A RELATIONAL MODEL OF JEALOUSY: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTEGRATING

ATTACHMENT, OBJECT RELATIONS, AND INTERGENERATIONAL MODELS

Edward Alexander Clarke

B.A., McGill U., 1977
M.A., ~ i m o nFraser U., 1982

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the Department

Psychology

Edward Alexander Clarke 1988

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
December, 1987

All rights reserved. This work may not be

reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

APPROVAL

Name:

Edward Alexander Clarke

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Title of thesis: A-Relational Model of Jealousy: An Exploratory
Study Integrating Attachment, Object ~ e l a t i o n s ,
and Intergenerational Models

Examining Committee:
Chairman :

William R. Krane, Ph.D.

,I'E(mes E. ~arciq', Ph.D.

Senior Suwervisor

R$yiiionp. Koopman, Ph .D.

Meredith M. ~ i m ~ a l Ph.D.
l ,

Paul Bakan, Ph.D.

I n t e r n a m t e r n a l Examiner

Dept of- ~sychology

University of British Columbia
Date Approved:

-be2 4 8 7

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby g r a n t t o Simon Fraser U n l v e r s l t y the r i g h t t o lend

my t h e s i s , proJect o r extended essay ( t h e t i t l e o f which i s shown below)

t o users o f t h e Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r
s i n g l e copies o n l y f o r such users o r I n response t o a request from t h e
l i b r a r y o f any o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y ,

or o t h e r educational I n s t i t u t i o n , on

i t s own behalf o r f o r one o f I t s users.

I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission

f o r m u l t i p l e copying o f t h i s work f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted

by me o r t h e Dean o f Graduate Studies.

I t i s understood t h a t copying

o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s work f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed

w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n permission.

T i t l e of Thes i s/Project/Extended

A Relational Model of Jealousy:

Essay

An Exploratory Study

Integrating Attachement, Object Relations Bnd Intergenerational

Author :

Edward Clarke
(name

ABSTRACT

The present study involved the development and exploratory

testing of a relational model of jealousy. The
individual-psychological, sociobiological, and socio-cultural
approaches to understanding jealousy and related gender
differences were first reviewed. Then the basics of the
attachment, object relations, and intergenerational models were
described. Common themes derived from these perspectives were
integrated into a framework for understanding the origins and
expressions of relational jealousy in men and women. It was
proposed that young adults identified as being in specific
attachment-individuation and family of origin categories would
have different levels of reported jealousy. It was also expected
that in certain categories the number of men would be
proportionally higher than the number of women and that the
reverse would be true for certain other categories. University
students (92 women and 62 men) completed an objective jealousy
measure, a quasi-projective test of the attachment-individuation
balance, and a Q-sort which measured the experience of family of
origin relationships. Results revealed that
attachment-individuation categories differentiated the degree of

reported jealousy for both men and women. That is, those people
categorized as -anxiously attached showed a high level of

jealousy, those categorized as self-sufficient detached showed a

--."
"

low level of jealousy, and those categorized as securely

attached and dependent detached showed medium levels of
.-.

iii

jealousy.
The family of origin categories differentiated
-

*--.

jealousy levels in the predicted directions for women but not

for men. That is, the women in the enmeshed category had a high
level of jealousy, those in the disengaged category had a low
level of jealousy; and those in the differentiated and mixed
categories had medium levels of jealousy. The men in the
enmeshed and disengaged categories had high levels of jealousy,
those in the differentiated category had a low level of
jealousy, and those in the disengaged-conflicted category had a
medium level of jealousy. As predicted, the number of men were
proportionally higher than the number of women in the
self-sufficient and disengagement categories but contrary to
expectations the number of women were not proportionally higher
than the number of men in the anxiously attached and enmeshed
categories. As well, the simple correspondence between the
subjects' attachment-individuation and family of origin
categories was not found. In general, the results were seen as
providing support for the relational model of jealousy. Gender
differences, methodological limitations, underlying assumptions,
and directions for future research were discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank Dr. James ~ a r c i afor his support, guidance,

and encouragement on this project and throughout my time as a
graduate student. -I would also like to express my gratitude to
Dr. Ray Koopman and Dr. Meredith Kimball for their input.
One person to whom I am especially indebted is Ms. Joan
Foster. She was always available with much needed statistical
advice and patience. Special thanks also to the following people
in the Psychology Department for their direct and indirect
support during my efforts to complete this project: Mary
Batchelor, Beverly Davino, Wendy Harris, Chris Herrod, Anita
Turner, and Frans Vanlakerveld.
I also want to express my gratitude to Ms. Kitty Gustafson.

Without her persistent work and sense of humour I would still be

working on the completion of this project. Following closely on
her heels was Dr. Cornelius P. Rea. His guidance and friendship
helped make the whole process that much more pleasant.
A

heartfelt thanks to my mother and father who kindled my

interest in the area and taught me patience. Finally, very

special thanks to my wife Lesley and my daughter Alexandra--the
former for her tolerance and quiet loving throughout and the
latter for being so joyous. Goodbye Yogel and Pharphel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.................................................... i i
Abstract ................................................... i i i
Acknowledgments .............................................. v
List of Tables .............................................. ix
List of Figures ........................................ xi
A . Introduction ............................................. 1
A Definition of Jealousy ............................. 4
Jealousy from the Individual-Psychological
Perspectives ..................................... 8

Approval

Sociobiological and Socio-cultural Levels of

Analysis: Understanding Jealousy and Gender
Differences

..................................... 4 6

Attachment Theory. Object Relations Models. and the

Intergenerational Family Model: A Framework for
Understanding the Etiology of Relational
Jealousy

........................................ 7 0
Integration .......................................... 91
Overview of the Present Study ...................... 103
Hypotheses ......................................... 1 0 9
B . Method ...............................................
113
Subjects ......................................... 114
Materials .......................................... 1 1 4
C . Results ................................................ 1 2 8
Subject Characteristics ............................ 129
Descriptive Statistics ............................. 132
The Relationship Between the SAT and the IJS ....... 141
Proportional Tests on the SAT ...................... 155
The Family of Origin Q-Sort ........................ 160

..................... 171
The Relationship Between the FOQS and the IJS ...... 173
The Relationship Between the SAT and the FOQS ...... 184
Additional Analyses ................................ 187
D . Discussion ........................................ 194
Proportional Tests on the FOQS

The Relationship of the IJS to the SAT and the FOQS

195

................................. 2 0 1
The Relationship Between the SAT and the FOQS ...... 2 0 7
Other Methodological Limitations .................... 2 1 0
The Underlying Assumptions and Directions for Future
Research ....................................... 2 1 3
Concluding Remarks ................................. 2 1 8
Appendix A ................................................. 2 1 9
Appendix B ................................................. 2 2 1
Appendix C ................................................ 2 2 2
Appendix D ................................................. 2 2 8
Appendix E ................................................ 2 2 9
Appendix F ................................................. 2 3 0
Appendix G ................................................. 2 3 1
Appendix H ................................................. 2 3 3
Appendix I ................................................. 2 3 4
Appendix J ................................................. 2 3 6
Appendix K ................................................. 2 3 7
Appendix L .................................................
239
Appendix M ................................................. 241
Appendix N ................................................. 2 5 1
Appendix 0 ................................................ 2 6 0
Gender Differences

vii

References

................................................. 272

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

Means and Standard Deviations for Demographic and

elations ship variables

............................. 1 3 0
Subjects' Cultural and Religious Backgrounds ........... 1 3 1
Estimation of Separations and Losses (~stlos).......... 1 3 3
Means and Standard Deviation for the IJS, SDS, SAT
Response Patterns, and FOQS Scores ................. 1 3 5
Female and Male Correlation Matrices on Continuous
variables .......................................... 1 3 6
Males - Principal Components Analysis: Eigenvalues and
Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and
Selected Variables

................................. 1 3 8

Females - Princiipal Components Analysis: Eigenvalues

and Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and
Selected Variables

10
11

................................. 1 3 9
IJS Means and Standard Deviations Across the SAT
Categories for All, Male, and Female Subjects ...... 1 4 3
Analysis of Variance on the IJS: SAT by Gender ......... 1 4 5
Pairwise Comparisons for All Subjects .................. 1 4 6
Males - Principal Components Analysis: Eigenvalues and
Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and
Selected Variables

.................................

12

148

Females - Principal Components Analysis: Eigenvalues and

Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and
Selected Variables
149

.................................

