Se discuten las bondades y limitacionesde la intervención.
Anxiety and sensory symptoms are highly prevalent and meaningful in the daily lives of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the importance of carefully measuring, researching, and treating these symptoms, current methods in ASD seldom include self-report. This study investigated the consistency of adolescent and parent reports of anxiety and auditory sensitivity in individuals with ASD, and examined their validity via comparisons with sympathetic arousal at baseline and in response to an auditory challenge. Fifty adolescent-parent dyads (n = 26 ASD, n = 24 typically developing; 12-16 years old; IQ>80) completed parallel versions of both anxiety and auditory hypersensitivity scales, which were compared to heart rate collected at rest and during an aversive noise task. Adolescents with ASD exhibited greater anxiety and auditory hypersensitivity than their peers, based on both self and parent report. Across groups, self-report was higher than parent report. In individuals with ASD, a significant relationship was found between self-reported anxiety and autonomic arousal at rest, and between self-reported auditory sensitivity and autonomic reactivity during the noise task. These relationships were not significant for parent-report. These findings extend past work by demonstrating greater self-reported (than parent-reported) anxiety and sensory symptoms. Furthermore, the presence of significant correlations between self-reported symptoms and sympathetic arousal supports the validity of self-report in adolescents with ASD with average or above average cognitive abilities. This indicates that adolescents with ASD have a unique perspective on their internal experience, which can complement parent reports and provide a more comprehensive assessment of symptoms in research and clinical settings.
The aim of this study was to reduce the level of jealousy in six female college students with ages ranging from 18 to 35 years who presented pathological jealousy. The therapeutic process used was based on the cognitive-behavioral intervention guide for jealousy management in couple relationships. Under an AB design, the intervention had a timespan of two months and was developed throughout seven sessions. A follow-up was performed six months later for two of the six subjects. The results show a decrease in Interpersonal Jealousy Scale score and significant differences were found in the global results of the IJS scores in pre- and post-application of the intervention (p
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is the last anxiety disorder to have been included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM). It made its appearance in the DSM-III, published in 1980. It is therefore no surprise that criteria for this disorder have evolved considerably over the years. However, through every edition of the DSM, GAD’s main characteristic has always been the presence of excessive anxiety or worry. Worry in GAD must concern at least a few activities or events and be present during a minimum of 6 months. It is accompanied by difficulty controlling the worry which, in turn, can be associated with the following symptoms: relentlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge, being easily fatigued, difficulty concentrating or mind going blank, irritability, muscle tension, and sleep disturbance.
Two studies are presented that challenge the evidentiary basis for the existence of evolved sex differences in jealousy. In opposition to the evolutionary view. Study 1 demonstrated that a sex difference in jealousy resulting from sexual versus emotional infidelity is observed only when judgments are recorded using a forced-choice response format. On all other measures, no sex differences were found; both men and women reported greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity. A second study revealed that the sex difference on the forced-choice measure disappeared under conditions of cognitive constraint. These findings suggest that the sex difference used to support the evolutionary view of jealousy (e.g., D. M. Buss, R. Larsen, D. Westen, & J. Semmelroth, 1992; D. M. Buss et al., 1999) likely represents a measurement artifact resulting from a format-induced effortful decision strategy and not an automatic, sex-specific response shaped by evolution.
After providing background information on. the definition and nature of generalized anxiety disorder, this article describes cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) methods that have been empirically supported in the treatment of this disorder. Subsequent to this description, relevant outcome literature is briefly reviewed, along with evidence that the addition of other techniques beyond traditional CBT methods may be necessary to maximize clinical outcome. A description is then provided of an integrated interpersonal/emotional processing therapy that the authors have recently added to their CBT protocol. CBT with and without this integrated treatment is currently being evaluated in an experimental trial.
An ACT Approach Chapter 1. What is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy? Steven C. Hayes, Kirk D. Strosahl, Kara Bunting, Michael Twohig, and Kelly G. Wilson Chapter 2. An ACT Primer: Core Therapy Processes, Intervention Strategies, and Therapist Competencies. Kirk D. Strosahl, Steven C. Hayes, Kelly G. Wilson and Elizabeth V. Gifford Chapter 3. ACT Case Formulation. Steven C. Hayes, Kirk D. Strosahl, Jayson Luoma, Alethea A. Smith, and Kelly G. Wilson ACT with Behavior Problems Chapter 4. ACT with Affective Disorders. Robert D. Zettle Chapter 5. ACT with Anxiety Disorders. Susan M. Orsillo, Lizabeth Roemer, Jennifer Block-Lerner, Chad LeJeune, and James D. Herbert Chapter 6. ACT with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Alethea A. Smith and Victoria M. Follette Chapter 7. ACT for Substance Abuse and Dependence. Kelly G. Wilson and Michelle R. Byrd Chapter 8. ACT with the Seriously Mentally Ill. Patricia Bach Chapter 9. ACT with the Multi-Problem Patient. Kirk D. Strosahl ACT with Special Populations, Settings, and Methods Chapter 10. ACT with Children, Adolescents, and their Parents. Amy R. Murrell, Lisa W. Coyne, & Kelly G. Wilson Chapter 11. ACT for Stress. Frank Bond. Chapter 12. ACT in Medical Settings. Patricia Robinson, Jennifer Gregg, JoAnne Dahl, & Tobias Lundgren Chapter 13. ACT with Chronic Pain Patients. Patricia Robinson, Rikard K. Wicksell, Gunnar L. Olsson Chapter 14. ACT in Group Format. Robyn D. Walser and Jacqueline Pistorello