ArticlePDF Available

Jealousy in Four Nations: A Cross-Cultural Analysis

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study analyses differences in the expression of jealousy between India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States (n = 1,792). 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 perspective on jealousy.
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
... Regarding cross-cultural studies, gender differences in jealousy responses to emotional and sexual infidelity support the evolutionary perspective; nevertheless, culture produces variations in the extent to which individuals feel upset when encountering emotional and sexual infidelity [17,18]. Regarding jealousy expression, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and egocentric thinking are cultural variables that can explain the observed differences between cultures [19]. Specifically, jealousy is more expressed in individualistic, masculine, and egocentric thinking cultures [19] because it is considered a socially (and culturally) accepted behavior. ...
... Regarding jealousy expression, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and egocentric thinking are cultural variables that can explain the observed differences between cultures [19]. Specifically, jealousy is more expressed in individualistic, masculine, and egocentric thinking cultures [19] because it is considered a socially (and culturally) accepted behavior. Zandbergen and Brown [18] found culture to be a more important predictor than gender when considering the jealous response to sexual infidelity, while gender was more important than culture for predicting the jealous response to emotional infidelity. ...
Article
Full-text available
Jealousy and mate retention have received attention in research over the last few decades. Despite this, most of the research has examined male jealousy and male mate retention, emphasizing cost-inflicting behavior due to its role in relationships and domestic violence. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between jealousy and all mate retention strategies in romantic relationships among women during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample consisted of 772 Croatian women aged 19 to 40 who were in a heterosexual relationship at the time. This study was conducted online, and the participants completed the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale and Mate Retention Inventory. The results showed that cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy were positively correlated with all mate retention strategies, which indicates that a stronger experience of jealousy can be expected to result in more frequent use of all partner retention strategies. We also found that all three dimensions of jealousy and relationship length positively predicted both cost-inflicting and benefit-provisioning mate retention behavior, whereas age was a negative predictor of benefit-provisioning behavior only. The findings of this study suggest that, although jealousy can substantially explain interpersonally risky and damaging behavior in relationships, it can also explain affectionate and attentive behavior, to some extent.
... According to the study of Sheikhmoonesi et al. (2020), the prevalence of paranoid jealousy among Iranian men is justified by culture (concept of "Gheyrat") and religious beliefs. Research shows that American, Irish, and Indian participants express more behavioural and emotional jealousy than Thai participants (Croucher et al., 2012). Furthermore, studies suggest that online intrusion and the manifestation of jealousy through the partner's behaviour in social networks is the main predictor of both types of aggression (physical and psychological), observed in both Italians and Spaniards (Sánchez et al., 2014). ...
... Apart from providing preliminary data about children's understanding of envy, they also suggested that envy is a complex and embodied emotion that embraces a triadic relationship, social comparison, and inequality that may facilitate envy and its consequences, such as hostility and aggression. Croucher et al. (2012) conducted a cultural analysis of jealousy in four nations. They analyzed the differences in jealousy expressions in India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States. ...
Article
Full-text available
The intertwined relationship between religion and mental health has been accounted for since the earliest recorded history. This study aimed to explore the relationship between the concept of diseases of the spiritual heart (DOTSH) from the Islamic-Sufi perspective and the medical-psychiatric concept of mental disorder. We examined two essential documents as our primary data sources: (1) Al Ghazali's Ihya Ulumuddin (Revivals of Religion Sciences) Volume III entitled the Quarter of the Destructive and (2) The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Version, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). We employed a document analysis of the qualitative method by applying six steps of data analysis. We reviewed the English version of Al Ghazali's book to identified DOTSH. In this stage, we found six DOTSH categories which comprised of 40 DOTSH. Then, we searched the correspondence of DOTSH's categories to the DSM-5-TR criteria for mental disorders. We found that all DOTSH categories correspond to DSM-5-TR diagnostics criteria, diagnostic features or diagnostic associated features. We concluded that spiritual heart diseases not only present as symptoms but also can be regarded as mental disorder preconditions that require preventive intervention.