13

Male Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard

Deviations; Analyses of Variance for Factors
and 4

1 , 3,
.........................................
152

14

Female Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard

Deviations; Analyses of Variance for Factors 1 and 3 1 5 3

15

All Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS on SAT

Categories

16

......................................... 1 5 6
Male Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS on SAT
Categories ......................................... 1 5 7

Female Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS on SAT

Categories

......................................... 158
Number of All, Male, and Female Subjects in SAT
Categories ........................................ 156
Number of All, Male, and Female Subjects in FOQS
Categories ........................................ 167
Number of Male and Female Subjects in the Separate
Gender FOQS Categories ............................. 172
Male and Female Subjects: IJS Means and Standard
Deviations Across the Separate Gender FOQS
Categories

......................................... 176
Male Subjects: Analysis of Variance and Pairwise
Comparisons for IJS on FOQS Categories ............. 179
Female Subjects: Analysis of Variance and Pairwise
Comparisons for IJS on FOQS Categories ............. 180
Male Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard
Deviations; Analyses of Variance for Factors
and 4

1, 3
........................................
182

Female Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard

Deviations; Analyses of Variance for Factors

and 3 183

Male Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for the IJS on

FOQS Categories

.................................... 185
Female Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for the IJS on
FOQS Categories .................................... 186
The Observed Frequency of All, Male, and Female Subjects
in the Hypothesized SAT by FOQS Categories ......... 189
The Observed Frequency of Male Subjects in the SAT by
FOQS Categories .................................... 190
The Observed Frequency of Female Subjects in the SAT by
FOQS Categories .................................... 191
All, Male, and Female Subjects: IJS Means and Standard
Deviations for Estlos Categories ................... 192
Analysis of Variance on the IJS: Estlos by Gender ...... 193

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1

2
3

IJS means across the SAT categories for all. male. and
female subjects

Page

.................................... 144
Family of Origin Q-Sort scree test ..................... 162
IJS means across the separate FOQS categories for male
subjects ........................................... 177
IJS means across the separate FOQS categories for female
subjects ........................................... 178

PART A
INTRODUCTION

Jealousy can be a problem for those who experience it and

are disturbed by their behaviours, thoughts, and emotional
reactions. It.can also be distressing for those who are the
focus of the jealous person's concerns. They may feel trapped,
falsely accused, i-ndignantly vigilant of their own behaviour, or
defensively self-righteous. Jealousy can be a major cause of the
dissolution of marriages and relationships. It can be the source
of intense personal pain and provide the rationale for the use
of violence in interpersonal relations. On the other hand,
jealousy can serve as an impetus for individuals and couples to
re-examine their expectations and assumptions regarding their
own and others' behaviours.
This dissertation begins with a definition of jealousy. The
different disciplines in the social sciences which have
described how men and women express jealousy and have formulated
models to explain its origins are then surveyed. First, the
psychiatric, psychoanalytic, and psychological literatures are
reviewed and evaluated. These literatures examine jealousy by
focussing primarily on the individual as the unit of analysis
and they are therefore referred to as the
individual-psychological perspectives. Next, two broader
theoretical perspectives are considered: the sociobiological and
the socio-cultural. They examine jealousy in terms of the
general case by looking at factors which are thought to apply
across individuals and cultures. In this same section, some
specific issues are reviewed which have developed out of

socio-cultural models and which are associated with gender

differences in relational jealousy--namely, gender roles, social
power, and violence against women. In the next section the
attachment theory, object relations models, and
intergenerational family systems model are described. The
synthesis of these latter approaches is then presented. It is
argued that this synthesis provides a powerful framework from
which to understand the etiology, development, and maintenance
of relational jealousy in general and of gender differences in
particular. It is'this synthesized model which serves as the
basis for the present study.
It should be noted that the literature review and the study
presented have a psychological and interpersonal focus. As such,
other literatures which offer or have the potential to offer
rich analyses of jealousy are not-included in the literature
review. For example, specific biological (eg., genetic,
hormonal) and cross-cultural (eg., an in-depth analysis of
jealousy in different cultures) literatures are not included.
The intent of this paper is not to establish that the
relational model of jealousy provides the ultimate explanation
for the origin and expressions of jealousy. The viewpoint
adopted here is derived from that of the general systems model
(Von Bertalanffy, 1968; P. Weiss, 1977) which maintains that
every system or human phenomenon is both a whole and a part and
that different sciences focus on different levels of
organization within or across the system. From this perspective,

the various social science literatures mentioned above have

focussed on distinct but interacting processes which all
contribute to the expression and experience of jealousy. The
intrapsychic, experiential, and behavioural levels of jealousy
have been analyzed-by psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and
psychologists; the biological-social levels by sociobiologists;
and the interpersonal and cultural levels by sociologists and
anthropologists. In turn, the relational model analyzes jealousy
by focussing on both the individual-psychological level
(experiential, intrapsychic, and behavioural) and the
interpersonal level (dyadic, family, and social relations). As
such, the model offers a way of conceptualizing jealousy which
makes it more amenable to psychological interventions which
focus on the individual, the couple, or the family struggling
with issues of relational jealousy. The intent of this paper is
to define and then explore the validity of the relational model
of jealousy.

-A

Definition

of Jealousy J

Jealousy is not a simple emotion nor is it totally

situational. Jealousy involves at least four defining
components:

1)

a situation; 2) beliefs and perceptions; 3 )

affective state(s); and 4) behaviours. The identification of

these components provides conceptual punctuation where in
reality none exists. They may vary in quantitative importance
from case to case but they are all involved when jealousy is

present. As Freud ( 1 9 2 2 / 1 9 5 5 )

indicated, jealousy is

overdetermined; that is, its etiological roots come from

divergent sources which interplay in complex and varying ways.
The situation typically involves three parties--the jealous
individual, the object (or other), and the rival. The
perceptions

and

beliefs of the jealous individual are that the

rival is in some way and to some degree threatening the nature

or quality of his/her relationship with the object. Note that
there are two main perceptions and beliefs at work here. First,
the individual believes that she or he is involved in an
established and unique relationship. Second, the individual
perceives that a rival poses a threat to the relationship. In
cases of ego-dystonic jealousy the individual may experience or
perceive a threat but also believes that the degree of
experienced threat is greater than that which exists in reality.
In ego-syntonic jealousy, the perception and the belief
automatically go hand in hand. The former forms the basis for
what is diagnostically referred to as obsessional or neurotic
jealousy while the latter forms the.basis of what is referred to
as delusional or morbid jealousy, both of which will be
y
involve
discussed later. The affective aspects ~ L j e a l o u s -may
one or many of a range of emotions including feax,.anxi.gty,

--anger,

helgJxssness, and guil+, The particular quantitative and

qualitative aspects of the emotion or emotions experienced vary

considerably depending upon the nature of the situation, and the
perceptions and beliefs of the individual. The behavioural

component of jealousy includes a wide range of possible

reactions. The jealous individual (A) may zealously or
vigilantly watch over the actions of the other (B) while the
latter is with the rival (C); A may withdraw from the usual
interaction with B; A may interrogate B about the nature of
his/her activities while apart; A may inspect B's personal
belongings or hire private detectives to gather evidence of B's
intimate contact with C; A may make angry accusations
accompanied by physical violence or make excessive demands of B
as proof of his/her (B's) willingness to make retribution for
actual or imagined wrongdoings (Arnold, 1960; Bowman, 1965;
Bringle, Roach, Andler,

&

Evenbeck, 1977, 1979; Shepherd, 1961;

Speilman, 1971; Tipton, Benedictson, Mahoney,

&

Harnett, 1977,

1978).
Many writers have emphasized the differences between
jealousy and envy (Evans, 1975; Klein, 1957; Speilman, 1971) but
--

their usage is often confused in everyday language. Klein's

(1957) exposition of the relationship between envy and jealousy
is reviewed in a section below. Bryson (1977) and Bringle et al.
(1979) have offered clear definitions for these terms. For these
researchers, jealousy is said to exist when a pre-established
relationship between a person and an asset (ie., a person or
object) is viewed as being threatened by another. Envy exists
when an individual desires or covets the relationship someone
else has with an asset. This is a useful distinction to keep in
mind.

Throughout this paper the term jealousy will stand by itself

or be preceded by the adjectives sexual or relational. The
adjective sexual will be used when the author or authors being
reviewed have used the term sexual jealousy. I have chosen the
term relational jea-lousy because I view jealousy as a relational
issue originating in the earlier relational patterns of people's
lives and because it does not always have a sexual focus.
--

Jealousy fromthe ~ndividual-Psychological Perspectives

Under the rubric of the individual-psychological approaches

to understanding jealousy, I shall examine the literature of
psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and psychologists. Mooney ( 1 9 6 5 )
identified the two traditional approaches to defining and
classifying jealousy as the descriptive and the psychodynamic.
The descriptive classificatory formulations are represented in
the psychiatric literature whereas the psychodynamic
formulations are represented in the psychoanalytic literature.
The psychiatric jealousy literature is concerned with the
description and classification of symptoms. The delineation of
etiological theories or factors are presented in global terms
only. The psychoanalytic literature is concerned with the
etiology, genesis and intrapsychic dynamics of jealousy. The
third individual-psychological approach is found in the
psychological literature. It has focussed on the delineation of
traits and characteristics of jealous individuals and has been
less concerned than the psychiatric and psychoanalytic
literatures with pathological forms of jealousy.
I will present the review of the individual-psychological

literature in the following order: psychiatric, psychoanalytic,

and psychological.

Psychiatric Literature

In 1910 Jaspers (cited in Mowat, 1966) proposed a typology

of jealousy. His classification system was based on what he saw
as being the precipitating factors to the onset of three types
of jealousy: 1 ) one type developed in a personality already
showing premorbid paranoid signs; 2) the second type represented
a change in personality with an overlaying of a morbid process
of jealousy causing an alteration in the psychic functioning of
the individual; and 3) the third type was brought on by
intoxication or brain damage.
Todd and Dewhurst (1955) described the "Othello Syndrome" as
a delusional belief in the infidelity of one's partner. They
noted that the syndrome can occur in pure form or be one of the
associated features in patients with paranoid schizophrenia,
manic-depressive psychosis, epilepsy and alcoholism. Through an
analysis of nine case studies Todd and Dewhurst suggested that
there is a constitutional factor which predisposes people to
develop the Othello syndrome. They made no distinction between
obsessional or neurotic jealousy and the Othello syndrome.
Enoch, Trethowan, and Barker (1967) based their
conceptualization of sexual jealousy on the work of Todd and
Dewhurst. They referred to delusional jealousy as the "Othello
Syndrome" and put its age of onset as above 30 years of age with
a possible history of mild jealousy episodes. The accusations of
individuals with the Othello syndrome are not rational and

