Content uploaded by Stephen M. Croucher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen M. Croucher on Nov 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto]
On: 01 November 2012, At: 02:00
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Research Reports
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20
Jealousy in Four Nations: A Cross-
Cultural Analysis
Stephen M. Croucher a , Dini Homsey b , Linda Guarino c , Bethany
Bohlin c , Jared Trumpetto c , Anthony Izzo c , Adrienne Huy c &
Tiffany Sykes c
a Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä
b University of Oklahoma
c Marist College
Version of record first published: 31 Oct 2012.
To cite this article: Stephen M. Croucher, Dini Homsey, Linda Guarino, Bethany Bohlin, Jared
Trumpetto, Anthony Izzo, Adrienne Huy & Tiffany Sykes (2012): Jealousy in Four Nations: A Cross-
Cultural Analysis, Communication Research Reports, 29:4, 353-360
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.723273
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
BRIEF REPORT
Jealousy in Four Nations: A
Cross-Cultural Analysis
Stephen M. Croucher, Dini Homsey, Linda Guarino,
Bethany Bohlin, Jared Trumpetto, Anthony Izzo,
Adrienne Huy, & Tiffany Sykes
This study analyses differences in the expression of jealousy between India, Ireland,
Thailand, and the United States (n¼1,792). The results reveal that American, Irish,
and Indian participants express more behavioral and emotional jealousy than Thai
participants. In explaining the results, the discussion focuses on how individuals from
more egocentric and masculine cultures (the U.S. and Ireland), and patriarchal cultures
(India) are more likely to express jealousy than individuals from Thailand. Moreover,
the discussion offers an analysis of this study’s contribution to the sociocognitive perspec-
tive on jealousy.
Keywords: Cross-Cultural; Culture; Jealousy
Jealousy is pervasive in all cultures (Bevan, 2008; DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett,
2006). Yet, research has yet to grasp the effects of national identity on jealousy.
Ellestad and Stets (1998) said that scholars should study jealousy, as the expression
of jealousy is an important part of communication and identity. The groups we
identify with, including our sexual, religious, and national groups, determine our
social identities and affect behavior (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). National identity affects
the expression of jealousy, and studies should explore the link between nationality
Stephen M. Croucher (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2008), is a Professor in the Department of Communi-
cation at the University of Jyva
¨skyla
¨. Dini Homsey (MA, University of Oklahoma, 2005) is a doctoral student
at the University of Oklahoma. Linda Guarino, Bethany Bohlin, Jared Trumpetto, Anthony Izzo, Adrienne Huy,
and Tiffany Sykes are master’s students in the MA program at Marist College. All student authors are listed
randomly to indicate their equal participation in this endeavor. The researchers also want to thank the rest
of the COMG620 class for their assistance with this paper. Correspondence: Stephen M. Croucher, Department
of Communication, University of Jyva
¨skyla
¨, Jyva
¨skyla
¨, Finland; E-mail: stephen.m.croucher@jyu.fi
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 29, No. 4, October–December 2012, pp. 353–360
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) #2012 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2012.723273
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
and jealousy (Kuppens, Ceulemans, Timmerman, Diener, & Kim-Prieto, 2006; Metts,
1994; Zammuner & Fischer, 1995). This study considers the effect of nationality on
jealousy in Ireland, India, Thailand, and the United States.
These nations were chosen for four reasons. First, research on jealousy in the U.S.
is not representative of jealousy in other nations. Second, each nation differs
religiously and politically. The U.S. and Ireland are largely Christian, India is a Hindu
majority=Muslim minority, and Thailand is a Buddhist majority (Ahuja, 2008).
Third, politically, the governments of India, Ireland, and the U.S. are democracies,
and Thailand is a monarchy. Fourth, research demonstrates that there are differences
in jealousy between these nations and=or similar nations.
Jealousy
Jealousy is a multidimensional experience, consisting of cognitive, emotional, and
coping behaviors (Fleischmann, Spitzberg, Andersen, & Roesch, 2005; Pfeiffer &
Wong, 1989). Jealousy occurs when there is a potential threat to or an actual loss
of a valued relationship between oneself and another due to a real or imagined rival
for a partner’s attention (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; White & Mullen, 1989). These
real or perceived threats cause individuals to experience and respond to jealousy
differently. Some people experience hurt, anger, and fear of loss or deterioration of
an important relationship, while some may experience external displays of jealousy,
such as crying, retaliating, using surveillance, or becoming aggressive. Jealousy
appears in a variety of forms and at levels of varying intensity.