... Individuals from cultures that are egocentric, masculine and patriarchal (e.g. India, United States) express jealousy more frequently (Croucher et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to explore romantic jealousy, its expression and manifestation in the Indian context. ...
... The items of the emotional abuse questionnaire employed in this study that received the highest ratings from men who married out of love led us to predict how abusive women express their love for their husbands, which appears to be through acts of jealousy, restricting men's movements, and questioning their love. Jealous behaviors seem to be common among Jordanian women; some women interpret jealousy as a sign of love (Croucher et al., 2012). According to Turner and Stets (2005), primary emotions can lead to secondary emotions (e.g., joy and acceptance leads to love and friendliness). ...
Article
Full-text available
Though emotional abuse is one of the worst and most common types of intimate partner violence, it has not been investigated in Arabic literature. Thus, this study explored the prevalence of emotional abuse among married Jordanian men. Furthermore, the moderating roles of marriage length, marriage motivation, age, and area in the path to emotional abuse were investigated. An online survey was conducted using a random sample of Jordanian married men in Amman. A total of 1,003 participants with an average age of 42.51 and a marital relationship duration ranging from 1 to 53 years were selected. The results revealed that isolation was the most prevalent emotional abuse domain, followed by degradation, property damage, and sexual coercion. However, all emotional abuse domains were more prevalent among rural rather than urban men, in both traditional and love marriages. Emotional abuse was higher among men who married for love. Younger men reported experiencing higher emotional abuse levels, which declined with age and increasing marriage length. Further research is required to explore the nature of emotional abuse forms and their underlying reasons among married men, as differences in sociodemographic characteristics could affect the identification and understanding of emotional abuse and contribute to developing an intellectual framework capable of finding solutions for abusive marital relations in the Jordanian context.
... Although no studies that specifically compared MRS between cultures were found, previous research has provided evidence of cultural variation in jealousy, which is also a mechanism to avoid infidelity. For example, comparing the expression of jealousy in four nations, India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States (US), Croucher et al. (2012) found that American, Indian and Irish participants express more emotional and behavioral jealousy than Thai participants. Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, and Buss (1996) found support for a hypothesis derived from evolutionary psychology across the US, Germany, and the Netherlands, that women exhibit greater psychological distress towards emotional than sexual infidelity, whereas men express higher psychological distress in face of sexual than emotional infidelity across all countries. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study compared mate retention strategies (MRS) in Brazil and in the UK, testing whether culture moderates the association between MRS and self-evaluated variables (e.g. mate value). Our findings demonstrated that women’s MRS varied cross-culturally, with Brazilian women reporting to perform MRS more often than British women. Men’s MRS did not vary between cultures. Additionally, culture moderated the association between MRS frequency and facial attractiveness disparity (the difference in attractiveness between partners) and mate value. This study presents initial evidence on the influence of culture on the frequency of MRS and its role in the association between self-evaluation and strategies designed to retain a partner.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to measure the invariance of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) and of the Quality of Relationships Inventory (Friend) (QRI-F) across gender, age, education, and being in a romantic relationship in a Portuguese sample (N = 662). A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the fit of different potential factor structures. The results pointed out that both MJS and QRI-F were most suitable if represented by three first-order factors correlated between them. Results from multi-group analyses suggested there was factorial invariance for these structures across groups, suggesting that the MJS and the QRI-F provide, respectively, an assessment of romantic jealousy and quality of relationship that are equivalent across gender, age, education, and being in a romantic relationship. The study established the strong psychometric properties of its instruments, validating reliability and convergent and discriminant validity, thereby bolstering the research’s overall credibility. Additionally, cognitive jealousy is primarily influenced by heightened conflict values, with education, relationship status, and gender moderating the associations between QRI-F dimensions and MJS behavioral and cognitive jealousy. The research offered in-depth perspectives on jealousy, underscoring its diverse manifestations across demographic variables and illuminating the complexities within the dynamics of friendships.