despite seeming to be initially satisfied with their partner's

explanations, they will continue to accuse in argumentative and
often violent ways. For these authors the basis of the Othello
syndrome lies in the hypersensitive feelings of inadequacy
characteristic of the premorbid personality of these
individuals. When certain events trigger off these feelings of
inferiority and insecurity they are defended against by
projecting fears on to others. This explanation tries to account
for the contribution of constitutional/hereditary and
precipitating factors to the development of the Othello
syndrome.
Shepherd ( 1 9 6 1 ) divided sexual jealousy into normal, morbid,
and delusional morbid types. He extrapolated these three types
from his review of the psychiatric and psychoanalytic
literatures and on the basis of 81 case studies. The categories
were differentiated on the basis of differences in the intensity
of symptoms such as suspiciousness, proof-seeking, doubt, and
anger. Shepherd argued that the borderline between a normal and
a morbid intensity of these symptoms is often unclear and
blurred. The two categories of morbid jealousy--non-delusional
and delusional--have different disorders associated with them.
The non-delusional morbid reactions are linked to neurotic and
personality disorders. Shepherd linked the occurrence of this
type of jealousy to precipitating events in the interpersonal
life of the individual. He argued that social and environmental
factors, especially those related to social expectations, play a

role in the development of jealousy. Shepherd found the

delusional morbid category to occur most oftefi in association
with the following disorders: 1 ) acute or chronic brain
disorders--including senility, alcoholism, epilepsy, and
Parkinson's disorder; 2) paranoid schizophrenia and related
psychoses--with jealousy as a primary or secondary diagnosis;
and 3 ) affective disorders--major depressive illnesses with
paranoid features.
Langfeldt (1961) only differentiated between normal jealousy
and delusional jealousy. He referred to the latter as the
"erotic jealousy syndrome". It is marked by symptoms of intense
paranoid ideation and an inability to reality test about the
supposed infidelity of the spouse. Langfeldt carried out a study
in Norway on 66 hospitalized cases who had delusional jealousy
as a secondary but dominant factor in their diagnoses. The
primary diagnoses included personality disorders, paranoid
disorders, schizophrenias, the depressed phase of
manic-depression, and feeble-mindedness. Langfeldt believed that
a hereditary constitutional vulnerability (sensitivity and
suspiciousness) and a lower level of intelligence predisposed
individuals to develop delusions of jealousy. In addition, toxic
factors (e.g., alcohol) and psychogenic factors (insecure
relationships) could act as releasing factors for the
development of episodic and chronic jealousy.
Vauhkonen (1968) reported on data collected from interviews
with 55 Finnish hospitalized and non-hospitalized jealous

patients and their spouses. The male patients were generally in

their late 30's and early 40's and the female patients tended to
be in their early 30's. The patients' histories had
characteristics hypothesized by Vauhkonen to be related to the
pathogenesis of jealousy. These included a high percentage of
patients and spouses who reported having come from homes with
marital discord, conflicts in the patients' own marriages, and a
tendency to express jealousy prior to the onset of neurotic or
psychotic jealousy. Vauhkonen divided patients into five
categories of disturbance according to the severity of the
disorder and the degree to which the symptoms were or were not
ego-dystonic. The categories were as follows: 1 ) the jealous
feelings were considered justifiable because spouses had
admitted infidelity but patients still experienced the degree of
their jealousy to be somewhat alien (ego-dystonic); 2) patients
experienced suspicious obsessions but were not convinced of
their accuracy (ego-dystonic); 3) patients were almost
completely convinced of the correctness of their suspicions
(ego-syntonic) but at times experienced doubts; 4) patients were
convinced of their spouses' unfaithfulness and were completely
certain of the legitimacy of their claims (ego-syntonic); and 5 )
the patients' jealousy was embedded in a primary diagnosis of
schizophrenia or organic psychosis. The first category can be
thought of as falling into the blurry area, referred to by
Shepherd ( 1 9 6 1 ) between
~
normal and non-delusional morbid
jealousy. The second category fits the definition of neurotic or
obsessional jealousy. The third category can be associated most

strongly with character disorders, the fourth to paranoid

delusional disorders and the last, by definition, to secondary
jealousy amongst other primary diagnoses.
Mooney (1965) tabulated and analyzed the case presentations
of delusionally jealous patients from Shepherd, Langfeldt, Todd
and Dewhurst, Jaspers, and his own for a total of 138 case
reports. He found the age of onset ranged from the late teens to
the mid-60's but the standard individual presenting with
delusional jealousy was in his or her mid-thirties to early
forties. Males made up 75% of the samples. Not surprisingly,
Mooney pointed out that the exact delineation of those disorders
most often associated with jealousy was difficult because of the
different diagnostic systems used by the different authors. As
for etiology, Mooney believed there are two kinds of morbid

- jealousy--one where the individual shows a premorbid jealous

personality and one where the jealousy has a sudden onset.
According to Mooney, those with premorbid jealous
predispositions were more likely to have had a history of
jealousy, to be chronic alcoholics, and to be diagnosed as
personality disordered. Those with sudden onset were more likely
to have psychotic disorders of a paranoid or depressive nature.
Many of the psychiatric writers have attempted to identify
neurotic and delusional jealousy as separate and definable
syndromes, e.g., the Othello syndrome and the erotic jealousy
syndrome. The latest version of the American Psychiatric
Association's diagnostic manual, has come close to accomodating

these writers. In DSM-I11 (APA, 1980) the primary diagnostic

criterion for the paranoid disorder is either "persistent
persecutory delusions or delusional jealousy" (p. 196). The
delusional jealousy syndrome is therefore currently subsumed
under the diagnostic heading of paranoid disorders. The
diagnostic criteria for the paranoid personality disorder
includes pathological jealousy as a possible characteristic but
this disorder is distinguished from the paranoid disorder by the
absence of delusions. As such, what has been referred to as
obsessional or neurotic jealousy can currently be conceptualized
as falling under the diagnositc heading of the paranoid
personality disorder and is referred to as pathological
jealousy. According to DSM-111, pathological and delusional
jealousy can also be found as associated features of organic
dementia (p. log), alcohol dependence (p. 129), and
schizophrenic disorders (p. 188), specifically the paranoid type
( p . 191). Interestingly, these conceptualizations of jealousy

correspond to those proposed by Jaspers (1910) as discussed

above. For the purposes of this paper, the labels normal,
neurotic, and delusional will constitute the three main
categories of jealousy.
The studies by Langfeldt ( 1 9 6 1 ) ~
Shepherd (1961), Mooney
(1965), and Vauhkonen (1968) provide copious amounts of
information on the presenting symptoms, ages of onset, sex
ratios, and associated symptoms and features of neurotic and
delusional jealousy. Unfortunately, none of these studies made

use of matched control groups consisting of individuals from

closely related diagnostic categories. This could have provided
discriminating information to help differentiate those factors
common to the categories and those unique to disorders of
jealousy. (Several of the authors recognized this as a
shortcoming of their studies).

similar point must be made on

the question of there being a constitutional/inherited factor in

neurotic or delusional jealousy. Familial incidence of jealousy
is relatively high in a number of these studies but no
controlled twin or adoptive studies have been done with neurotic
or delusional jealousy probands.
In the above delineation of the psychiatric literature the
general etiological model of jealousy is fairly consistent from
writer to writer. In essence, neurotic and delusional jealousy
are seen as expressions of hereditary/constitutional factors in
interaction with environmental precipitating factors. This model
is very broad and stands as a general model of psychopathology.
There is no attempt to define the specific factors which make
obsessional or delusional concerns over infidelity of prime
importance to individuals with these disorders. Vauhkonen (1968)
is an exception in the psychiatric literature as he speculated
that the familial and the current situational interactions are
important contributors to the development of jealousy. This
framework will be discussed more fully in the section of this
paper devoted to a discussion of the model of jealousy which
incorporates ideas from the attachment, object relations, and

intergenerational literatures.
Psychoanalytic Literature

Writers from the psychoanalytic school of thought have

attempted to specify the intrapsychic factors associated with
the onset and maintenance of jealousy. Freud (1922/1955)
outlined what has served as the basis for the psychodynamic
description and understanding of jealousy. For Freud, jealousy
has its origins in the Oedipal complex or the sibling complex
where the basic issue is rivalry for the passionate love of the
parent of the opposite sex. He divided jealousy into three
- of intensity--normal, projected, and delusional.
categories
\

Normal -j@alousy is in response to a situation in which there is

-1
-'

- -arrcBctual threat by a competitor to an individual's relationship

with a sexual partner. It is not conceptualized as being a

completely rational or conscious reaction as it still owes its
source to the earlier Oedipal period. Normal jealousy is a
mixture of: 1 ) grief at the thought of losing the love object;
2) a narcissistic injury; 3 ) anger at the rival; and 4)
self-criticism for the loss. It is the base upon which the other
two types of jealousy are formed. Projected jealousy, a more
intense form,

the result of the projection of guilt

surrounding actual or fantasized unfaithfulness which has been

repressed. Freud summed it up in the phrase, "it is not I who is
unfaithful, but it is she". Delusional jealousy incorporates
normal and projected jealousy and has the added factor of
homosexual impulses which are distorted and projected onto the

accused. Now the repressed passion is towards an object of the

same sex as the jealous individual. This form is expressed in
the phrase "I do not love him, but she loves him". Delusional
jealousy is conceptualized as being all the more painful and
intense because it -incorporates a mixture of sexual longings and
aggressive anger surrounding both the man and the woman.
Thus jealousy, as a symptom in the projected and delusional
cases, serves the function of protecting the con'scious mind from
admitting to retributive guilt associated with having had sexual
desires or acts with members of the opposite and/or same sex.
The normal component of jealousy involves a more reality based
concern over the partner's fidelity. It expresses the same
passions as those associated with childhood responses to threats
to the possession of the parent (i.e., the libidinally
satisfying object).
Jones (1930) was closely aligned with Freud and essentially
used the latter's exposition on jealousy as the basis for his
own. He did, however, make some important additions. Jones
explicitly stated that the way in which the individual child
deals with his feelings concerning the Oedipal situation
determines how similar situations in adult life will be dealt
with. This position recognizes, somewhat more than Freud's, the
importance of each individual's experience in relation to
developing or not developing problems with jealousy in later
life. For Jones, as for Freud, jealousy is made up of grief,
hatred of the rival, and a reduced sense of self-worth. Jones