Dimensions and Predictors of Jealousy
Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) defined three dimensions of jealousy: cognitive, behavioral,
and emotional. Cognitive jealousy is an individual’s thoughts, worries, and suspicions
regarding a partner’s real or imagined relationship with a rival (Bevan & Lannutti,
2002). Behavioral jealousy includes surveillance behaviors that individuals use to
cope when they suspect a partner is unfaithful (Dainton & Gross, 2008). These beha-
viors include questioning a partner about his or her whereabouts, paying a surprise
visit to a partner, and searching a partner’s belongings. Emotional jealousy is an
affective reaction to a real or an imagined threat to a relationship (Theiss & Solomon,
2006). Emotional arousal encompasses negative feelings such as anxiety, discomfort,
anger, fear, sadness, guilt, sexual arousal, and envy (Guerrero, Trost, & Yoshimura,
2005).
Scholars have found differences between men and women on the expression of
jealousy, but the results vary regarding which sex expresses more jealousy (Cann,
Mangum, & Wells, 2001; Cramer, Abraham, Johnson, & Ryan-Manning, 2001).
Scheinkman and Werneck (2010) stated, ‘‘What is experienced as a threat, and the
ways it is manifested, vary according to gender’’ (p. 488).
Jealousy can be expressed in different levels based on nationality=national culture.
Northern Europeans reported less jealousy (Buunk & vanDriel, 1989) than Southern
Europeans. Americans and Europeans viewed sexual exclusivity as the central cause
354 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
of jealousy, whereas Mexicans identified distrust as the central cause (Hupka et al.,
1985). Croucher, DeMaris, Oyer, Yartey, and Ziberi (2011) found that individuals
in India are less likely to express jealousy than Americans because jealousy is seen
as against the communal good. The authors asserted individualism=collectivism,
masculinity=femininity, power distance, and egocentric thinking are related to this
result (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2000). The authors also estimated that Indians
are more likely to express jealousy than most other Asian populations because of the
intense patriarchal nature of India, which is present, but less common in other Asian
nations (Baber, 2004; Croucher et al., 2011). Furthermore, as Thais are typically
more feminine and less egocentric than other cultures=nations, jealousy is deemed
a masculine and egocentric behavior=trait, and thus not encouraged (Croucher
et al., 2012). As research demonstrates differences in jealousy across nations, we
propose the following:
H1: The expression of jealousy will differ between the U.S., India, Ireland, and Thailand.
Method
In total, 1,792 people participated in the study: India (n¼657), Ireland (n¼311),
Thailand (n¼232), and the U.S. (n¼592). See Table 1 for demographics by nation.
Data were collected through self-administered paper and online questionnaires in
2009 and 2010 after completion of a Human Subject Review. The principal researcher
contacted participants from each nation through social networks, through the
assistance of various religious organizations, and at various universities=colleges.
Participants received no financial incentive for participation.
Surveys were in English, Hindi, and Thai. Native speakers of Hindi and Thai trans-
lated it from English. Bilingual speakers then back-translated it. All translations were
compared for accuracy. To measure jealousy, Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) multidi-
mensional jealousy scale was used. This 24-item scale measures behavioral, cognitive,
and emotional jealousy. The eight behavioral and eight cognitive jealousy items range
on a seven-point Likert scale from (1) never to (7) all the time. The eight emotional
jealousy items range on a seven-point Likert scale from (1) very pleased to (7) very
upset. Cronbach alphas ranged from .83 to .92 in 1989. See Table 2 for the means,
standard deviations, correlations, and alphas.
Results
To examine the hypothesis, a 4 (nation) 2 (sex) (MANOVA) was used. The depen-
dent variable (jealousy) is continuous, and the independent variables are categorical.
Sex was added as a predictor variable, as research has shown that jealousy varies based
on an individual’s sex. There was a significant effect of nation on jealousy, V¼.01,
F(9, 5352) ¼2.83, p<.01, partial g
2
¼.11. The following post-hoc comparisons
revealed significant differences between the nations on behavioral and emotional
jealousy. See Table 3 for post-hoc results. On behavioral jealousy, Thais (M¼5.05,
Communication Research Reports 355
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
Table 1 Demographics of Participants by Nation
Variable Range nMSD
India
Sex
Male 360
Female 297
Religion
Hindu 408
Muslim 206
Christian 43
Age 18–69 30.52 9.88
Ireland
Sex
Male 165
Female 146
Religion
Protestant 175
Catholic 126
Fundamentalist Christian 7
Jewish 3
Age 18–57 31.17 9.81
Thailand
Sex
Male 137
Female 95
Religion
Buddhist 232
Age 21–40 30.94 6.21
United States
Sex
Male 317
Female 275
Religion
Catholic 244
Mainline Protestant 238
Hindu 45
Muslim 38
Fundamental Christian 21
Jewish 6
Age 18–57 30.55 9.59
356 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
SD ¼.63) are significantly lower than Indians (M¼5.20, SD ¼.69) and the Irish
(M¼5.20, SD ¼.67). On emotional jealousy, Thais (M¼4.58, SD ¼4.58) scored
significantly lower than Indians (M¼4.74, SD ¼.86), Americans (M¼4.74,
SD ¼.83), and the Irish (M¼4.75, SD ¼.85). There was also a significant effect of
sex on jealousy [V¼.02, F(3, 1782) ¼8.69, ¼p<.05, partial g
2
¼.12]. Females
expressed more cognitive jealousy than males (b¼.15, p<0001; M
m
¼3.72;
SD
m
¼.87; M
F
¼3.88, SD
F
¼.85) and more emotional jealousy than males (b¼.20,
p<0001; M
m
¼4.63; SD
m
¼.88; M
F
¼4.83, SD
F
¼.82). There was not a significant
interaction effect for nationsex, V¼.01, F(9, 5352) ¼7.29, p¼ns.