Article
Full-text available
Romantic jealousy is a multidimensional response to a perceived threat to one’s relationship or self-esteem and the specific emotions experienced in the process are complex and interrelated, affecting one another. Many researchers focus on jealousy-related sex differences, however there are few studies exploring gender-specific jealousy. The current study investigated whether individuals representing various types of biological sex and psychological gender differ in their experience and expression of romantic jealousy. The study involved 367 subjects (213 women, 154 men) ranging in age from 18 to 40 years. The assessments were carried out using the Psychological Gender Inventory based on gender schema theory, proposed by Bem, and the author’s own Questionnaire on the Emotion of Romantic Jealousy. The results of MANOVA showed associations between romantic jealousy and both biological sex and psychological gender, however efforts to save the relationship appear to be the only gender-differentiated response to jealousy. Those with a high level of feminine traits are more likely to take action to preserve their relationships. Overall negative emotions elicited by a partner’s infidelity are stronger in women and in feminine individuals. The results confirm it is necessary to take psychological gender into account in research focusing on jealousy. The findings, however, do not support claims suggesting that men and masculine individuals tend to respond with stronger aggression to a partner’s infidelity, as proposed in the literature.
Article
The fact that delusional disorder (DD) received minimal research attention indicates the need for descriptive studies that will better delineate the clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of DD. We conducted a chart review descriptive study in a tertiary hospital from Turkey. A total of 99 cases of DD were identified through hospital registry system. 57 were male (57.6%), and mean age at first admission was 49.34±13.49. The most common type of DD was persecutory (36.4%), followed by jealous type (28.3%), mixed type (18.2%), and somatic type (16.2%). Jealous type DD patients were more likely to be married, and mixed type DD patients were more likely to be divorced. The presence of hallucinations was significantly associated with history of hospitalization. About one-tenth of the patients had a family history of psychotic spectrum disorder. Comorbid depressive disorder was present in 42.9% of the patients, whereas only 9.2% had comorbid anxiety disorder. Depressive disorder comorbidity in DD seems to be associated with continued treatment for longer periods of time in psychiatry services. While most of our data were comparable with the literature on DD, our divergent findings like higher rates of male patients and jealous type of the disorder might be attributed to the cultural and geographical factors. This situation points out that future research with larger populations and from different regions would contribute to better understanding of clinical and socio-demographical characteristics of delusional disorder.
Article
Full-text available
This study examined behavioral, cognitive, and emotional jealousy in India (N = 1,111) and the United States (N = 1,087). Significant differences were found between men and women for all dimensions of jealousy. Indians reported less cognitive and emotional jealousy than Americans. Religion was found to be a significant predictor of jealousy. Hindus were higher on cognitive and emotional jealousy, while Christians were higher on cognitive jealousy than Muslims. Results also show the interaction of sex and religion affected jealousy. Results of this study indicate both biology and social context influence jealousy.
Article
Full-text available
This research incorporates the sociology of emotions into the study of parenting by examining the theoretical relationship between the mother identity and mothers' emotional response of jealousy to father-child interactions. Using identity theory, we predict that in response to father-child interactions, mothers with a more prominent mother identity will report the emotional experience of jealousy, and mothers with a more salient mother identity will report coping strategies designed to reduce the jealous experience. Since prominence captures the affective dimension of an identity, it should be tied to one's emotional response in a situation. Further, while salience captures the behavioral dimension of an identity, it should be related to the coping strategies which follow from and manage one's emotional response in a situation. The results confirm these expected relationships. We discuss not only how emotion may serve to maintain the mother identity, but also how mothers' emotion may unintentionally serve to maintain social structural arrangements with respect to parenting.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the assertion that culture influences conflict style preference. Data were gathered in India (n = 657), Ireland (n = 311), Thailand (n = 232), and the United States (n = 592). Conflict was measured using Oetzel's Conflict Style Measure. Results confirm that high-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas low-context nations prefer the dominating conflict style more than high-context nations. However, results of this study are contrary to previous research in that high-context nations prefer the compromising style more than do low-context nations, and the nations are mixed in their level of preference for the integrating style.