adds the repressed guilt of moral inferiority having its roots

in the unacceptable impulses to possess the mother and aggress
against the father. Moral inferiority arises because the
superego condemns and the ego atones for these aggressive and
possessive impulses..The interplay of a craved for idealized
love with moral inferiority lends itself to the development of
jealousy. According to Jones, men who are ambivalent about love,
in that they both crave the idealized security of the object and
dread the sense of moral inferiority associated with their
possessiveness and aggressiveness, are the most predisposed to
show jealousy. They are most prone to experience uncertainty in
love and this state is intolerable because it is painfully
reminiscent of their ambivalence. The uncertainty can only be
resolved by one of two venues--love or hate. These men are not
psychosexually prepared for mature love (i.e., genital-stage
love) and so their only recourse is defensive hate in the guise
of projected or delusional jealousy depending on the degree of
their ambivalence. Jones also related delusional or
homosexually-based jealousy back to the child's resolution of
the Oedipal crisis. The parallel circumstances in the adult's
and the child's life are conceptualized as follows: the man
(child) placates the rival (father) by identifying himself with
the woman (mother) and thus takes a passive solution by
replacing his masculine attitude toward the woman (mother) with
a feminine one toward the rival (father).

Riviere (1932) and Fenichel (1935/1953) viewed jealousy as

being rooted in pre-Oedipal oral strivings as well as Oedipal
fixations. Jealous people are orally fixated in that they
require external sources of psychological nurturance in order to
regulate their own se-lf-esteems. To be loved is more important
than loving (i.e., narcissistic needs override genital-stage
needs) and thus the loss of love, or the threat of same, acts as
a narcissistic injury or a potential narcissistic blow. Riviere
related this search for love back to basic oral envy and the
parents having deprived the child of oral-part-objects (the
breast and the penis). The projective aspects of jealousy serve
as a screen to repress the pain of past oral grievances out of
consciousness. Riviere and Fenichel believed that jealous people
with strong oral needs are attempting to incorporate and conquer
partial objects rather than relate to whole human beings. This
oral fixation makes them incapable of developing long-lasting
relationships and they must seek out new sources to supply their
narcissistic needs.
With reference to homosexual impulses, Fenichel (1935/1953)
maintained that this aspect of jealousy is present in all forms
(normal, projected, and delusional) in that the jealous person
is not only upset because the partner is interested in another,
but also that the other pays attention to the partner and not to
him or her. What distinguishes delusional from projected
jealousy, in part, is the degree of narcissistic neediness.
Individuals with intense oral needs choose sexual objects more

akin to their own narcissistic egos, i.e., homosexual objects.

An important criticism of psychoanalytic theory has
concerned its strong bias towards theorizing about human
development with males in mind and essentially relegating female
development to secondary status. In general the theorizing about
jealousy has not been very different. Freud (1922/1955) wrote
about jealousy with a male perspective in mind and did not
acknowledge or speculate about the circumstances of jealousy for
women. This appears to be an extension of the difficulties he
encountered when attempting to account for the female Oedipal
complex (e.g., Freud, 1924/1953). Jones' (1930) paper dealt
solely with the male case and then posited that there is little
to be added about the female case, despite the existence of a
very important Oedipal difference. This difference is that the
boy never changes his sexual orientation in relation to the
primary love object (mother) while the girl must change hers
toward the father in her course of development. This is an
infrequently discussed issue in traditional psychoanalytic
writing but one that has important implications for gender
relations and jealousy. Chodorow (1978) and Dinnerstein (1976)
both reanalyzed the Oedipal complex taking such relational
issues into account. Their theoretical work will be explicated
in a later section.
The same criticism made earlier about the psychiatric
literature's etiological speculations can be applied to the
psychoanalytic writings on jealousy. There is simply not enough

specification about how it is that a given individual will

develop issues around jealousy. If it is a given that everyone
goes through an Oedipal crisis and that everyone experiences
some level of normal jealousy then the question arises as to
what aspects of the Oedipal situation will lead some people to
develop projected or delusional jealousy? Similarly, what
constitutes sufficient or deficient oral gratification? Further
questions could be asked of the psychoanalytic perspective but
the main point is that a number of etiological issues are simply
not addressed by the early psychoanalytic writers. Freud, Jones,
Riviere, and Fenichel described the intrapsychic mechanisms at
play in jealousy and defined the psychosexual stages where such
mechanisms first emerge, but they never defined what
necessitates the development of these mechanisms.
Overall, the psychoanalytic authors provide abstract
intrapsychic explanations for the development of jealousy.
Although they identify specific factors unique to the
pathogenesis of jealousy they do not explain how it is that
these factors come to the fore for certain people and not for
others. This does not, however, detract from the richness of the
suggestions the theoretical framework offers. The ideas they
present can be taken as hypotheses and lines for clinical and
empirical investigation. For instance, object relations models
are derived from the psychoanalytic framework and provide a rich
vein of material from which an understanding of the more
specific relational roots of jealousy can be derived.

Two articles in the psychoanalytic literature offer some

hypotheses about the whys and wherefores of jealousy which are
thematically very similar to the relational perspective of the
object relations models. Schmideberg ( 1 9 5 3 ) suggested that the
degree of jealousy shown by an individual will vary according to
the extent to which the parents have fostered dependency,
possessiveness, and jealousy in their own actions and attitudes
with the child. Docherty and Ellis ( 1 9 7 6 ) presented case
summaries of three couples, each with a neurotically jealous
husband. They found that the jealous husbands' descriptions of
their wives' behaviour were more in line with their descriptions
of their own mothers than with the clinicians' assessment of
their wives. Subsequently, all three of the men reported that
during their adolescence they had witnessed their mothers
engaged in extra-marital sexual relations. The authors
hypothesized that such experiences may have had the effect of
defusing the usefulness of the adolescent's identification with
his father in terms of relating to an intimate partner. That is,
the father could no longer be looked upon as an effective model
for the son, or as the mother's first choice for a sexual
partner. Docherty and Ellis suggested that the witnessing of
actual infidelity may not be necessary to cause later jealousy
in relationships. Fantasies elicited by a seductive or
flirtatious parent may also serve as a sufficient etiological
factor. Both articles alter the perspective that jealousy is due
solely to intrapsychic conflicts. They suggest that the
intrapsychic aspects of jealousy are better viewed within the

larger context of specific parent-child interactions and

experiences.
Ps ychol ogi cal L i t e r a t u r e : T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h

The final block of literature to be examined within the

individual-psychological domain of jealousy is the psychological
literature. Within this literature social psychologists have
carried out the majority of the theoretical and empirical
examinations of jealousy. Theory building about the origins,
development, and classifications of jealousy has not been of
prime concern. The models developed have concentrated on the
ways in which jealousy functions and have not focussed on the
origins, development, or classifications of jealousy. Research
studies in this literature are more abundant and are generally
of two kinds. First, a number of researchers have attempted to
develop objective measures of jealousy and correlate them with
personality characteristics and associated factors. The
personality characteristics examined are usually said to have
been selected from those identified in the traditional (read
psychoanalytic/psychiatric) literature as being related to

jealousy. There is no stated intent, however, to examine the

theoretical basis of this traditional literature. Rather, the
intent is simply to establish which personality characteristics
are associated with jealousy and whether or not the findings
provide evidence to support the construct validity of jealousy
measures. The second kind of research has examined the ways in
which men and women tend to react, both cognitively and

behaviourally, to jealousy.
What follows below is a review of the psych~logical
literature on jealousy. I will first present the theoretical
contributions of social psychology and then review the two kinds
of research studies. Finally, I will evaluate the quality of the
research reviewed.

1)

Social psycholoqy theory applied to jealousy

White (1980a) based his view of jealousy on the appraisal

coping model of Lazarus (e.g., Lazarus, Averill

&

Opton, 1970).

The primary appraisal process, with regard to jealousy, refers

to the extent to which a threat to the relationship is
perceived. Secondary appraisal processes refer to strategies
used to reduce the threat. In conjunction with affective
reactions, these coping strategies lead to the establishment of
coping behaviours. Following these behaviours are the outcomes
or consequences to the self and the relationship. White later
(1980b) adopted a social exchange or social power perspective to
explain jealousy. This model postulates that people who are
jealous evaluate themselves as having fewer resources or
alternatives for outcomes than their partners. They are
therefore more vigilant of their relationships.
Bringle ( 1 981 ) has adopted the view that jealousy reflects
an individual's disposition to perceive and appraise situations
in terms of threats to the relationship. He believes that the

individual's relatively stable personality characteristics are

more powerful contributors to jealousy reactions than
situational characteristics. He speculated that these
dispositions result in self-selection in terms of the type of
relationships one chooses. Bringle based his model on the work
of Zajonc (1980) and Leventhal (1980). The model posits that,
based on earlier emotional experiences, structured emotional
perceptual codes allow for the rapid processing of affective
information. This affective system is both independent of and
capable of interacting with cognitive labelling processes.
Bringle argued that attempts to cognitively restructure jealousy
responses would have some impact (i.e., interact with) but would
not necessarily alter the automatic processing of the "jealousy
flash". Bringle's social cognition model of jealousy provides an
interface between social psychology and the more developmental
theories of the object relations models to be discussed below.
White (1980a) and Bringle (1981) have borrowed models from
other areas in social psychology to develop theories to explain
how jealousy functions. The applications of these models to
relational jealousy are to a great extent more suggestive than
substantive. The same will be seen to be basically true of the
next area to be reviewed--namely the psychological research on
jealousy.

