ArticlePDF Available

A systematic review of romantic jealousy in relationships


Abstract and Figures

Romantic jealousy is a complex emotion activated by a real or perceived threat to the relationship. Romantic jealousy is an important phenomenon in public health, as it brings consequences for the subject, the couple and the rival, even to the point of death. This theory-based study performed a systematic review of the research published in major international databases and platforms, as of December, 2016. The results of 230 studies that met the inclusion criteria were classified in pursuance of the variables associated with jealousy: a) personal variables (differences in sex, sexual orientation, hormones / use of contraceptives, self-esteem, attachment style and use of alcohol); b) interpersonal variables (romantic love, satisfaction and violence); c) sociocultural variables (transcultural comparisons, features of the rival and social networks). Future studies, with sufficient statistical robustness, should achieve a clinical formulation that indicates the relevance and predictive power of each variable.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright 2017 by Sociedad Chilena de Psicología Clínica
ISSN 0716-6184 (impresa) · ISSN 0718-4808 (en línea)
2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
A systematic review of romantic jealousy in relationships
Una revisión sistemática de los celos románticos en la relación de pareja
Nancy Consuelo Martínez-León
Universidad de Granada, España
Universidad El Bosque, Colombia
Juan José Peña
Universidad El Bosque, Colombia
Hernán Salazar
Universidad El Bosque, Colombia
Andrea García
Universidad El Bosque, Colombia
Juan Carlos Sierra
Centro de Investigación Mente, Cerebro y Comportamiento (CIMCYC), Universidad de Granada, España
Rec (27 de febrero de 2017) Acept (2 de mayo de 2017)
Romantic jealousy is a complex emotion activated by a real or perceived threat to the relationship. Romantic
jealousy is an important phenomenon in public health, as it brings consequences for the subject, the couple
and the rival, even to the point of death. This theory-based study performed a systematic review of the re-
search published in major international databases and platforms, as of December, 2016. The results of 230
studies that met the inclusion criteria were classied in pursuance of the variables associated with jealousy:
a) personal variables (differences in sex, sexual orientation, hormones / use of contraceptives, self-esteem,
attachment style and use of alcohol); b) interpersonal variables (romantic love, satisfaction and violence); c)
sociocultural variables (transcultural comparisons, features of the rival and social networks). Future studies,
with sufcient statistical robustness, should achieve a clinical formulation that indicates the relevance and
predictive power of each variable.
Keywords: Jealousy, indelity, relationship, systematic review, spousal violence.
Los celos románticos son una emoción compleja que se activa ante una amenaza real o percibida a la relación
sentimental. Constituyen un fenómeno relevante en salud pública por las consecuencias para sí mismo, la
pareja y el rival, llegando incluso hasta la muerte. El presente estudio teórico realiza una revisión sistemática
de investigaciones publicadas en las principales bases de datos y plataformas internacionales, hasta diciembre
del 2016. Los resultados de los 230 estudios que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión fueron clasicados
en función de las variables asociadas a los celos: a) personales (diferencias de sexo, orientación sexual, hor-
monas/uso de anticonceptivos, autoestima, estilo de apego y consumo de alcohol); b) interpersonales (amor
romántico, satisfacción y violencia); y c) socioculturales (comparaciones transculturales, características del
rival y redes sociales). Futuros estudios, con suciente robustez estadística, deberán lograr una formulación
clínica que indique la relevancia y el poder de predicción de cada variable.
Palabras clave: Celos, indelidad, pareja, revisión sistemática, violencia conyugal.
* Correspondence: should be addressed to Nancy Consuelo Martínez-León, Psychology Department, Universidad El Bosque. Carrera 9 No. 131 A – 02,
Bogotá (Colombia), E-mail:
Note: The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the research project, “Multidimensional analysis of the conduct of jealousy,” of the El
Bosque University and the Psychologist Natalia Caraballo, for their contributions.
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
SyStematic review of romantic jealouSy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
Romantic jealousy is a complex affective emotion which
is akin to the very human nature in intimate relationships;
romantic jealousy is also indispensable for social order
(Clanton, 1996). Romantic jealousy is the subject of study
of human and social sciences (De Silva, 1997; Osamu,
2016) from different psychological and psychiatric currents
(Pines, 1992; Soyka, Naber, & Volcker, 1991).White (1981)
states that romantic jealousy can be dened “as a complex
set of thoughts, feelings and actions that follow a threat to
self-esteem and / or threaten the existence or quality of the
relationship. These threats are generated by the perception
of a real or potential attraction between the partner and
a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (p.24). Hart and Legerstee
(2013) state that jealousy is a state which – depending on
the context – can arouse emotions like sadness (loss), anger
(treason), or fear or anxiety (loneliness).
There are different types of romantic jealousy. Buunk
(1997), subdivides them into: a) reactive jealousy, caused by
intimate behavior of a partner with a third party; b) anxious
jealousy, focused on the possibility that the couple is sexually
or emotionally involved with someone else; c) preventive
jealousy, aimed at preventing intimate contact of the partner
with a third party upon slight indications of interest. Pfeiffer
and Wong (1989), while developing the Multidimensional
Jealousy Scale, argued that jealousy can be: a) emotional
jealousy – reaction to the perceived threat; b) cognitive
jealousy – concerns about the involvement of the partner in
indelity c) behavioral jealousy – monitoring behaviors. The
American Psychiatric Association (2013) DSM-5, classies
jealousy as follows: (a) obsessive jealousy, as a “specied
related disorder” of another compulsive-obsessive disorder;
and (b) jealousy-type within the delusional disorder.
Romantic jealousy can become pathological, with serious
consequences, when the ability to control it is lost. This may
lead even to the point of killing the partner (Mužinié et al.,
2003), as concluded by Harris (2003) in the meta-analysis
of the literature of jealousy-driven homicides (20 reports
from different countries) and the Chicago Homicide Dataset,
which reported 1,361 victims between the years 1965 and
2000, where sexual jealousy and sexual rivalry were present
and the offenders accused their victims of indelity. After
the murder, 275 perpetrators committed suicide (Block &
Block, 2012).
Research on the topic has a relatively short history. Its
beginnings date back to a symposium on the Convention
of the American Psychological Association in 1977, where
jealousy and envy were legitimized as a topic of scientic
research (Salovey, 1991). However, it was not until the
mid-90s that there began to emerge a large number of
scientic studies analyzing jealousy and its relationship with
different variables (Hart & Legerstee, 2013). For example,
the existence of sex differences based on the evolutionary
hypothesis, depending on the situation of indelity (emotio-
nal or sexual) that activates it (Bendixen, Kennair, & Buss,
2015); the inuence of sexual orientation (Alves, Pereira,
Tieme, & Otta, 2006; Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2013);
the specic characteristics of the rival that causes jealousy
(Buunk & Dijkstra, 2015; Massar & Buunk, 2016); trans-
cultural comparisons (Croucher et al., 2012; Fernández,
Sierra, Zubeidat, & Vera-Villarroel, 2006; Zandbergen &
Brown, 2015); and even the relationship of jealousy with
hormonal changes in estrogen in women (Cobey et al., 2012).
Similarly, studies have been conducted on the way social
networks (Facebook and Snapchat) may continuously incite
this emotion (Halpem, Katz, & Carril, 2017).
It is also stated that romantic jealousy is associated with
more insecure and anxious attachments (Miller, Denes, Diaz,
& Buck, 2014), low self-esteem and insecurity (DiBello,
Rodriguez, Hadden, & Neighbors, 2015) and higher levels
of romantic love (Swami et al., 2012). The potentially in-
herent elevated levels of aggression have been associated
with alcohol problems (Rodriguez, DiBello, & Neighbors,
2015), which would explain the perpetration of frequent
episodes of intimate partner violence (Kar & O’Leary,
2013; Llor-Esteban, García-Jiménez, Ruiz-Hernández, &
Godoy-Fernández, 2016; López-Ossorio, González Álvarez,
Buquerín Pascual, García, & Buela-Casal, 2017) and end
up affecting satisfaction, quality and commitment in the
relationship (Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014). The dating
violence start from adolescence (Cortés-Ayala et al., 2015;
Ureña, Romera, Casas, Viejo, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2015). In turn,
this has also become one of the most frequent reasons for
consultation in couples’ therapy.