Article
Full-text available
Jealousy is investigated as a focus for the symbolic interactionist analysis of emotion. We define jealousy in terms of the features of the contexts in which it is evoked. Three related elements are essential: an attachment between two persons; valued resources that flow through and are controlled by that attachment; and intrusion on that attachment by a third person who is perceived by one partner as becoming or wanting to become the receiver or giver of those resources. This partner becomes jealous because of fear of loss of control over the resources that pass through the bond between the two attached people. Identification is seen as the principal mode of attachment threatened by the intrusion. The kinds of resources controlled through identification and the context dependency of the features implying intrusion are examined along with the role of feeling ruies in jealousy management. Implications for theory and methodology in the social psychology of emotion are discussed.
Chapter
A word of explanation seems advisable as to the purpose of this series of lectures: Modern sport and the modern Olympic Movement have developed from the late industrial form of western Christian culture. Just as this (so-called) industrial culture has been the measure of what is modern in general, so also have western value systems, social forms, and behavioral patterns to a great extent defined international sport.
Article
According to the evolutionary model of psychology, biological influences may be a force behind many gender differences in relationship strategies and responses to relationship issues. For example, prior research has shown that males indicated more distress in relation to sexual infidelity, whereas females indicated more distress at the emotional infidelity of their partner. The current study attempted to replicate and extend this previous research by also examining relevant attitudinal factors possibly related to responses to infidelity. Participants (N = 156) were surveyed regarding probable responses to relationship infidelity (sexual vs. emotional infidelity), and measures of participants’ sexual attitudes and romantic beliefs were obtained. Results indicate a clear gender difference: Women were more likely to choose emotional infidelity as most distressing, while more men chose sexual infidelity as most distressing. For the men and women who did choose the same type of infidelity as most distressing, their ratings of the intensity of the distress did not differ. Sexual attitudes were found to be significant in predicting distress caused by either type of infidelity. Romantic beliefs were only significant in predicting distress due to emotional infidelity.
Article
The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication examines the multifunctional ways in which seemingly productive communication can be destructive-and vice versa-and explores the many ways in which dysfunctional interpersonal communication operates across a variety of personal relationship contexts. This second edition of Brian Spitzberg and William Cupach's classic volume presents new chapters and topics, along with updates of several chapters in the earlier edition, all in the context of surveying the scholarly landscape for new and important avenues of investigation. Offering much new content, this volume features internationally renowned scholars addressing such compelling topics as uncertainty and secrecy in relationships; the role of negotiating self in cyberspace; criticism and complaints; teasing and bullying; infidelity and relational transgressions; revenge; and adolescent physical aggression toward parents. The chapters are organized thematically and offer a range of perspectives from both junior scholars and seasoned academics. By posing questions at the micro and macro levels, The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication draws closer to a perspective in which the darker sides and brighter sides of human experience are better integrated in theory and research. Appropriate for scholars, practitioners, and students in communication, social psychology, sociology, counseling, conflict, personal relationships, and related areas, this book is also useful as a text in graduate courses on interpersonal communication, ethics, and other special topics. © 2007 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
Article
This article offers an alternative framework for understanding ‘communal’ conflict in India. Largely because recurring sectarian conflicts involve groups whose boundaries are demarcated by religion, most scholars have focused their attention on either specific religious doctrines or the policy of secularism to explain the phenomenon. In this article it is argued that significance of religion, secularism or anti-secularism has been overemphasized in the interpretation of communal conflict in India. The concept of ‘racialization’ is deployed to argue that in India communal identities have in fact been ‘racialized’ and recurring conflicts share striking structural and ideological similarities with racial conflicts in other parts of the world. A historical narrative of the political process of ‘racialization’ of identities in India is offered with the aim of re-thinking existing explanations of such conflicts.