2) Objective measures

and

correlates

Tipton, Benedictson, Mahoney, and Hartnett (1977, 1978) used

factor analysis to evaluate a jealousy measuring instrument.
Tipton et al. generated 92 items from interviews with 25 people
who were asked to give their views on the nature of jealousy.
Items were also generated on the basis of the following
literature-derived conceptualizations of people with a
propensity for jealousy: 1 ) they place more value on the needs
met by their partner than on other needs; 2) they have fewer
significant relationships with people and thus have most of
their needs met by the partner; 3) they have lower feelings of
self-worth; and 4) they have fewer skills and resources to
obtain new significant relationships. Factor analysis of the
items on data from 335 undergraduate subjects resulted in these
five factor labels: 1) need for loyalty; 2) need for intimacy;
3) moodiness/ emotionality; 4 ) self-confidence; and 5) envy. The

authors believed that the first factor captured the basic

aspects of the cognitive and emotional experience of the jealous
individual. The cognitive aspect reflects the belief that one's
partner is giving his or her attention to someone else and the
emotional aspect reflects the concomitant distress. Although
these findings were based on data used to develop a jealousy
measuring instrument there were no reliability or validity data
presented and follow-up studies never ensued.

White has published a number of studies (1980b, 1981a,

1981b, 1 9 8 1 ~ )on the basis of data collected from a 35 page
relationship questionnaire given to 150 heterosexual couples.
The majority of the 300 subjects were college students in their
early twenties. The-extensive questionnaire was made up of
rationally-based scales and single questions which focussed on
different aspects of relationships including jealousy. The
jealousy scales were designed to measure chronic jealousy and
current relationship jealousy and essentially consisted of two
scales with six items each. Some of White's hypotheses and
results are presented below.
White (1980b) hypothesized that an individual who is more
involved in a romantic relationship will obtain more control in
the relationship by leading the partner to believe that she or
he has an alternative relationship available, i.e., by making
the partner jealous. Items on the questionnaire asked whether
subjects had ever tried to induce jealousy in their partners,
what the motives and techniques for such an effort were, and to
indicate their own and their mate's relative level of
involvement in the relationship. Motive categories were: 1 )
increase rewards; 2) bolster self-esteem; 3) test the
relationship; 4) revenge; and 5) punishment. Technique
categories were: 1 ) talking about past relationships; 2) talking
about current relationships; 3) flirting, dating or sexual
contact with others; and 4) lying about the existence of another
interest. Results showed that less than one third of the 300

subjects reported having tried to induce jealousy and that women

were significantly more likely than men to report having tried,
especially when they were more involved in the relationship.
White hypothesized that this gender difference reflects women's
socially constrained reliance on indirect and personal forms of
power exertion. Men, by contrast, are able to exert more direct
and impersonal forms of power, in part, because they have
greater access to societal resources and alternatives.
White (1981a) had 36 undergraduate subjects list reasons for
getting romantically involved with someone other than their
partners. On the basis of a factor analysis of the items four
factors or categories of reasons were developed: 1 ) desire for
sexual variety; 2) non-sexual attractions; 3) unhappiness with
current relationship; and 4 ) wanting a more committed
relationship. Items representing these four categories were
included in the relationship questionnaire. Subjects were asked
to indicate how important each of the reasons would be for their
partners to become involved with someone else. Results showed
that women were significantly more likely to perceive
dissatisfaction and sexual interest as partner motives whereas
men were significantly more likely to perceive desire for
commitment as a partner motive. White viewed the perceived
importance of the sexual motive for men and the commitment
motive for women as being consistent with the view that women
are more concerned with the interpersonal-emotional aspects of
relationships than men.

White (1981b) hypothesized that the following two primary

appraisal variables are keys to the occurrence of jealousy in
one partner of a dyad: 1 ) perceived inadequacy--I can't meet the
needs and expectations of my partner; and 2 ) greater
involvement--I am more involved in the relationship than my
partner. Responses to questions concerning relative involvement,
perceived inadequacy as a partner, and jealousy were analyzed.
Both greater involvement and perceived inadequacy were
significantly and positively correlated to the jealousy measure.
White viewed these results as supporting a slightly modified
view of his jealousy model.
White has shown a fair amount of ingenuity in the types of
questions he asked and the way he explored them. However, the
psychometric qualities of his questionnaire, and in particular
his jealousy scales, leave many of his conclusions in doubt.
This will be discussed in greater detail at the end of this
section.
Bringle, Roach, Andler, and Evenbeck (1977, 1979) developed
a scale designed to measure the intensity of individual

reactions to jealousy evoking situations. On the basis of 100

college students' descriptions of jealousy situations, 20
representative items were generated to form the Self-Report
Jealousy Scale (SRJS). The generated items showed that people
did not distinguish envy from jealousy as many of the items
actually involved envy as it has been defined by Bringle et al.
(1979). The authors argued that in real life situations the

distinctions between jealousy and envy blur as more than one

emotion may play a role in people's behaviour. From their
perspective, this made the distinction between jealousy and envy
on the self-report scale unimportant.
A factor analysis with 651 subjects identified four factors
in the scale: 1 ) sexual jealousy; 2 ) social jealousy; 3) family
jealousy; and 4) work jealousy. In four studies Bringle et al.
looked at the correlations between the SRJS and 1 1 personality
scales. Sex roles and jealousy were examined by correlating the
Bem Social Reliability Index, Gough's Feminine Interest Scale,
and the Attitudes Toward Women Scale with the SRJS for 90
subjects. A moderately significant finding was that more
feminine persons reported more jealousy. Correlations between
the SRJS and Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, the Life
Satisfaction Scale, and the Rotter Locus of Control Scale
indicated that subjects in.144)

who score high on the SRJS

showed low self-esteem, dissatisfaction with life, and an

external locus of control. Correlations between the SRJS and the
Zuckerman Anxiety Scale, the Steiner Benevolent-Malevolent Scale
and the Machivellianism Scale (n=90) showed highly jealous
people to be significantly more anxious, and to a lesser degree,
more malevolent in their attitudes toward the world.
Correlations between the SRJS and the Crowne-Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale and a dogmatism scale (n=92) indicated that
the SRJS was not correlated with social desirability but was
positively correlated with dogmatism. Bringle et al. concluded

that these correlational patterns offered some support for the

construct validity of the SRJS. Internal and test-retest
reliability data were also presented.
Bringle and Williams (1979) looked at the similarity of
results between parents and children on the SRJS and two other
personality measures--the Repression-Sensitization Scale and the
Mehrabian Screening-Nonscreening Scale. They found that jealous
people were more likely to be sensitizers (i.e., have a lower
threshold for emotional stimuli) and nonscreeners (i.e., be more
easily aroused in complex stimulus environments). Parent-child
similarities for these two dimensions were found most frequently
between parents and female children.

similarity between

parents and children of both sexes was found for the tendency to
be jealous and the ways that jealousy was expressed.
Hansen (1982) provided descriptions of eight hypothetical
jealousy provoking events to 220 university students. Along with
having to rate how disturbed they would be for each event, the
subjects also filled out modified versions of published scales
measuring romanticism, self-esteem, sex-role orientation, and
religiousity. Correlations between the event ratings and scores
on the scales showed that only sex role orientation was
consistently related to jealousy. Women and men holding more
traditional sex-role views tended to rate the jealousy events as
more disturbing. Despite theoretical expectations to the
contrary, self-concept and romanticism had a minimal number of
significant correlations with the jealousy events. Hansen

concluded that these results refuted the traditional view that

jealousy is associated with low self-esteem and romantic
idealism. The same hypothetical jealousy situations have been
used in other studies by Hansen (1983, 1985) to examine jealousy
in marital and dating relationships.
Mathes and Severa (1981) had 84 university students rate
items thought to measure jealousy. Items were either deleted or
retained, via item-total correlation analyses, to form the
Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS). Seventy-nine dating or
married university couples (mean age 19.1) had their scores from
the IJS correlated with those from published scales measuring
romanticism, insecurity, and self-esteem. Subjects were also
given three items, generated by the authors, which were designed
to test the hypothesis that couples who encourage separate
identities are less vulnerable and therefore less likely to
experience jealousy. Results showed that men scored
significantly higher than women on the IJS, romantic love was
significantly and positively correlated with the IJS, insecurity
was significantly and positively correlated with the IJS for
women only, and self-esteem was not correlated with the jealousy
measure for either gender. The items which were designed to
measure separateness of identity were significantly and
negatively correlated with the IJS.
Mathes, Phillips, Skowran, and Dick (1982) devised a
behavioural measure of jealousy in an effort to sort out the
contributions of trait and method variance, and to establish

concurrent validity for the IJS. Initially undergraduate

students filled out the IJS and other measures. One week to two
months later, a research confederate called by phone to ask i f
the subject would give the caller permission to date her or his
partner. Forty-two male and 48 female subjects received these
calls and were rated by the first author and two other judges,
according to the amount of "experienced threat" shown in their
reactions and the amount of possessiveness displayed in their
replies to the request. Mathes et al. found the behavioural
ratings to be significantly and positively correlated with the
IJS for both genders, and concluded that these findings
contributed to the validity of the IJS.
Mathes, Roter, and Joerger (1982) carried out a convergent
validity study of the IJS. The following questions and scales
were filled out by 100 undergraduate students: 1 ) the IJS; 2) a
jealousy question from Aronson and Pines (1980); 3) the
projective Jealousy Scale and the SRJS (~ringleet al., 1977);
and 4) White's (1980a) Chronic and Relationship Jealousy Scales.
A correlation matrix of these measures was tabulated for men and
women. The IJS correlated best with the SRJS ( . 5 9 for men and
.49 for women).