In light of the importance of the subject from the scien-
tic, social and public-health related viewpoints, absence of
review articles – as far as is known – compiling studies of
the problem, and the multiplicity of associated variables, this
theory-based study undertook to synthesize the best scientic
evidence available through a systematic review of the main
factors involved in romantic jealousy in relationships. To this
end, items were organized and grouped into three types of
variables: (a) personal variables (differences in sex, sexual
orientation, hormones / use of contraceptives, self-esteem,
attachment style and use of alcohol); (b) interpersonal
variables (romantic love, satisfaction and violence); (c)
sociocultural variables (transcultural comparisons, features
SyStematic review of romantic jealouSy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
of the rival and social networks). The review was conduc-
ted by explicitly and rigorously using methods to identify,
critically evaluate and synthesize the most relevant studies
(Perestelo-Pérez, 2013).
Literature review
A bibliography search was conducted on EBSCOEhost
and ProQuest platforms, as well as the following databases:
Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PsyNet, Redalyc and
Science Direct. The search terms used were: “jealousy”,
“jealous” and in Spanish: “celos”, “celotipia” – types of
jealousy. The search focused on the titles of scientic papers
published in English or Spanish as of December 2016, in
the areas of Health Sciences and Psychology.
Inclusion criteria
The papers selected were articles wherein romantic
jealousy is related with some other variable in adolescents
and / or adults.
The items are classied by variables and year of publica-
tion. Subsequently, the items that met the inclusion criteria
were identied. Whenever difculties were encountered
as to compliance with the criteria, the articles were read
by two reviewers and selected or ruled out by consensus.
Finally, the information was recorded in a bibliographic
record database.
Coding the papers
The entirety of the text of the articles selected was
reviewed, and the following information was extracted:
(a) author/s and year of publication; (b) methodology,
identifying the study design as rated by Montero and León
(2007); (c) sample – recording the number of participants,
gender, sexual orientation and sample type; (d) method for
evaluating romantic jealousy; (e) main results obtained.
Lastly, the papers were classied in the organization va-
riables proposed.
Two hundred and thirty scientic articles published
between 1978 and December 2016 were reviewed. Figure
1 illustrates the process of selecting the articles. The
vast majority of articles discussed three to ve variables
The entirety of the text of the articles selected was reviewed, and the following information was
extracted: a) author/s and year of publication; b) methodology, identifying the study design as rated by
Montero and León (2007); c) sample – recording the number of participants, gender, sexual orientation
and sample type; d) method for evaluating romantic jealousy; e) main results obtained. Lastly, the
papers were classified in the organization variables proposed.
230 scientific articles published between 1978 and December 2016 were reviewed. Figure 1 illustrates
the process of selecting the articles. The vast majority of articles discussed three to five variables
Figure 1. Flowchart of information
through the different stages of the
systematic review-
The authors with the highest
production were A.P. Buunk, B.P. Buunk,
P. Dijkstra, R.B. Hupka, J. Canto and
C.R. Harris. The methodology used in
the studies compiled was ex post facto
Records or citations
identified in the search
Double records deleted
Total number of articles
ruled out on account of
noncompliance with
Total number of articles
selected to decide on
eligibility thereof
Total number of papers
included in the systematic
review synthesis
References excluded for
no having access to full
Figure 1. Flowchart of information through the different stages
of the systematic review-
The authors with the highest production were A.P.
Buunk, P. Dijkstra, R.B. Hupka, J. Canto and C.R. Harris.
The methodology used in the studies compiled was ex post
facto type (71.7%), quasi-experimental (21.7%) and experi-
mental (6.5%). Over half of the studies used college student
samples (60%), followed by general population (27%) and
mixed samples of students and general population (10.4%).
The study conducted by Frederick and Fales (2016) used
the largest and most diverse sample (63,894 people). The
majority of studies measured samples of both sexes (90.4%).
Finally, the research included heterosexual participants
(39.1%), only homosexuals (1.3%) and participants from
different orientations (10.9%). 48.7% of the studies had no
reports vis-à-vis this variable.
Around 40 different instruments have been used in
measuring jealousy. Items derived from scales, auto stan-
dardized reports and questionnaires developed ad hoc. The
most widely used instruments have been the forced choice
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
measures based on the Indelity Dilemmas (Buss, Larsen,
& Semmelroth, 1992; Buss et al., 1999), which were used
in 62 studies (24.6%); the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale
(Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) in 21 (8.3%); the Interpersonal
Jealousy Scale (Mathes & Severa, 1981) used in 13 studies
(5.2%); the Jealousy Scale (Buunk, 1997) used in ten studies
(4%) and the Jealousy Evoking Scenario (Dijkstra & Buunk,
2002) used in seven studies (2.8%) and 59 studies used ad
hoc questionnaires (23.4%). The main results of each of the
variables are integrated below.
Personal variables
One of the most controversial and most widely researched
variables in romantic jealousy is sex – namely, the difference
between men and women in response to different types of
indelity (emotional or sexual indelity), as measured in
scenarios of forced choice and / or continuous measurements
of the physiological responses. The evolutionary hypothesis
states that men may experience more jealousy in the event
of indelity of a sexual nature, and women may do so with
emotional indelity (Bendixen et al., 2015; Buss et al., 1992).
These differences can be moderated mainly by household
size, income and roles (Zengel et al., 2013), processing
signals of emotional and sexual indelity (Schützwohl,
2005), previous experience of indelity (Tagler, 2010) and
sexual orientation. For example, responses both in homo-
sexual men and women – as compared with heterosexuals
of the same sex – were less intense in terms of jealousy
than in scenarios that describe their partner having sex with
another person (Dijkstra et al., 2013). Similarly, a higher
percentage of bisexual men dating women reported being
vexed more by sexual indelity than bisexual men dating
men and bisexual women (Scherer, Akers, & Kolbe, 2013).
However, the evolutionary theory has been debated
by the type of measurement used (forced choice) and the
hypothetical scenario of possible indelity, as the latter may
be a measurement item that may produce errors (DeSteno,
Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002). Studies that do not
use this type of measurement found that men and women
reported high levels of jealousy before sexual indelity
(Green & Sabini, 2006; Harris, 2000).
Given the multiplicity of studies about this variable, there
have been three meta-analyses. In the rst meta-analysis,
Harris (2003) presents 32 items and concludes – through the
study of ve different lines of research – that there is lack
of evidence on sex differences, as there is great variability
amongst men in various samples and only a minority of men
reported that sexual indelity could be worse than emotional
indelity. Harris suggests that this inconsistency in results
can be better explained from a social-cognitive perspective.
The second meta-analysis, presented by Carpenter (2012)
with 54 articles, states that data was not consistent with the
evolutionary hypothesis, as the tendency of men to respond
in this way was given only in samples of American students,
whilst the other data supports the social-cognitive theory.
However, the third meta-analysis – made by Sagarin et al.
(2012) with 40 research papers on the subject – says that
sex differences in jealousy is not a forced choice item; these
emerge using continuous measurements and are not limited
to responses to a hypothetical indelity (Edlund, Heider,
Sherer, Farc, & Sagarin, 2006).
Moreover, it has been reported that – at the biological
level – the phases of the menstrual cycle are associated
with high levels of jealousy, both in single women and
women with a partner (Cobey et al., 2012). However, this
differs when using contraceptive hormones during the in-
fertile cycle; jealousy levels in women with a partner were
signicantly higher (Cobey, Roberts, & Buunk, 2013). A
signicant negative association was also found between the
2D:4D ratio (prenatal testosterone) and emotional intensity
vis-à-vis sexual indelity (Fussell, Rowe, & Park, 2011).
Another individual variable associated with romantic
jealousy is self-esteem. Self-evaluation and self-awareness
are vital in social relationships, and may be mediated by
the opinion others hold about one (Leary, Tambor, Terdal,
& Downs, 1995). It is assumed that individuals with low
self-esteem are more vulnerable to the experience of jealousy
(Mathes, 1992). Initially, some studies found no correlation
between self-esteem and romantic jealousy (Buunk, 1981;
White, 1981). Later on, a negative correlation was found
(Buunk, 1982; Khanchandani & Durham, 2009; Mcintosh,
1989; Salovey & Rodin, 1991). Most research on the subject
has been conducted with explicit (controlled, conscious)
measures of self-esteem, without taking into account the
recent development of measures of implicit aspects (e.g.
automatic or unconscious aspects) of self-esteem (DeSteno,
Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). When the two measures were
used, it was found that men with high levels of jealousy had
explicit low self-esteem, unlike women who had high levels
of implicit self-esteem (Stieger, Preyss, & Voracek, 2012).