Discussion
Support was found for the hypothesis. Americans, Irish, and Indians expressed more
behavioral and emotional jealousy than Thais. The results of this study reveal how
individuals from nations that emphasize more egocentric thinking, which is more
dominant in masculine cultures (Merkin, 2000), are more likely to express jealousy.
Heightened egocentric thinking is due to the desire to think more about an indivi-
dual’s well-being and less about the couple’s well-being. Both Ireland and the U.S.
are generally more masculine cultures than India and Thailand (Hofstede, 1980,
2001). Therefore, it is possible that Americans and Irish may express more jealousy,
as jealousy is an emotional form of competition (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; White &
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Alphas Associated with Study
Variables
Variable MSDa(1) (2) (3)
India
(1) Behavioral jealousy 5.20 .69 .71 –
(2) Cognitive jealousy 3.81 .86 .73 .81 –
(3) Emotional jealousy 4.74 .86 .80 .87 .95 –
Ireland
(1) Behavioral jealousy 5.20 .67 .82 –
(2) Cognitive jealousy 3.81 .86 .85 .81 –
(3) Emotional jealousy 4.75 .85 .86 .87 .95 –
Thailand
(1) Behavioral jealousy 5.05 .63 .70 –
(2) Cognitive jealousy 3.72 .89 .72 .82 –
(3) Emotional jealousy 4.58 .88 .77 .87 .95 –
United States
(1) Behavioral jealousy 5.19 .66 .91 –
(2) Cognitive jealousy 3.80 .86 .89 .80 –
(3) Emotional jealousy 4.74 .83 .90 .86 .95 –
Note: p<.0001.
Communication Research Reports 357
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
Table 3 Tukey HSD Comparison for Behavioral, Cognitive, and Emotional Jealousy
95%Confidence interval
(I) Nation where
survey is from
(J) Nation where
survey is from Mean diff. (I–J) SE Lower bound Upper bound
Behavioral Jealousy
United States Thailand .13 .05 .01 .28
India .02 .05 .15 .11
Ireland .01 .04 .12 .09
Thailand United States .13 .05 .28 .01
India .15.06 .31 .01
Ireland .15.05 .29 .01
Ireland United States .02 .05 .11 .15
Thailand .15.06 .01 .31
India .01 .05 .12 .13
India United States .01 .04 .09 .12
Thailand .15.05 .01 .29
Ireland .01 .05 .13 .12
Cognitive Jealousy
United States Thailand .09 .07 .10 .27
India .01 .05 .14 .13
Ireland .01 .06 .18 .16
Thailand United States .09 .07 .27 .10
India .09 .07 .28 .09
Ireland .10 .07 .30 .11
Ireland United States .01 .06 .16 .18
Thailand .10 .07 .11 .30
India .01 .06 .16 .17
India United States .01 .05 .13 .14
Thailand .09 .07 .09 .28
Ireland .01 .06 .17 .16
Emotional Jealousy
United States Thailand .15.07 .03 .33
India .01 .05 .15 .12
Ireland .02 .06 .18 .15
Thailand United States .15.07 .33 .03
India .16.06 .34 .02
Ireland .17.07 .37 .04
India United States .01 .05 .12 .15
Thailand .16.06 .02 .34
Ireland .01 .06 .17 .16
Ireland United States .02 .05 .12 .15
Thailand .17.06 .02 .34
India .01 .06 .17 .16
Note: p<.05, based on a Tukey’s HSD post-hoc comparison.