factor analysis was carried out on the data

from all of the scales and questions. Two primary jealousy

factors were found which Mathes et al. related to the differing
item formats in the jealousy scales. The first factor,
jealousy-neuroticism, was made up of items which asked subjects
to simply indicate their degree of jealousy. The second factor,

jealousy, was made up of items which asked subjects to rate

their degree of upset over jealousy events and situations. The
authors argued that the first factor was contaminated with
social desirability and was not as good a measure of jealousy as
the second factor. Mathes et al. claimed convergent validity for
the second factor jealousy scales, namely the SRJS, the
Projective Jealousy Scale, and the IJS.
Stewart

&

Beatty (1985) used the IJS to examine the

relationship between self-esteem, as measured by Berger's

self-acceptance scale, and jealousy. The authors found that
jealousy scores were significantly and negatively correlated
with self-esteem scores for undergraduate men and women.
In Holland, Buunk (1981) examined sexual jealousy in open
marriages, where at least one partner had been or was currently
involved in an extradyadic affair. One hundred and twenty-five
cohabiting or married couples (the majority being between the
ages of 27 and 46) were given scales designed to measure
jealousy, self-esteem, neuroticism, marital satisfaction, and
emotional dependency. All of the scales were unpublished and
were designed by Buunk. The results showed that women scored
significantly higher than men on the jealousy scales, subjects
often viewed their partners' affairs as having both positive and
negative consequences, self-esteem and emotional dependency were
not correlated with jealousy, and neuroticism was positively and
marital satisfaction negatively correlated with jealousy.

Using the original sample of 125 couples, an additional

sample of 250 subjects obtained via advertisements, and a sample
of 380 undergraduate students, Buunk (1982a) looked at the
relationship between anticipatory jealousy and intention for
extradyadic involvement, emotional dependency, and two other
unpublished measures. Results worthy of note were that, for
those subjects not in open marriages, intended extradyadic
involvement was negatively correlated with anticipatory jealousy
and that emotional dependency was positively correlated with
anticipatory jealousy. For those subjects in open marriages the
correlations between emotional dependency and jealousy were
non-significant.
and reactions: Gender differences
3) Jealousy concerns -

According to Clanton (1981), expressions of jealousy are a

means of protecting valued relationships. They are also
indicative of what we have learned about what makes our
relationships valuable, what constitute threats to such
relationships, and what should be done to protect the same. The
following research studies have experimentally evaluated male
and female differences on these dimensions.
Francis (1977) had 15 couples fill out relationship and
jealousy questionnaires (published and unpublished) upon
completion of structured interviews designed to elicit jealousy.
She found that men were more likely to associate jealousy with

situations where there was sexual involvement between their

partner and another and where comparisons were made with a
rival. Women were more likely to associate jealousy with
situations where the partner talked with another person on the
phone or in person, kissed another, or spent more time with a
rival. Francis also found data suggesting that men were more
likely to repress or deny awareness of jealous feelings whereas
women were more sensitive to jealousy-evoking situations.
As part of the larger open marriage and jealousy study
referred to above, Buunk (1982b) gave 50 of the 125 couples a
jealousy coping questionnaire. Factor analysis revealed three
major styles of coping with extradyadic involvement:

1)

avoidance: retreating from the situation; 2 ) reappraisal:

attempting to cognitively reduce jealous reactions; and 3)
communication: open and frank discussions. Women tended to
respond by avoidance and reappraisal while no particular
response tendency was noted for men.
Bryson (cited in Bringle

&

Williams, 1979) factor analyzed

reported reactions to jealousy and identified the following

eight factors: 1 ) emotional devastation (e.g., feeling
helpless); 2) reactive retribution (e.g., becoming more sexually
assertive with others); 3) arousal (e.g., paying more attention
to the partner); 4) need for social support (e.g., talking with
others for advice); 5) intrapunitiveness (e.g., blaming self);
6) confrontation (e.g., confronting partner or the other); 7)
anger (e.g., wanting to get even); and 8) impression management

(e.g., trying make it seem one doesn't care). These eight

factors were reduced to two dimensions--one reflecting attempts
to aid or stabilize the relationship, and the other reflecting
attempts to boost or stabilize one's own ego and feelings of
self-esteem. Bryson-found that men were more likely to respond
with the intrapersonal components of boosting or stabilizing
their self-esteem whereas women were more likely to respond with
the interpersonal components of aiding or stabilizing the
relationship.
Shettel-Neuber, Bryson, and Young ( 1 9 7 8 ) reported on an
examination of response styles to one jealousy situation. Forty
women and forty men watched videotapes and were asked to rate
the likelihood of their responding in each of 36 different ways.
The videotapes showed a couple sitting together at a party. They
are kissing, hugging, and talking together. One of the partners
then gets up and leaves the room. At this point, an old
boyfriend or girlfriend enters the room and is greeted with a
hug by the remaining partner. They sit together and get
progressively more intimate. The absent partner then returns and
sees them together. There are four different versions of the
tape. The female subjects watched one of two tapes which show
the female partner leaving and an old girlfriend entering the
scene. In one tape the girlfriend is attractively dressed and
groomed and in the other she is unattractively dressed and
groomed. The male subjects watched one of two tapes showing the
male partner leaving and an old boyfriend, either attractive or

unattractive, enter the scene.

Results showed that men were more likely to indicate that
they would respond by getting angry, drunk or high, and by
verbally threatening the other person. Women were more likely to
report that they would cry when alone, feign indifference, and
try to make themselves more attractive to their partners. The
authors attributed these gender differences to the social
learning of relationship roles.
Teismann and Mosher (1978) set up role-playing situations in
which couples had to discuss jealousy and other conflictual
issues. They rated the couples' interpersonal communication
styles using a 36 category coding scheme. The authors
hypothesized that men would use more rejecting verbal acts and
women more coercive verbal acts while discussing jealousy
issues. They based this on the ideas of Bernard (1971) and Reik
(1957) who suggested that jealous women fight to win their
partners back whereas jealous men withdraw from and reject their
partners. Teismann and Mosher also examined the hypotheses
(again based on ideas from Bernard and Reik) that jealousy for
women centers on issues of time, attention, and resources
whereas jealousy for men centres on matters of sexual behaviour.
Results showed that rejecting and coercive verbal behaviours
were used more in the jealousy discussions than in the
non-jealousy discussions but that this was true for both
genders. Women were more likely, however, to express jealous
concerns over time and attention loss whereas men were more

likely to express jealousy over sexual matters.

In summary, the psychological research on jealousy has
demonstrated some consistent findings regarding gender
differences. Men's jealousy concerns tend to focus on their
partners' sexual behaviour whereas women's jealousy concerns
tend to focus more on issues of time and attention loss. Men
tend to react to jealous situations with anger or in ways which
boost their own self-esteem. Women tend to react to jealous
situations with appar.ent indifference or in ways which try to
re-establish the relationship. None of the studies reviewed
attempted to systematically explain why the genders differ in
their jealousy foci and expressions. Models to explain these
differences are presented and evaluated in the sections which
review the sociobiological and socio-cultural levels of jealousy
analysis as well as in the section presenting a new model of
understanding relational jealousy.
4) An evaluation of the psychological research

on jealousy

The critique of the jealousy research will focus on three

aspects of experimental validity:

1)

method bias; 2 ) construct

validity; and 3) external validity or generalizability. For the

most part, I will examine the more substantive studies by White,
Bringle et al., Buunk, Mathes et al., and Hansen. The evaluative
critiques of their work can also be applied to the majority of
the other studies reviewed above.

In terms of method bias, all of the researchers, with the

exception of Mathes et al., used the same methods to measure
jealousy and personality characteristics. The consistent use of
paper and pencil measures confounds method with trait variance
and does not allow for a sorting out of their relative
contributions to observed variance (Campbell

&

Fiske, 1 9 6 7 ) . As

such, conclusions are limited about the degree to which jealousy

was being measured in the majority of the studies.
The establishment of the construct validity of a measure
(Cronbach

&

Meehl, 1 9 6 7 ) is an on-goi.ng process contributed to

through evidence of content validity, substantial item-test

correlations, internal reliability, convergent and discriminant
validities, and predictive validity. White and Buunk presented
information only on the internal consistencies of their
respective jealousy measures. As well, their studies examined
hypotheses about the relationship between personality traits and
jealousy via paper and pencil measures purported to measure such
characteristics when no construct validity had been demonstrated
for them either. Similarly, Hansen's work related his jealousy
measure to scales with various levels of established construct
validity. In addition, he shortened and modified these scales,
and by so doing, altered their nature. This has the effect of
creating different scales and brings into question any
assumptions about their construct validities.
The point being made in relation to these validity faults is
best expressed by Campbell

&

Fiske ( 1 9 6 7 ) who state: "We believe

that before one can test the relationship between a specific

test and other traits, one must have some confidence in one's
measure of that trait." ( p . 128). In other words, the construct
validities of the jealousy and the trait measures must be
established before the extent of their association can be
evaluated in a meaningful way. As they stand now, the studies by
White, Buunk and Hansen are, at best, exploratory and
suggestive. The conclusions they draw from their research
findings are premature.
The two jealousy measures with the best established
construct validities are the SRJS (Bringle et al.) and the IJS
( ~ a t h e set al.).

The SRJS has established content validity,

test-retest and internal reliability, and convergent validity.