As for attachment style, it is recognized that the rst
links a person establishes in their life can be determina-
tive of their relationships in adulthood (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick (1997) and
Retana and Sanchez (2008) argue that people with different
attachment styles have qualitatively different experiences
of romantic jealousy. Burchell and Ward (2011) found that
SyStematic review of romantic jealouSy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
avoidant attachment type, along with having been victims
of sexual indelity, are signicant predictors for men to
experience pathological jealousy. Buunk (1997) found – in
three measures of jealousy – that those who had anxious-
ambivalent attachment style were more jealous than those
with an avoidant style. Also Rodriguez, DiBello, Overup
and Neighbors (2015) concluded that anxious attachment
moderates the association between trust and jealousy, which
in turn affects satisfaction at the couple level (Dandurand
& Lafontaine, 2014). In addition, women who grew up
without the presence of their father reported more anxious
and preventive jealousy (Brummen-Girigori, Buunk,
Dijkstra, & Girigori, 2016); and it is stated that jealousy
may be mediated by differential affection – comparison
with a sibling – during childhood (Rauer & Volling, 2007)
and the last children were more jealous than the rstborn
(Buunk, 1997).
Interpersonal variables: Relationship
Jealousy not only affects the person who feels and
expresses it, but also the partner and their emotional re-
lationship. One of the variables researched was romantic
love – understood as afliative necessity and dependence,
willingness to help and exclusivity and absorption (Rubin,
1970), which have been positively correlated with romantic
jealousy (Orosz, Zoltán, Kiss, Farkas, & Roland-Lévy, 2015;
White, 1984). Retana and Sanchez (2008) found – more in
women than in men – a relationship between addictive love
and jealousy. Sanchez (2009) indicated that people in the
infatuation (obsessive love) stage, followed by those in the
stage of desperate love (harassment and persistent pursuit
of interaction) are those who experience more jealousy.
Swami et al. (2012) reported that the bias present in “blind
love” (positive perception of physical attractiveness of the
partner) in romantic love positively predicts the experience
of anxious jealousy.
With regard to satisfaction and quality in the relationship,
Mathes, Roter and Joerger (1982) reported that jealousy is
negatively associated with marital happiness and positively
associated with the frequency of altercations in the couple.
High scores of jealousy, especially cognitive jealousy
(Elphinston & Noller, 2011) indicated minor adjustment,
satisfaction and perception of quality in the relationship
(Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; DiBello et al., 2015;
Khanchandani & Durham, 2009). Mathes (1986) made
two applications of the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale to the
same sample of people with a period of seven years, and
indicated that the effects of jealousy could be positive, in
that couples were married and their love continued.
Finally, there is strong evidence in the association bet-
ween (physical and verbal) violence and jealousy (Kar &
O’Leary, 2013). The latter are identied as two of the most
important mediators to increase the presence of morbid /
delusional jealousy; those suffering from this condition
reportedly have a greater number of attempted murders
against the partner (Easton & Shackelford, 2009) and alcohol
problems (Rodriguez et al., 2015; Foran & O’Leary, 2008).
DiBello, Neighbors, Rodriguez and Lindgren (2014) found
that drinking was a coping strategy and a mediator between
the most negative aspects of jealousy (cognitive type). Other
potentially moderating factors are the cultural construction
made of possessiveness, acceptance of violence in situations
like indelity and anger (Adams & Williams, 2014; Belus
et al., 2014); stress, lifestyle and social support, along with
beliefs of male domination (Wang, Parish, Laumann, & Luo,
2009). Attachment style and the level of jealousy were also
associated with cyberstalking or harassment via Internet
(Strawhun, Adams, & Huss, 2013). Increased frequency of
violence is indicated in distanced marriages and with young
women (Stieglitz, Gurven, Kaplan, & Winking, 2012).
Sociocultural variables
The sociocultural environment is considered a mediator
of this complex interpersonal emotion, as beliefs and models
can be congured, and communication networks can be esta-
blished to favor or not the appearance of romantic jealousy.
In a study conducted in three countries, Hupka and Zaleski
(1990) argue that the problems concerning situations of
jealousy and envy are similar across industrialized countries,
but the particular events that cause them differ. Buunk and
Hupka (1987) studied populations of seven countries, and
found that for almost all the subjects – kissing, irting and
getting involved sexually evoke a jealous response, whereas
dancing, hugging and having sexual fantasies evoked no
feelings of jealousy. Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid and Buss
(1996) argue that sex differences are consistent in three
countries. However, Zandbergen and Brown (2015) indicate
that culture in sexual indelity could be a better predictor of
jealousy than would gender. For example, Geary, Rumsey,
Bow-Thomas and Hoard (1995) reported that American
men expressed more anxiety regarding sexual indelity as
compared to their counterparts from China. Similar results
were obtained in the comparison of Cuban men vis-à-vis
Spanish men (Canto, Moscato, & Moreno-Jimenez, 2010).
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
Similarly, a study was conducted on the type of rival that
evokes jealousy, through the inventory of 56 characteris-
tics grouped into ve factors: Social Dominance, Physical
Attractiveness, Physical Dominance, Seductive Behavior
and Social Status (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002). Particularly,
physical dominion in both sexes (body and face attractive,
youth, height) and seductive voice (Buunk, Park, Zurriaga,
Klavina, & Massar, 2008; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2015; O’Connor
& Feinberg, 2012) can be threatening. Women are also
affected by the kindness and understanding of the female
rival (Ottesen, Nordeide, Andreaseen, Stronen, & Pallesen,
2011). In cross-cultural comparisons, Buunk and Dijkstra
(2015) report that no differences were found between Iraqi
men and women and those from Kurdistan, whilst differences
were found in the study with populations from Spain and
Argentina (Buunk, Castro, Zurriaga, & González, 2011) and
Kurdistan-Iraqi people responded with much more jealousy
to a variety of features of the rival than did the subjects in
the study with Dutch population.
Finally, research is being conducted on the way the use
of social networks like Facebook is related to jealousy, in
light of the ambiguous information exposed in this realm,
which feeds back images of real or imaginary situations
(Muise, Christodes, & Desmarais, 2009). In this vein, it
was found that women are more likely to feel jealous as
compared to men (McAndrew & Shah, 2013). Likewise,
access to (private or public) messages on Facebook can
encourage jealousy, thereby affecting the emotional state,
the perceived threat and the behavior of the person (Cohen,
Browan, & Borchert, 2014). In addition, the intrusion on
Facebook is related to satisfaction with the partner, through
cognitive jealousy and monitoring behaviors (Elphinston &
Noller, 2011). It was found that women are more involved in
these activities when they feel jealous (Muise, Christodes,
& Desmarais, 2014). However, it was found that Snapchat
can produce more jealousy than Facebook as compared to
other social networks, thereby paving the pathway to other
forms of interactions and data collection (Utz, Muscanell,
& Khalid, 2015).
This study provides the rst systematic review on romantic
jealousy and potentially associated personal, interpersonal
and sociocultural variables. Thus, we have collected and
provided a reliable and accessible synthesis of the scientic
papers published between 1978 and 2016.
The studies analyzed are mostly ex post facto, and
show little diversity as to the origin of the sample – mostly
university students. Therefore, it would be appropriate
to consider more representative samples of communities
(Frederick & Fales, 2016), and to evaluate other moderating
variables such as marital status (Gatzeva & Paik, 2011), age
(Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2010), existence of children
or previous experience of indelity (Zengel et al., 2013). It
is advisable to replicate experimental design studies con-
ducted with variables such as self-esteem (DeSteno et al.,
2006), the status of the rival (Massar & Buunk, 2016) and
emoticons on Facebook (Hudson et al., 2015), inter alia.
Moreover, 41% of the studies did not report the participants’
sexual orientation, and this may be an important mediating
variable (Dijkstra et al., 2013).
It is emphasized that there is a large number of instru-
ments (about 40) which emphasize the evaluation of different
components of the construct. Most have adequate levels of
validity and reliability, albeit only a few feature conrma-
tory factor analysis in different samples (Martínez-León,
Mathes, Avendaño, Peña, & Sierra, in press). We suggest
that the measurement include the results of research on
stimuli that may evoke jealousy (Dijkstra et al., 2010), as
well as on social situations that may incite more jealousy
than others, such as “afternoon coffee vs. dinner invitation”
(Kevin, Knifn, & Wansink, 2012), seles (Halpem et al.,
2017), features of the rival (Buunk et al., 2011) and social
media monitoring (Dainton & Stokes, 2015). Evaluation
of romantic jealousy should be multimodal, integrating the
results of scales, records, interviews with the partner, and
nonverbal measures of emotional stress markers (DeSteno
et al., 2006).