358 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
Mullen, 1989). Previous research has found that other masculine cultures score high
on the expression of jealousy, such as Mexico, where individuals may often interpret
their jealous behaviors as love (Scheinkman & Werneck, 2010). Moreover, the patri-
archal nature of many Indians (Baber, 2004; Croucher et al., 2011) and the feminine
nature of many Thais (Hofstede, 2001; Croucher et al., 2012) may explain why
Indians express more jealousy (behavioral and emotional) than Thais.
This study furthers our understanding of the sociocognitive perspective
framework. There is debate over whether jealousy is better attributed to evolutionary
(biological; Buss & Haselton, 2005) or sociocognitive (social) factors (Ellis &
Weinstein, 1986). Recently, scholars have asserted that the two frameworks should
be integrated (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008; Sagarin, 2005). These results reveal an
integration of these perspectives by incorporating evolutionary and sociocognitive
factors into the same study. This combination confirmed sexual differences in jealousy
and added to the literature on differences based on an individual’s nationality.
The primary limitation is the distribution of surveys. In Ireland, Thailand, and
India, surveys were mainly distributed in major cities. These cities were chosen
because the researchers had contacts in cities=suburbs. Thus, rural populations
may be underrepresented.
We also offer one area of future research. As social media use increases, scholars
must consider social media in the expression of jealousy. Muise, Christofides, and
Desmarais (2009) found that increased use of Facebook leads to increased
Facebook-related jealousy. Future work should therefore explore jealousy in relation
to social media.
References
Ahuja, M. L. (2008). Major religions of the world. New Delhi: USB Publishers’ Distributors.
Baber, Z. (2004). Race, religion and riots: The racialization of communal identity and conflict in
India. Sociology,38, 701–718.
Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the
investment model. Southern Communication Journal,73, 42–67.
Bevan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2002). The experience and expression of romantic jealousy in same-
sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships. Communication Research Reports,19, 258–268.
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. H. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Science,9,
506–507.
Buunk, A. P., & vanDriel, B. (1989). Variant lifestyles and relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cann, A., Mangum, L. J., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: The
roles of gender and attitudes about relationships. The Journal of Sex Research,38, 185–190.
Cramer, E. R., Abraham, T. W., Johnson, M. L., & Ryan-Manning, B. (2001). Gender differences
in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference
explanation? Current Psychology,20, 327–336.
Croucher, S. M., DeMaris, A., Oyer, B. J., Yartey, F. N. A., & Ziberi, L. (2011, August). Jealousy in
India and the United States: A cross-cultural analysis of three dimensions of jealousy. Paper
presented at the World Communication Association, Lima, Peru.
Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., & Huckins, A. (2012).
Conflict styles and high-low context cultures: A cross-cultural extension. Communication
Research Reports,29, 64–73.
Communication Research Reports 359
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012
Dainton, M., & Gross, J. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships.
Communication Research Reports,25, 179–191.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Jealousy and the characteristics of one’s rival: A
self-evaluation maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22,
920–932.
DeSteno, D. A., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to
the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,91, 626–641.
Ellestad, J., & Stets, J. E. (1998). Jealousy and parenting: Predicting emotions from identity theory.
Sociological Perspectives,41, 639–668.
Ellis, C., & Weinstein, E. (1986). Jealousy and social psychology of emotional experience. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships,3, 337–357.
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.
Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. R., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005). Romantic jealousy: Emotions and com-
municative responses. Personal Relationships,12, 233–252.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organiza-
tions across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hupka, R. B., Buunk, A., Falus, G., Fulgosi, A., Ortega, E., Swain, R., & Tarabrina, N. V. (1985).
Romantic jealousy and romantic envy: A seven nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology,16, 423–446.
Kuppens, P., Ceulemans, E., Timmerman, M. E., Diener, E., & Kim-Prieto, C. (2006). Universal
intracultural and intercultural dimensions of the recalled frequency of emotional experience.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,37, 491–515.
Merkin, R. S. (2000). A cross-cultural evaluation of facework communication: An application of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Unpublished dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side
of interpersonal communication (pp. 217–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does
Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior,12,
441–444.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex differences in emotional but
not in sexual jealousy at the automatic level of cognitive processing. European Journal of
Personality,22, 3–30.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,6, 181–196.
Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: Comment on Harris (2003).
Personality and Social Psychology Review,9, 62–75.
Scheinkman, M., & Werneck, D. (2010). Disarming jealousy in couples relationships: A
multidimensional approach. Family Process,49, 486–502.
Tajfel, H, & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel &
W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks=Cole.
Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2006). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel modeling to
examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships:
A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research,32, 469–503.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York:
Guilford Press.
Zammuner, V. L., & Fischer, A. H. (1995). The social regulations of emotions in jealousy situations:
A comparison between Italy and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,26,
189–208.
360 S. M. Croucher et al.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 02:00 01 November 2012