The discriminant and predictive validities have yet to be
demonstrated and no standardized norms have been established. In
an earlier evaluation of the SRJS, Clarke (1982) criticized the
scale for including items which by definition measured envy more
than jealousy, and for presenting items which asked respondents
to indicate how "jealous" they would feel. The latter is
problematic as it has been pointed out that jealousy has
different meanings for different people (Bringle et al., 1977,
1 9 7 9 ) ~is often denied ( ~ r e u d ,1922/1958; Aronson

&

Pines,

1980), and is often most explicitly denied by those who are most
jealous (Clanton
Jaremko

&

&

Smith, 1977). As well, both Clarke (1982) and

Lindzey (1979) found that the SRJS was significantly

and negatively correlated with social desirability which can be

interpreted as further evidence that the word jealousy has

negative connotations. On the basis of these and other
considerations Bringle (personal communication, September 24,
1 9 8 4 ) has revised the SRJS but to date only some research work

has been completed.- The IJS, developed by Mathes, et al., has

established content validity, substantive item-test
correlations, internal reliability, convergent validity and some
predictive validity. The test-retest reliability, discriminant
validity, and standardized norms await further research. To
date, the IJS has apparently avoided the item content and
response format problems inherent in the original SRJS.
In general, both of these scales have established some
degree of construct validity. As well, both have been
cross-validated in that their validity coefficients were
generated on the basis of different samples than the ones used
to generate the items themselves. On the basis of the above
discussion, it can be concluded that the IJS currently provides
the most valid objective measure of jealousy.
The last point of evaluation I wish to make about the
jealousy research concerns the generalizability of the studies.
Subject pools have generally consisted of university students in
their early twenties. Subjects usually fall under the standard
university descriptors, i.e., white, middle-class, and
heterosexual. Only Buunk ( 1 9 8 1 ) has done research outside of
this group. As well, the more pathological forms of jealousy
tend to have a later age of onset whereas reported jealousy in

non-clinical populations decreases with increasing age. There is

no evidence indicating whether or not the low to high range of
scores on jealousy measures in universities is comparable to the
psychiatric categorizations of normal, neurotic, and delusional
jealousy in clinical settings. The psychological research on the
objective measuring of jealousy or on the styles of jealousy
expression has not made use of the psychiatric classifications.
Both of these research concerns could address and evaluate the
psychiatric conceptions of jealousy if they were applied to
clinical as well as "normal" populations. Currently, whatever
valid conclusions can be drawn from the psychological research
work are limited in generalizability.
The Indi v i dual -Ps ychol ogi cal P e r s p e c t i v e : Concl u s i ons

The psychiatric, psychoanalytic, and psychological

literatures analyze jealousy at the same level of organization.
Their basic concern is to describe jealousy with the individual
as the unit of analysis. In particular, the psychiatric and
psychological literatures have identified the cognitive,
affective, and behavioural characteristics of jealous people. In
a more abstract manner, the psychoanalytic literature has
described these people's intrapsychic mechanisms. The etiology
of jealousy has not been substantially addressed by these
literatures. The psychiatric writers offer a broad
constitutional/vu~nerability model while the psychoanalytic

writers offer equally general psychosexual models. The

psychological literature does not present a coherent model on

the origins of jealousy.

Scattered throughout this review of the
individual-psychological literatures are references to the
contribution of social factors to the etiology and development
of jealousy. In the psychiatric literaure Shepherd (1961) and
Vauhkonen (1968) emphasized that social and interpersonal
factors play a role in the etiology of jealousy. In the
psychoanalytic literature Docherty and Ellis (1976) and
Schmideberg (1953) suggested that specific familial patterns
result in certain individuals being prone to more serious forms
of jealousy. In the psychological literature Bringle (1981)
speculated about the interplay between an affective-memory
system and interpersonal relationships. White (1980b) referred
to jealousy as an intsrpersonal power issue. Despite the general
recognition that these factors can play important roles in the
development of jealousy none of the authors suggested a
framework for incorporating them into a modified
indivdidual-psychological perspective. The consideration of the

individual as the basic unit of analysis in jealousy research

has failed to recognize the importance of social factors. As
mentioned above, I believe that a model of jealousy derived from
attachment, object relations, and intergenerational family
models allows for an individual and interpersonal
conceptualization of jealousy. Before proceeding to describe
this preferred model I will review and analyze the
sociobiological and socio-cultural literatures. These

literatures have adopted broad units of analysis to understand

jealousy--namely, the effects of biology on social relations and
the impact of social structures on jealousy. As well, they have
addressed the important issue of gender jealousy differences.

Sociobiological and Socio-cultural Levels of Analysis:

and Gender Differences
Understanding Jealousy -

The next two levels or domains of jealousy analysis reflect

the theoretical perspectives of the sociobiological and
socio-cultural schools. The sociobiological perspective views
jealousy as a genetic predisposition which serves the adaptive
biological function of preserving the genetic investment of the
individual in her or his offspring. This position regards
cross-cultural evidence of greater male than female jealousy and
the idea that males are less certain of their paternity, as the
basis for biological explanations of gender differences in the
quantity and quality of jealousy. Sociobiology is not concerned
with cultural variations of jealousy experience and expression
but with the ways in which jealousy serves, in the social
context of human behaviour, the biological requirements of
evolutionary survival. The socio-cultural analysis of jealousy,
in contrast, has adopted the view that jealousy is a response to
those culturally defined situations which signal transgressions
of customary sexual rights. Jealousy is seen as being embedded
in and a reflection of cultural values and established
regulations concerning sexual relations, property rights, and
social prestige.
What follows below is a review of the sociobiological view
of jealousy and gender jealousy differences. Subsequently, the
socio-cultural literature on these topics will be reviewed.

These include theoretical expositions, cross-cultural examples,

and a cultural analyses of how gender roles, social power, and
violence in families relate to jealousy and gender jealousy
differences. Finally, I evaluate the basic assumptions and
conclusions of these two meta-analytic ways of addressing
jealousy.
S o c i o b i 0 1 ogi c a l A n a l y s i s

E.O. Wilson ( 1 9 7 5 ) has defined sociobiology as the study of

the biological bases of social behaviour. Social structures and
customs such as reproductive patterns, kinship, and
organizational hierarchies are analyzed in terms of their
adaptive biological funtions. Sociobiologists generally view the
majority of socio-cultural and anthropological theorists as
suffering from the false belief that patterns of human mating
and relating are culturally determined, flexible, and are not
constrained by genetic demands. For sociobiologists, social
practices and institutions which regulate pair-bonding and
reproduction are reflections of our biological nature as
primates. From this perspective, our basic individual and
combined motivation is found in the biological desire to
reproduce or to continue our genetic heritage in offspring.
As part of a larger analysis on human sexuality and mating,
Symonds

1979) and Van der Berghe

1980) have theorized how

sexual jealousy relates to this basic motivation and have

speculated about its relative importance for the female and male

of the species. They propose that sexual jealousy is

qualitatively different and quantitatively greater in men than
in women because, in the former group, it serves a more basic
biological function. In support of their proposal they argue
that a man can never be absolutely certain that the offspring of
the woman he has mated is his own (i.e., paternity uncertainty).
As such, once a child is born, the male risks investing time and
energy in a genetic package that may or may not include his own
genetic material. In order to reduce the likelihood of this
happening the male must control his mate's sexual behaviour. A
woman, on the other hand, is certain that her offspring is
biologically her own. Her jealous concerns about her mate will
focus less on his sexual behaviour and more on the time and
energy he puts into the survival needs of the reproductive unit
(i.e., paternal investment). She wants to know that her mate
will be present to provide the resources necessary for
reproductive success. She risks little if her mate simply
engages in extradyadic sex except when the other woman threatens
the pair-bonding unit by having higher status. In the latter
case, the wife risks losing the husband's investment in her and
the child(ren). According to Van der Berghe ( 1 9 8 0 ) women
~
have
developed biologically based strategies to protect the pair-bond
unit. These include coyness, slower sexual arousal, and the
trading of sexual favours for resources. A woman will also be
more discriminating about whom she will get jealous over as she
will be able to evaluate the other woman's investment as opposed
to sexual threat. For this reason, women will non-jealously

tolerate and sometimes encourage polygamous arrangements with

men unless their status (or reproductive and investment
standing) is threatened. Following on these arguments, Symonds
(1979) maintained that sexual jealousy behaviour in women is a
facultative biological adaptation.

facultative adaptation is

one which is less rigidly genetically determined and is more

open to environmental influences. For men, jealousy is viewed as
an obligate adaptation, meaning that it is a relatively
invariant genetically determined behaviour.
For all of the above reasons, the authors have argued that
cross-culturally men are more concerned with women's fidelity
than women are with men's, and polygamy is substantially more
common than polyandry (to the extent that the existence of true
polyandry is acknowledged by sociobiologists). The double
standard over extradyadic infidelity was similarly explained, by
these authors, as having a biological rather than a cultural
basis. Men will always be biologically prepared to have sexual
relations with a woman. The investment-free siring of offspring
with women, who are not mates, allows for the low-cost
reproduction of genes. Women's reasons for infidelity involve
less of a biological imperative.

woman is likely to have

extra-dyadic relations when she evaluates another man as

offering comparatively more in terms of resources or familial
investment than her current mate.
Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst (1982) have presented statistical
and interpretative evidence to support the proposition that

sexual jealousy in males functions to increase paternity

confidence. They discussed the inherent double standard of
adultery laws in many nations throughout history, the high
incidence of spousal homocide with sexual jealousy as a motive,
and the use of violence by men in many cultures to control the
social and sexual behaviour of women. These points of discussion
were presented to support the idea that the sexual fidelity of
mates is more important to men than to women. The authors also
questioned reports by Ford and Beach ( 1 9 5 1 ) ~
Stephens (19631,
and other socio-anthropologists that certain societies do not
have double standards of sexual behaviour or do not have men who
restrict women's sexual activities. Daly et al. (1982)
acknowledged that these societies are more sexually permissive.
They argued, however, that double standards favouring men and
supporting greater sexual restrictiveness of women are also true
in these societies. The authors used excerpts from the
anthropological reports on these cultures to demonstrate that
the original authors were erroneous in their interpretations.
They maintained that the descriptions show men in these
societies did not accept female sexual freedom. In line with
their sociobiological view of jealousy, Daly et al. suggested
that all of the evidence they present favours the view that male
sexual jealousy is a universal phenomenon occurring in all
cultures.