The review conrms that jealousy is not only affected
by personal and interpersonal factors, but by more complex
variables linked to the sociocultural environment. One of
the personal variables – difference of sexes – in light of a
situation of sexual or emotional indelity, has for decades
been the most controversial and studied variable. In this
regard, each of the perspectives – both the evolutionary
theory (Buss et al., 1992) and the cognitive social theory
(Harris, 2003) – have received sufcient empirical support.
Although the theory of “dual perspective” emerges in this
divergence (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996), it is important to
include both methodologies –forced choice and continuous
measures (Bendixen et al., 2015; Sagarin et al., 2012) – and
to extend the studies to different cultures (Carpenter, 2012).
In this vein, the importance of assessing biological
aspects is also evident, as is the case of the inuence of the
use of contraceptive pills (Cobey et al., 2013), the phase of
SyStematic review of romantic jealouSy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
the menstrual cycle (Cobey et al., 2012) and the 2:D 4:D
ratio, prenatal exposure to testosterone (Bendixen et al.,
2015.) in self-reporting jealousy. Similarly, prevalence of
morbid jealousy was found in patients with Parkinson under
dopaminergic therapy (Poletti et al., 2012) and in patients
with brain damage (Kuruppuarachchi & Seneviratne, 2011).
On the other hand – according to the results – self-esteem
can be one of the major mediators of the jealousy response
(DeSteno et al., 2006), as well as attachment, where there is
consensus in that an anxious, fearful and insecure attachment
may partly explain romantic jealousy (Belus et al., 2014).
However, the results are inconclusive in other variables
such as infatuation.
Romantic jealousy is an emotion awakened by a threat
and generates a behavior of opposition to the threat, which
is associated negatively to satisfaction in the relationship
(Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014) depending on the type of
jealousy (morbid), experiences of past indelity (Stieglitz,
Gurven, Kaplan, & Winking, 2012) alcohol use (Dibello
et al., 2014) and the context and response of the partner. In
addition, romantic jealousy can lead to violence and fatal
consequences (Harris, 2003). However, there are few stu-
dies on the response of the partner upon the manifestation
of jealousy. It is known that the more amount of perceived
affection in the relationship, the less jealous response
(Goodboy, Horan, & Booth-Buttereld, 2012). It would
be interesting to include research conducted in the eld of
communications on the expression of jealousy towards the
partner and the experience of uncertainty (Bevan, 2009;
Pytlak, Zerega, & Houser, 2015) as well as how the part-
ner may be reinforcing the response of jealousy with their
attention and approval.
The features of the rival that evoke this emotion are
increasingly clearer, and it has been found at the transcul-
tural level that there are similar characteristics of the rival
causing jealousy, albeit more comparisons are to be made
(Buunk & Dijkstra, 2015). In addition, studies should be
conducted on homosexual population (Dijkstra & Buunk,
2002; Massar & Buunk, 2010). Another key element is
the analysis of the impact generated by social networks on
romantic jealousy, as they constantly feed the interperso-
nal relationships of millions of people (Dainton & Stokes,
2015). Facebook is the network which has the most studies
in this regard (Cohen et al., 2014; Elphinston & Noller,
2011), followed by Snapchat (Utz et al., 2015). However
further studies with WhatsApp and Instagram – inter alia
– are needed, as excess information – both registered and
reported by others – changes the way we interact and our
emotions in front of others.
In sum, this systematic review evinces that jealousy is a
complex phenomenon which can be affected by many factors.
Future studies with sufcient statistical robustness should
achieve a clinical formulation indicating the relevance and
predictive power of each of these factors, in order to shed
light on issues pertaining to psychopathology and underlying
hypotheses, in order to propose effective prevention dating
violence and intervention strategies.
Finally, it should be noted that this study had limitations
related to search criteria (the terms were limited to article
titles) and only included scientic empirical articles publis-
hed in English or Spanish on the topic of romantic jealousy.
Attached in Teps website ( is the list of 230
articles reviewed, including characteristics of the sample, ins-
truments used to assess romantic jealousy and the main results.
Adams, H., & Williams, L. (2014). “It´s not just you two”: A grounder
theory of peer- inuenced jealousy as a pathway to dating violence
among acculturating Mexican American adolescents. Psychology of
Violence, 4, 294-308.
Alves, A., Pereira, M., Tieme, J., & Otta, E. (2006). Emotional and se-
xual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian
sample. Psychological Reports, 98, 529-535.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington D.C., United States:
American Psychiatric Publishing
Barelds, D. P., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. B. (2007). Relations between different
types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14, 176-188. http://dx.doi.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
young adults: A test of a four-category Model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
Belus, J. M., Wanklyn, S. G., Iverson, K. M., Pukay-Martin, N. D.,
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Monson, C. (2014). Do anger and
jealousy mediate the relationship between adult attachment styles and
intimate violence perpetration?. Partner Abuse, 5, 388-406. http://dx.doi.
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Jealousy: Evidence of
strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure
paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212-216.
Bevan, J. L. (2009). General partner and relational uncertainty as consequen-
ces of another person’s jealousy expression. Western Journal of Commu-
nication, 68, 195-218.
Block, C.R., & Block, R. (2012). Margo Wilson´s Contributions to the
Chicago Homicide Dataset: Sexual rivalry and sexual jealousy. Homicide
Studies, 16, 404-427.
Brummen-Girigori, O., Buunk, A., Dijkstra, P., & Girigori, A. (2016).
Father abandonment and jealousy: A study among women on Curacao.
Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 181-184. http://dx.doi.
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
Burchell, J., & Ward, J. (2011). Sex drive, attachment style, relationship
status and previous indelity as predictors of sex differences in romantic
jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 657-661. http://
Buss, D., Larsen, R., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-
Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., Choe, J., Lim, H., Hasegawa, M.,
Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs
about indelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in
the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125-150.
Buunk, A. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related
to various types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 22,
997-1006. 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00136-0
Buunk, A., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. (1996). Sex differences
in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the
Netherlands, Germany and the United States. Psychological Science,
7, 359-363.
Buunk, A., Castro, A., Zurriaga, R., & Gonzáles, P. (2011). Gender diffe-
rences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics: A study
in Spain and Argentina. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42,
Buunk, A., & Dijkstra, P. (2015). Rival characteristics that provoke jea-
lousy: A study in Iraqi Kurdistan. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences,
9, 116-127.
Buunk, A., Park, J., Zurriaga, R., Klavina, L., & Massar, K. (2008).
Height predicts jealousy differently for men and women. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 29, 133-139.
Buunk, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages, Alternative Lifes-
tyles, 4, 357-372.
Buunk, B. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationships to self-
esteem, dependency and reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 8, 310-316
Buunk, B., & Hupka, R. (1987). Cross cultural differences in the elicitation
of sexual jealousy. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 12-22. http://dx.doi.
Canto, J., Moscato, G., & Moreno-Jiménez, P. (2010). Celos y sexismo:
un estudio comparativo entre una muestra española y una mues-
tra cubana. Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 33-43. http://dx.doi.
Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to
sexual versus emotional indelity: Men and women are more similar
than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 25-37. http://dx.doi.
Clanton, G. (1996). A sociology of jealousy. International Journal of Socio-
logy and Social Police, 16, 171-189.
Cobey, K., Buunk, A., Roberts, C., Klipping, N., Appels, N., Zimmerman,
Y., Coelingh, H., & Pollet, T. (2012). Reported jealousy differs as a
function of menstrual cycle stage and contraceptive pill use: A within-
subjects investigation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 395-401.
Cobey, K., Roberts, C., & Buunk, A. (2013). Hormonal contraceptive
congruency: Implications for relationship jealousy. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55, 569-573.
Cohen, E., Bowman, N., & Borchert, K. (2014). Private irts, public
friends: Understanding romantic jealousy responses to an ambiguous
social network site message as a function of message access exclusivity.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 535-541.
Cortés-Ayala, L., Flores, M., Bringas, C., Rodríguez-Franco, L., López-
Cepero, J., & Rodríguez, F. J. (2015). Relación de maltrato en el
noviazgo de jóvenes mexicanos. Análisis diferencial por sexo y nivel
de estudios. Terapia Psicológica, 33, 5-12.
Croucher, S., Homsey, D., Guarino, L., Bohlin, B., Trumpetto, J., Izzo, A.,
Huy, A., & Sykes, T. (2012). Jealousy in four nations: A cross-cultural
analysis. Communication Research Reports, 29, 353-360. http://dx.doi.
Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students’ romantic relationships
on Facebook: Linking the gratication for maintenance to Facebook
maintenance activity and the experience of jealousy. Communication
Quarterly, 63, 365-383.
Dandurand, C., & Lafontaine, M. (2014). Jealousy and couple satisfaction:
A romantic attachment perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 50,
De Silva, P. (1997). Jeaolousy in couple relationships: Nature, assessment
and therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 973-985. http:// (97)00051-X
DeSteno, D., Barlett, M., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex diffe-
rences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-1116. http://
DeSteno, D., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences
in jealousy? Questionin the “tness” of the model. Psychological Scien-
ce, 7, 267-372.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Barlett, M. (2006). Jealousy and the threa-
tened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 626-641. http://dx.doi.
Dibello, A., Neighbors, C., Rodriguez, L., & Lindgren, K. (2014). Coping
with jealousy: The association between maladaptive aspects of jealousy
and drinking problems is mediated by drinking to cope. Addictive
Behaviors, 39, 94-100.
DiBello, A., Rodríguez, L., Hadden, B., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The
green eyed monster in the bottler: Relationship contingent self-esteem,
romantic jealousy, and alcohol-related problems. Addictive Behaviors,
49, 52-48.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D., & Groothof, H. (2010). An inventory and update of
jealousy-evoking partner behaviors in modern society. Clinical Psycho-
logy and Psychotherapy, 17, 329-345.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D., & Groothof, H. (2013). Jealousy in response
to online and ofine indelity: The role of sex and sexual orienta-
tion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 328-36. http://dx.doi.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking
effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology,
32, 829-852.
Easton, J. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Morbid Jealousy and sex
differences in partner-directed violence. Human Nature, 20, 342-350.
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Sherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Sagarin,
B. J. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual
infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 462-470. http://dx.doi.
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook instrusion
and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship. CyberPsy-
chology Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 631-635. http://dx.doi.
Fernández, A. M., Sierra, J. C., Zubeidat, I., & Vera-Villarroel P. (2006).
Sex differences in response to sexual and emotional indelity among
Spanish and Chilean students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
37, 359-365.
Foran, H. M., & O’leary, K. D. (2008). Problem drinking, jealousy, and
anger control: Variables predicting physical aggression against a partner.
Journal of Family Violence, 23, 141-148.
Frederick, D., & Fales, M. (2016). Upset over sexual versus emotional
indelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 45, 175-191.
Fussell, N., Rowe, A., & Park, J. (2011). Masculinized brain and roman-
tic jealousy: Examining the association between digit ratio (2D:4D)
SyStematic review of romantic jealouSy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
and between- and within-sex differences. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 107-111.
Gatzeva, M., & Paik, A. (2011). Emotional and physical satisfaction in
noncohabiting, cohabiting, and marital relationships: The importance
of jealous conict. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 29-42. http://dx.doi.
Geary, D., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C., & Hoard, M. (1995). Sexual jea-
lousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex differences
in adults from China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology,
16, 355-383. (95)00057-7
Goodboy, A., Horan, S., & Booth-Buttereld, M. (2012). Intentional
jealousy-evoking behavior in romantic relationships as a function of
received partner affection and love styles. Communication Quartely,
60, 370.
Green, M., & Sabini, J. (2006). Gender, socioeconomic status, age, and
jealousy: Emotional responses to indelity in national sample. Emotion,
6, 330-334.
Halpem, D., Katz, J. E., & Carril, C. (2017). The online ideal persona vs.
the jealousy effect: Two explanations of why seles are associated with
lower-quality romantic relationships. Telematics and Informatics, 34,
Harris, C. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including
self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence,
and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7,
Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined indelity:
The specic innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082-1091. http://dx.doi.
Hart, S. L., & Legerstee, M. (2013). Handbook of jealousy: Theory,
research, and multidisciplinary approaches. Londres: Wiley-Blackell
Hudson, M., Nicolas, S., Howser, M., Lipsett, K., Robinson, I., Pope, L.,
Hobby, A., & Friedman, D. (2015). Examining how gender and emoti-
cons inuence Facebook jealousy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and So-
cial Networking, 18, 87-92.
Hupka, R., & Zaleski, Z. (1990). Romantic jealousy and romantic envy in
Germany, Poland, and the United States. Behavior Science Research,
24, 17-28.
Kar, H., & O’Leary, D. (2013). Patterns of psychological aggression, do-
minance, and jealousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28,
Kevin, M. Knifn, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2012). It’s not just lunch: Extra-
pair commensality can trigger sexual jealousy. Plos One ,7, 1-4. http://
Khanchandani, L., & Durham, T. (2009). Jealousy during dating among
female college students. College Student Journal, 43, 1272-1278. http://
Kuruppuarachchi, K. A., & Seneviratne, A. (2011). Organic causation of
morbid jealousy. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 528-260. http://dx.doi.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. (1995). Self-
esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Llor-Esteban, B., García-Jiménez, J. J., Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., & Godoy-
Fernández, C. (2016). Prole of partner aggressors as a function of risk
of recivism. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology,
16, 39-46.
López-Ossorio, J. J., González Álvarez, J. L., Buquerín Pascual, S., García,
L. F., & Buela-Casal, G. (2017). Risk factors related to intimate partner
violence pólice recidivism in Spain. International Journal of Clinical
and Health Psychology, 17, 107-119.
Martínez-León, N. C., Mathes, E. W., Avendaño, B.L., Peña, J. J. y Sierra,
J. C. (in press). Psychometric Study of the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale
in Colombian Samples. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología.
Massar, K., & Buunk, A. (2010). Judging a book by its cover: jealousy after
subliminal priming with attractive and unattractive faces. Personality
and Individual Differences, 49, 634-638.
Massar, K., & Buunk, A. (2016). Individual differences in preventive
jealousy determine men’s jealousy after subliminal exposure to rivals
wearing high or low-status clothes. Psychological Reports, 118, 219-
Mathes, E. W. (1986). Jealousy and romantic love: A longitudinal stu-
dy. Psychological Reports, 58, 885-886.
Mathes, E. W. (1992). Jealousy: The psychological data. New York, NY:
University Press of America.
Mathes, E. W., Roter, P., & Joerger, S. (1982). A convergent validity study
of six jealousy scales. Psychological Reports, 50, 1143-1147. http://
Mathes, E.W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking:
Theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psycho-
logical Reports, 49, 23-31.
McAndrew, F., & Shah, S. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy over Face-
book activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2603-2606. http://
Mcintosh, E. (1989). An investigation of romantic jealousy among black
undergraduates. Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 135-142. https://
Miller, M., Denes, A., Diaz, B., & Buck, R. (2014). Attachment Style
Predicts Jealous Reactions to viewing touch between a Romantic Part-
ner and close friend: Implications for internet social communication.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 451-476.
Montero, I., & León, O. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in
psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology,
7, 847-862.
Muise, A., Christodes, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information
than you wanted: Does facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of
jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 13, 441-444. http://dx.doi.
Muise, A., Christodes, E., & Desmarais, S. (2014). “Creeping” or just
information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in
response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21, 35-50.
Mužinié, L., Miroslav, G., Jukié, V., Dordevié, V., Koié, E., & Herceg, M.
(2003). Forensic importance of jeaolusy. Collegium Antropologicum,
27, 293-300.
O’Connor, J., & Feinberg, D. (2012). The inuence of facial masculinity
and voice pitch on jealousy and perceptions of intrasexual rivarly.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 369-373. http://dx.doi.
Orosz, G., Zoltán, G., Kiss, Z. G., Farkas, P., & Roland-Lévy, K. (2015).
Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on
Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-6.
Osamu, K. (2016). Becoming a psychoanalyst: To think about the nature
of jealousy. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 36, 162-170.
Ottesen, L., Nordeide, J., Andreaseen, S., Stronen, J., & Pallesen, S. (2011).
Sex differences in jealousy: A study form Norway. Nordic Psychology,
63, 20-34.
Perestelo-Perez, L. (2013). Standards on how to develop and report sys-
tematic reviews in Psychology and Health. International Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology, 13, 49−57.
S1697-2600 (13)70007-3
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181–196. http://dx.doi.
Pines, A. M. (1992). Romantic jealousy: Five perspectives and an
integrative approach. Psychotherapy, 29, 675-683. http://dx.doi.
Poletti, M., Perugi, G., Logi, Ch., Romano, A., Del Dotto, P., Ceravolo,
R., & Bonucelli, U. (2012). Dopamine agonists and delusional jealousy
TERAPIA PSICOLÓGICA 2017, Vol. 35, Nº 2, 203-212
Nancy Martínez-León, Juan Peña, Hernán Salazar, Andrea García y Juan Carlos Sierra
in Parkinson’s disease: A cross-sectional prevalence study. Movement
Disorders, 27, 1679-1682.
Pytlak, M. A., Zerega, L. M., & Houser, M. L. (2015). Jealousy evocation:
Understanding commitment, satisfaction, and uncertainty as predictors
of jealousy-evoking behaviors. Communication Quarterly, 63, 310–328
Rauer, A. J., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Differential parenting and sibling jea-
lousy: Developmental correlates of young adults romantic relationships.
Personal Relationships, 14, 495-511.
Retana, B. E., & Sánchez, R. (2008). El papel de los estilos de apego y
los celos en la asociación con el amor adictivo. Psicología Iberoame-
ricana, 16, 15-22.
Rodríguez, L., DiBello, A., & Neighbors, C. (2015). Positive and nega-
tive jealousy in the association between problem drinking and IPV
perpetration. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 987-997. http://dx.doi.
Rodríguez, L., DiBello, A., Overup, C., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The
Price of distrust: trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse.
Partner Abuse, 6, 298-319.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Persona-
lity and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L.,
Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A
meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595-
Salovey, P. (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New York, NY:
The Gilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1991). Provoking jealousy and envy: Domain
relevance and self-esteem threat. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology, 10, 395-413.
Sánchez, R. (2009). Efectos diferenciales del bienestar subjetivo, au-
torrealización y celos en las fases del amor pasional. Enseñanza e
Investigación en Psicología, 14, 5-21.
Scherer, C., Akers, E., & Kolbe, K. (2013). Bisexuals and the sex
differences in jealousy hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 30, 1064.
Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: the processing of cues
to indelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 288-299. http://dx.doi.
Sharpsteen, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult
romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
Soyka, M., Naber, G., & Volcker, A. (1991). Prevalence of delusional
jealousy in different psychiatric disorders: An analysis of 93 cases.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 549-553.
Stieger, S., Preyss, A., & Voracek, M. (2012). Romantic jealousy and im-
plicit and explicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences,
32, 51-55.
Stieglitz, J., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H., & Winking, J. (2012). Indelity,
jealousy, and wife abuse among Tsimane forager- farmers: Testing evo-
lutionary hypotheses of marital conict. Evolution and Human Behavior,
33, 438- 448.
Strawhun, J., Adams, N., & Huss, M. (2013). The assessment of cybers-
talking: An expanded examination including social networking, attach-
ment, jealousy, and anger in relation to violence and abuse. Violence and
Victims, 28, 715-730.
Swami, V., Inamdar, S., Stieger, S., Nader, I., Pietschnig, J., Tran, U., &
Voracek, M. (2012). A dark side of positive illusions? Associations
between the love-is-blind and the experience of jealousy. Personality
and Individual Differences, 53, 796-800.
Tagler, M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: Comparing the in-
fluence of previous infidelity among college students and adults.
Social Psychological Personality Science, 1, 353-360. http://dx.doi.
Ureña, J., Romera, E. M., Casas, J. A., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2015).
Psychometric properties of Psychological Dating Violence Questionnaire:
A study with Young couples. International Journal of Clinical and Health
Psychology, 15, 52-60.
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy
than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberp-
sychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141-146. http://dx.doi.
Wang, T., Parish, W., Laumann, E., & Luo, Y. (2009). Partner violence and
sexual jealousy in china: A population-based survey. Violence Against
Women, 15, 774-798.
White, G. (1981). Jealousy and partner´s perceived motives for attraction
to a rival. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 24-30.
White, G. L. (1984). Comparison of four jealousy scales. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 18, 115-130. /10.1016/0092-6566
Zandbergen, D., & Brown, S. G. (2015). Cultural and gender differences in
romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 122-127.
Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy
in response to indelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a
national random sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54,
47-51. /10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.001
... This supports myriad research studies (Love et al., 2020), but also connects some of the past research in one specific area. These findings further prior findings that hostile parent/child relationships predict later impediments to one's adjustment and well-being as well as negative interpersonal behaviors (Ki et al., 2018;Lansford et al., 2010;Martínez-León et al., 2017;Rohner & Khaleque, 2002;Rohner & Lansford, 2017). ...
... We examined which variables might mediate the relationship between maternal rejection and S-S, which across both models was greater jealousy and being biologically female. Perceptions of parental rejection in childhood have been associated with cognitive distortions, such as jealousy, in adulthood romantic relationships (Ibrahim et al., 2015;Martínez-León et al., 2017). Individuals who experience distress as a result of romantic jealousy may feel uncertainty in the relationship and seek reassurance (Bhogal & Howman, 2019;Reed et al., 2016;Rohner & Lansford, 2017). ...
... Future studies, including multi-study projects, should examine potential mechanisms for these statistical relationships, as well as the intensity and frequency of S-S behaviors. This could be an important outcome to add to the romantic jealousy research, which tends to primarily focus on emotional consequences, dissolution of romantic relationships, and aggression/violence (Martínez-León et al., 2017). ...
Full-text available
According to interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory), people who perceive rejection by important others experience more psychological maladjustment than those who do not perceive rejection. IPARTheory predicts universal responses to perceived rejection or acceptance, making it important to explore its predictive ability with theoretically-related constructs like romantic relationships. Participants (N = 443; M age = 36.05 years; SD = 11.26; 46% identifying as men, 45.4% reported their assigned sex at birth as male) completed surveys regarding perceptions of their childhood relationships with their mother, interpersonal anxiety, engagement in romantic surveillance, jealousy, infidelity, sociosexual orientation, and gender norms. We examined how well perceived maternal acceptance-rejection (independent variable) predicted reasons to spy/stalk on a romantic partner and the likelihood of spying/stalking (dependent variables). For both models, we explored psychological maladjustment, interpersonal anxiety, jealousy, and sociosexuality as mediators and included correlated demographic variables as covariates in the models. Jealousy mediated perceived maternal rejection and increased surveilling. Our study broadens the understanding of variables that influence surveilling behaviors in romantic relationships in the United States, and provides support for the universal application and predictive ability of IPARTheory.
... Jealousy is an affective state activated by a perceived threat to a valued relationship by a third party (Buss, 2001;Martínez-León et al., 2017). This feeling motivates people to protect and maintain their relationship and/or to compete with and drive away rivals. ...
... However, there is substantial intra-sexual variability in sexual versus emotional jealousy, and different personal, interpersonal, and contextual settings can affect experiences of emotional and sexual jealousy (Martínez-León et al., 2017;Valentova, 2019). Although still understudied, characteristics of the rival are among the factors that modulate the jealous response (Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998, 2002Sagarin et al., 2003Sagarin et al., , 2012. ...
Full-text available
Jealousy is an affective state activated by a perceived threat to a valued relationship by a third party. On average, males report higher distress about their partner’s sexual extra-pair involvement, while females show higher emotional jealousy. These sex differences are specific to heterosexuals and to contexts with potential reproductive costs. We tested the effect of sex and sexual orientation of the individual, and sex of the partner and potential rival on sexual versus emotional jealousy. Sexual orientation was operationalized as a willingness to form long-term relationships with men, women, or both. Heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual males (N = 416) and females (N = 1328) from Brazil, Chile, and Portugal responded to the Sexual vs. Emotional Jealousy Scale and then ranked their distress to four hypothetical scenarios: sexual or emotional involvement of their partner with a male or a female rival. This is the first study to simultaneously test for an effect of self, partner, and rival sex on jealousy: bisexual individuals responded twice, about a hypothetical female and about a male partner. Individuals were most preoccupied with their partner's emotional relationship with a rival of the same sex as the respondent. Heterosexual males reported higher sexual jealousy than the other groups, but did not differ from bisexual men responding about female partners. Bisexual females were more upset by sexual extra-pair involvement of their female (versus male) partners with a male rival. Thus, jealousy was influenced by sex and sexual orientation of the individuals, sex of the partners, and also by sex of the rivals: same-sex rivals were perceived as most threatening. This suggests that besides being a strategy to maintain a primary relationship, jealousy is particularly sensitive to same-sex competitors, being an intra-sexual competition strategy.
... Therefore, jealousy implies a third party's actual (or imagined) presence that can act as a rival, competing for a person's attention, interest, and loyalty in which the first party is emotionally or sexually invested (Parrott & Smith, 1993). Martínez-León et al. (2017) identified three types of jealousy related to different motivations and goals, and, for the current research, we adopted a similar approach. Alternatively referred to as emotional jealousy, Reactive jealousy is caused by the partner's engagement in close or intimate relationships with potential rivals. ...
The present study investigated the associations between social media use integration and Technological Intimate Partner Violence (TIPV) while also exploring the mediating role of the three dimensions of jealousy and the moderating role of moral absolutism. Our sample consisted of 404 adults aged 18 to 59. The results indicated a significant positive effect of social media use integration on cognitive jealousy and TIPV. Social media use integration was correlated with behavioral jealousy and TIPV, while TIPV was positively associated with all three dimensions of jealousy. The moderated mediation analysis suggested that behavioral jealousy fully mediated the effect of social media use integration toward TIPV at all levels of moral absolutism, while cognitive jealousy had a partial mediating effect only at medium and high levels of moral absolutism. We discuss our findings by pointing out that (a) various dimensions of jealousy might be influenced differently by social media use integration, and (b) individuals with high levels of moral absolutism might be more prone to cognitive jealousy after being exposed to prolonged social media use. We acknowledge that our results may have limited generalizability as our sample was primarily female. Research involving larger portions of male participants would be important to pursue.
... It has been confirmed that feeling more love toward the partner (Attridge, 2013;Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) and being in a satisfying relationship (Attridge, 2013), cause people to feel higher emotional reactions or emotional jealousy. But having suspicious thoughts (cognitive jealousy) is negatively associated with love, relational satisfaction (Attridge, 2013;Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) and could lead to aggression toward the partner (Martínez-León et al., 2017). Moreover, Cognitive and behavioral jealousies could be more correlated with psychopathy (McHoskey, 2001) and it's shown that behavioral jealousy is associated with all dimensions of the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) (Chin et al., 2017). ...
Full-text available
This study examined the mediating role of romantic jealousy (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional jealousies) in the relationship between romantic attachment styles and both types of mate retention domains (cost-inflicting and benefit- provisioning mate retention behaviors) in married individuals in Iran. Our sample consisted of 209 married adults. The results showed that: (1) there was a positive correlation between anxious attachment style and both cost-inflicting and benefit-provisioning mate retention behaviors; (2) avoidance attachment style had a negative association with benefit- provisioning mate retention behaviors; (3) three types of romantic jealousy positively mediated the association between anxious attachment style and cost-inflicting mate retention behaviors; (4) the relationship between avoidance attachment style and the cost-inflicting domain was negatively mediated by emotional jealousy.
... Despite a growing body of work demonstrating the importance of jealousy in individuals' lives (see Martínez-León et al., 2017 for a review), existing measures of jealousy are limited by a number of considerable concerns. First, many of them use outdated language (e.g., referring to "opposite sex" individuals) that effectively rejects sexual and gender minorities in a microagressive manner. ...
Full-text available
This study examined the construct of anticipated jealousy, conceptually clarifying the components of this construct and creating an optimized scale. Total of 18 items from three widely used self-report measures of jealousy (Multidimensional Jealousy Scale–Emotional Subscale, Anticipated Sexual Jealousy Scale, and Chronic Jealousy Scale) and additional 11 potential anticipated jealousy items were given to 1852 individuals in relationships. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and item response theory (IRT) analyses were used to develop and evaluate the Anticipated Jealousy Scale (AJS). By augmenting the item pool, the results highlighted that anticipated jealousy could take two distinct forms: (1) sexual—getting upset over thoughts of a partner engaging in sexual activity with someone else and (2) possessive—getting upset over a partner forming friendships and emotional bonds with others. IRT analyses helped identify the five most effective items for assessing each of those domains to create the AJS. Results suggested that the subscales of the AJS offered greater precision and power in detecting meaningful differences among respondents than the existing measures, representing short yet psychometrically optimized scales. The AJS subscales demonstrated strong convergent validity with other measures of anticipated sexual and possessive jealousy, and excellent construct and discriminant validity with anchor scales from the nomological net surrounding the construct. Finally, regression analyses demonstrated distinct predictors and correlates for anticipated sexual jealousy, anticipated possessive jealousy, and chronic jealousy. Given the potential utility in distinguishing between the many forms of jealousy, AJS offers an optimized scale measuring anticipated sexual and possessive jealousy.
... Romantic jealousy and suspicion of infidelity have been found to be associated with more insecure and anxious attachments, low self-esteem and insecurity, and alcohol abuse (Martinez-León et al., 2017). Romantic jealousy has also been found to be associated with decreased relationship quality and satisfaction (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007), and greater uncertainty J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f about one's relationship (Bush et al., 1988). ...
Full-text available
Efforts to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV) have been informed by emerging research on common triggers of IPV and the importance of engaging with couple dynamics. This paper reports on secondary data analysis from the qualitative evaluations of the SASA! intervention in Uganda, (conducted in 2012 involving 40 community members) and the Indashyikirwa intervention in Rwanda, (conducted between 2014 and 2018 involving 14 couples and 36 other stakeholders). It explores the under-researched linkages between romantic jealousy and IPV, and describes how these interventions mitigated it. A qualitative approach using interviews and focus groups with women and men was used. Overall, jealousy was common in both settings, and led to relationship challenges including breakdown of trust; quarrels about resources; conflict, controlling behaviours, and ultimately, physical and emotional IPV. Jealousy was seen to operate through different gendered pathways. Participants described women to question men about their whereabouts and intentions because of jealousy or the suspicion of infidelity, whereas participants described men to be jealous or suspicious of women socialising with, or attracting the attention of, other men and using violence in response. Through gender transformative strategies, SASA! and Indashyikirwa were described by participants to reduce the contribution of romantic jealousy to conflict and violence by encouraging improved relationship faithfulness and honesty; supporting reduced suspicion through improved relationship trust and communication; and identifying jealousy and suspicion of, or real infidelity, as direct triggers of IPV. While these programmes show promising results, gaps remain including a lack of standardised measures of the multidimensional concept of romantic jealousy. Recognition that programmes should be evaluated for their ability to reduce romantic jealousy when identified as a trigger for IPV in a specific context should also be emphasised. More research is also needed on the forms, gendered pathways, and consequences of romantic jealousy to inform context-specific programming.
Full-text available
The present study aimed to develop a culturally relevant and indigenous scale to assess the jealousy among polygamous women In study one, 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews with the age range of 18-60 years women (Polygamous, monogamous, experts) were conducted, and 65 items of the scale were empirically validated through content validation and Exploratory Factor Analysis on polygamous women (N = 200). The findings indicated that the Jealousy Scale for Polygamous Women has five factors having internally consistent (emotional, cognitive, behavioral, sexual, and possessive jealousy). Further, independent t-test was applied to seek the differences between first and second wives on jealousy and its subscales. Means scores revealed a significant differences between first and second wives as the first wives showed more emotional, cognitive, sexual, and overall jealousy, while lower possessive jealousy than the second wives. Study II was a conducted to determine the convergent validity with psychological distress while discriminant validity with psychological well-being of newly developed Jealousy scale for polygamous women. Both were subscales of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI, Veit, & Ware, 1983). The findings revealed the positive relationship between jealousy and its sub-scales with psychological-distress while the negative relationship with psychological well-being among polygamous women. Results indicate Jealousy Scale for Polygamous Women is a valid, reliable, and promising tool in the indigenous setting.
Full-text available
Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic has affected the physical and mental health of the population in general, in addition, during the quarantine, online intimate partner violence behaviours may arise, which increases the probability of psychopathological symptoms, with alterations in emotional and affective states. Objective: The purpose this study was examine the relationship between psychopathological symptoms and online intimate partner violence behaviours during the Covid-19 pandemic. Method: The design was correlational cross-sectional comparative, the sample nonprobability with the participation of 588 people of between 18 and 46 years of age. Symptom Checklist- SCL-36, Cyber dating abuse questionnaire and Sociodemographic questionnaire. Results: Out of the total, 60 % reported having perpetrated a controlling behaviour and 54.3 % claimed to have been a victim of online abuse in your relationship, during the quarantine. It was found that there is a positive and significant relationship between cyber abuse, for both victimization and perpetration, and the psychopathological Symptomsby the Symptom Check List-36. A positive and significant relationship was also found between some symptoms assessed by the Symptom Check List-36 and sleep quality, cigarette consumption, and the intake of alcoholic and energising beverages during the quarantine. These results show that mental health may be affected by the confinement during the pandemic. Moreover, during the quarantine, intimate partner violence behaviours may arise, altering the emotional and affective state of individuals, with the appearance of symptoms of psychological disorders. Conclusions: Therefore, future investigations should be geared towards intervention programmes to reduce the psychological impact on the people affected.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Liebeskummer, die emotionale Reaktion auf romantische Zurückweisung, ist ein normaler Bestandteil des Lebens und wird üblicherweise nicht als psychische Erkrankung verstanden. Dennoch kann er zu viel Leid führen und ist ein wichtiger Risikofaktor für Suizid bei Jugendlichen und im jungen Erwachsenenalter. In diesem Artikel wird der Liebeskummer genauer unter die psychiatrische Lupe genommen. Dabei werden seine Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Therapie dargestellt, die Frage gestellt, ob er mehr als eine Anpassungsstörung sein kann und sein soziologischer Kontext und seine Zukunft untersucht. Dem Liebeskummer, so das Fazit, sollte in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie mehr Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden. Zudem kann er der psychiatrischen Forschung als Modell dienen, um Aspekte stressbezogener Erkrankungen wie Anpassungsstörungen, anhaltende Trauer, posttraumatische Belastungsstörungen, Depressionen und Sucht besser untersuchen und verstehen zu können.
Full-text available
Romantic jealousy is one of the most complex emotions people experience in their relationships; people may reach high levels of violence as a result of pathological jealousy. This paper sought to adapt to Spanish language use and examine the psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS). This scale evaluates the negative emotion resulting from actual or threatened loss of a loved one to a rival. We used a Colombian sample of 603 Colombian adults (59,03% women). Factor models were tested by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), in order to confirm the stability of the internal structure of the scale. The CFA supported the robustness of a one-dimensional structure with 18 items. Good internal consistency and evidence of external validity were found, as well as adequate adjustment parameters under the item response theory. In the analysis of the differential functioning of the items by sex, five items measured the different latent trait in men and women. The data indicate that the revised Spanish version of the IJS is a useful instrument to assess romantic jealousy.
Full-text available
Background/Objective: Some professionals, such as police officers, are required to prevent violent behavior, such as intimate partner violence (IPV). For this task they use actuarial tools designed to estimate the risk of occurrence of further violence after a previous complaint (police recidivism), taking into account risk and protective indicators which they can observe, in spite of they are not behavioral assessment experts. Method: To try to refine the police risk assessments carried out in Spain since 2007 and to improve the two tools available on the Spanish VioGén System, Police Risk Assessment and Risk Evolution (VPR3.1 and VPER3.0), this paper, using an epidemiological design, in a sample of 6,613 new cases of IPV of Spain, studies empirical relationships among 65 indicators (56 risk and 9 protection) and IPV police recidivism up to six months. Results: It resulted in a recidivism rate of 7.4%, finding statistically significant associations of 46 indicators. Conclusions: Empirical evidence about static indicators and new relevant dynamic indicators in the victims’ police protection management is presented. Practical implications for future police risk assessments are discussed.
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.
Drawing on social-psychology and communication theories, we advance a theoretical model to explain the negative effects of selfies on romantic relationships. We suggest that this individualistic use of social media is related to selfie related conflicts between partners through two processes: (1) jealousy, stemming from excessive individual photo-sharing or comments about those pictures, and (2) that, by sharing flattering images of oneself, an online ideal persona is created in the picture-taker’s mind that diverges from real-life. These conflicts in turn reduce perceived quality of the romantic relationships. To test the model we conducted a two-wave, representative panel survey, separated by one year. Results support a partial mediation model between taking selfies and lower perception of relationship quality, suggesting that both mediators, jealousy and the online ideal persona, have a negative effect on romantic relationship over time.
This study evaluates sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity in two Spanish-speaking samples. An extension of previous findings with Anglo, European, and Asian students leads to the prediction that men report being more distressed by sexual than by emotional infidelity, and women report the reverse. Five hundred and eleven students from Spain and Chile respond to a questionnaire consisting of forced-choice-scenarios. Significant sex differences in jealousy as a function of type of infidelity emerges and this is consistent with previous research on jealousy.
The goal of the present study was to examine whether women who were abandoned by their father experience more anxious, preventive and reactive jealousy than women who grew up in the presence of their father. The sample consisted of 186 female undergraduate students from Curaçao (age M = 22.88; SD = 5.68) who were categorized into two groups: women who grew up without their father and women who grew up in the presence of their father. We found that women who were abandoned by their father reported significantly more anxious and preventive jealousy than women who grew up in the presence of their father. There were no significant differences between these two groups in reactive jealousy. Possible explanations are discussed in light of the potential function of jealousy for females who grew up without a father.
The purpose of my article is to face up to, and to know more, about the depth-psychology of jealousy, which constitutes a part of my personal history of taking the path to becoming a psychiatrist and choosing to specialize in psychoanalysis. In other words, it is closely related to my experience of having achieved success, in a sense, in my early 20s, which made me the object of jealously, and experiencing the anxiety and fear that comes from being a total unknown who becomes one of “the Beatles of Japan.” I became something I wanted to be, but I was also scared of being scolded by God. I was expelled, at least psychologically, from Japan. I fled to London and underwent psychoanalysis. I desperately wanted to learn exactly what was happening to me, reading the story that was repeated in our hearts, in our fantasies, in my songs, and also in reality. In the course of both undergoing and studying psychoanalysis, I encountered something that was the last thing I wanted to recognize: my own sense of jealousy. I then concluded that my songs are created for you—that special someone who is there. They are not in any way created for someone to become just famous or just to please someone jealous.
This study investigated sex differences in jealousy after subliminal exposure to rivals wearing high-status or low-status clothes. It was expected that individual differences in preventive jealousy would moderate the relationship between a rival’s characteristics and jealousy. Participants (Men n = 54, age M = 21.61, SD = 3.47; n = 71 women, age M = 20.72, SD = 1.86) completed a parafoveal subliminal priming paradigm as well as questionnaires about jealousy and preventive jealousy. As predicted, women were not affected by their rival’s status, but women high in preventive jealousy reported more jealousy than women low in preventive jealousy. However, whereas men low in preventive jealousy reported equal amounts of jealousy after exposure to a high-status and a low-status rival, surprisingly, and contrary to the expectations, men high in preventive jealousy reported most jealousy after exposure to a low-status rival. To explain these unexpected results, threats to self-esteem were discussed.
Summasy.-To determine the convergent validicy of 6 measures of jealousy, these measures along with two measures of neuroticism, two measures of romantic love, and a measure of extraversion were factor analyzed. The factors identified were jealousy-neurosis, jealousy, extraversion, and romantic love. An examination of the item format of the three jealousy scales that loaded on the first factor indicated that they might be contaminated by the social desirability response set. An examination of the jealousy scales that loaded on the second factor showed convergence and a weak relationship with neuroticism and romantic love. o Recent interest in jealousy as a research topic has resulted in the construction of a number of jealousy scales. They include the Jealousy Question of Aronson and Pines2 (Adams, 1980); the Self-reported Jealousy and Projective Jealousy Scales of Bringle, Roach, Andler, and Evenbeck (1977); the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale of Mathes and Severa (1981; Mathes, Phillips, Skowron, & Dick, 1981); and the Chronic Jealousy and Relationship Jealousy Scales of G. L. White.3 The Jealousy Question, Self-reported Jealousy Scale, and Projective Jealousy Scale have been found to correlate with various measures of neuroticism while the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale has been reported repeatedly to correlate with romantic love. The purpose of this study was to test the convergent validity of the various jealousy measures by determining (a) whether the various jealousy measures are significantly and highly intercorrelated and (b) whether they are all related to both neuroticism and romantic love. METHOD