S o c i o-Cul t u r a l A n a l y s i s

Margaret Mead (1968) described how male peasants in

pre-revolutionary France were obliged, on their wedding nights,
to give over their brides to their ruling seigneurs. Apparently
the grooms were particularly resentful of this required
practice. (It is not reported how the brides felt about the
arrangement.) Mead contrasted this situation with the early 20th
century customs of the Banaro of New Guinea. In this culture,
the groom was required to allow a designated friend of his
father's to have ritual sexual access to his wife. In return,
the groom was sexually initiated by the father's friend's wife.
According to Mead, little or no jealousy was expressed by any
party in this customary arrangement. In certain societies, where
polygamous arrangements for the rich exist, women have been
known to encourage their husbands to take other wives to aid
with child rearing and household labour, and to increase their
social prestige. These women only express jealousy when their
social ranking is threatened by another wife. The men of the
Dobu people, who live on islands near New Guinea, were known to
jealously and violently guard the sexual and social behaviour of
their wives. In contrast, among certain Eskimo peoples it was
considered an act of polite courtesy for husbands to lend their
wives to male guests during the night.
Mead argued that in all of these cases certain types of
social arrangements have lent themselves to greater or lesser
quantities of jealousy experience and expression. She contended

that the more societies give social advantage to groups because

of religious, racial, or class distinctions the more they will
contain members who feel compelled to be jealous of their sexual
relations. As well, societies which arrange social and family
life in ways which encourage clashes over the satisfaction of
various social needs and interests will provide greater
opportunities for the expression of and place greater emphasis
on the importance of sexual jealousy.
The sociobiological arguments and Mead's demonstration of
the ways in which extradyadic relations were responded to in
various cultures raises some interesting questions. First, has
jealousy been found to be a cross-culturally universal
phenomenon, and second, are the sanctions against women's
extradyadic sexual involvements always more severe than those
against men?
Murdock ( 1 9 4 9 ) reported that in 120 of 148 societies
extradyadic relations were forbidden, in 4 they were frowned
upon but not forbidden, in 19 they were occasionally permitted,
and in 5 they were allowed without restrictions. Those cultures
having clear sanctions were always more restrictive towards
women's extradyadic sexual behaviour. By way of contrast, Ford

&

Beach ( 1 9 5 1 ) referred to the Toda women of India who often had

several acknowledged lovers and more than one husband. There
were no restrictions on adultery and there was no word for it in
the language. The answers to the above questions, from the
perspective of these writers, is that jealousy is not a

universal phenomenon but, where it does exist, the sanctions

against women's extradyadic involvements are more severe.
The view that jealousy is culturally determined, in that
certain interpersonal situations are culturally designated as
calling for jealous reactions, was first expressed by Davis
( 1 9 3 6 ) . Hupka ( 1 9 8 1 ) has expanded on and analyzed this view. He

argued that each society identifies what is valued and what must
be protected. It also identifies those situations in which
individuals should make primary appraisals of threat to their
relationships. The solutions a society has developed for
handling certain basic issues for the survival of a culture
determine the likelihood of jealousy appraisals and reactions.
According to Hupka, the basic cultural issues which are relevant
to jealousy are ownership rights, sexual relations, offspring,
and rules of economic and emotional membership. He suggested
that societies which rarely report jealousy among its members
have the following characteristics: 1 ) they discourage property
ownership; 2 ) they make sexual relations available to members on
demand or downplay the association of sex and pleasure; 3 ) they
place little value on men knowing whether or not the children in
their families are their own offspring; and 4) they do not
identify marriage of their adult members as a requirement for
their full economic and social status, or for survival and
companionship. Conversely, those cultures with a high incidence
of jealousy experience and expression would be characterized as
highly valuing the following: ( 1 ) personal property ownership;

(2) genetically related dependents; (3) sexual relations

restricted to marriage partners; and (4) marriage as a
requirement for economic and affective survival. Hupka compared
a culture low in jealousy, the Todas, with a culture high in
jealousy, the Apaches, on these four dimensions to substantiate
his argument. As well, he presented some research on a number of
different cultures which provided corroborating evidence for the
relevance of three of his four dimensions of jealousy. The one
dimension which was not as strongly related to jealousy was
relatedness of offspring. The latter finding does not fit with
current sociobiological assumptions regarding male sexual
jealousy.
Hupka (1981) maintained that no society has successfully
eliminated situations which call for jealousy appraisals and
expressions. From his broader analysis of cultural influences on
sexual jealousy it can be concluded that jealousy is a
cross-culturally universal phenomenon.
A

number of psychologists have attempted to identify the

representative North American cultural values and beliefs which

foster the occurrence of sexual jealousy. Fleming and Washburn
(1977) gave the following examples of these kinds of jealousyenhancing beliefs: 1 ) jealousy is an expression of true love; 2)
my partner is a possession to be possessed; and 3) love is
quantitative and can be given to only one person at a time.

In a book on the subject of sexuality in America, Ellis

(1954) presented the view that the practice of monogamy, and its
inherently related notion of possessive property rights, serves
to support the idea that it is one's right to be possessive with
a partner (e.g., you can't flirt with that person because you
are my spouse). Monogamy also teaches people that there is only
one ideal mate and has as its goal the propagation of
socioeconomic and sexual possessiveness and competitiveness. As
well, Ellis believed that the concern for one's economic
security base with one's partner contributes to the tendency for
jealous reactions. Viewed within a traditional sex-role context,
wives may lose providers and husbands may lose hostesses and
nursemaids. The links which Ellis established between jealousy
and North American values and practices are consistent, in
content, with the dimensions Hupka found to be related to
jealousy.
Jealousy has also been examined in the context of the
alternative forms of sexual relations found in North America,
such as swinging couples (Gilmartin, 19771, open-marriages
( ~ a m e y ,19751, and group marriages (Constantine

&

Constantine,

1974). Gilmartin (1977) interviewed swinging and monogamous

couples. He found that their internalized norms or beliefs
differentiated their abilities to deal with jealousy-provoking
events. The monogamous couples believed in and equated
psychological and physical monogamy whereas the swinging couples
regarded extradyadic sex as a recreational activity and

psychological intimacy as the primary focus of their

relationship with their principal partners. Jealousy was still
reported by individuals in swinging couples but it was more
frequent for those in monogamous couples. Gilmartin argued,
however, that jealousy among swingers was still extant due to
the great difficulty they had in trying to internalize new
beliefs about sexual fidelity in the face of well-entrenched
traditional ones. Stinnet

&

Birdsong ( 1 9 7 8 ) found that in group

marriages, jealousy still existed but was effectively controlled

by the use of a regular sexual rotation of bed partners,
designed to ensure sharing and reduce favouritism.
These findings support the socio-cultural view that cultural
and subcultural structures shape the definition of jealousy
situations and the intensity of jealousy responses.

Culturally prescribed gender roles, social power, violence, and

gender differences
The social sciences have carried out research and developed
theoretical perspectives on gender roles, structuralized power
and violence, and gender differences. All of these areas relate
to relational jealousy. The following review is not complete but
does cover the main influence of cultural values and regulations
on gender relations in general. The explicit or implicit
assumptions about how these influences affect relational
jealousy are also discussed.

In a discussion of the North American double standard in

sexual relations, Colwill and Holborn ( 1 9 7 8 ) presented evidence
that, over time, there has been a decrease in sexual activity
differences between male and female respondents on self-report
surveys. They also presented evidence showing that whereas both
men and women are equally physiologically aroused by sexually
explicit material, women are less likely to cognitively label
this arousal as sexual. This finding suggested to the authors
that gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviours have
less to do with predispositional physiological variables and
more to do with the culturally learned labels for arousal
situations.
Within the socio-cultural perspective there are different
theories of the ways in which gender roles are socially learned.
Chappell ( 1 9 7 8 ) presented Mead's symbolic interactionist
perspective which argues that individuals are influenced by and
construct their own meanings of their interactions with others
to learn the attitudinal and behavioural components of their
gender role from birth on. Lips ( 1 9 7 8 ) presented the social
learning theory of gender identity development. Social learning
posits that through modelling, imitation, and differential
reinforcement of gender role behaviour the child learns to
express gender appropriate behaviours. Lips also argued, on the
basis of findings with infants who have been assigned genders
contrary to their physiological make-up, that gender identities
and gender roles are processes that begin after birth rather

than before.
The culturally entrenched and prescribed gender roles are
regarded by many as being primarily responsible for the
traditional view that women are the more insecure and therefore
the more jealous sex. Historically, women have had fewer
economic and social alternatives outside of their reliance upon
their husbands. They have been dependent on men for social
status mobility and freedom of action (Mead, 1968; Skolnick,
1978). Bernard (1977) argued that the Occidental belief in
monogamous exclusivity has been responsible for keeping women in
unfavourable and inferior social positions. She believed that
normal jealousy will decrease and lose its function as the
institutions of the romantic-monogamic ideologies wither away.
According to Lips (1981), social power entails the
successful use of influence and control to have impact on the
actions of others. Scanzoni and Scanzoni (1981) and Lips (1981)
have discussed the different theoretical bases for the
functioning of social power in the politics of male and female
relationships. Social exchange theory posits that the more
resources a person has, the greater is their power relative to
those who need or desire these resources. The principle of least
interest states that in a relationship the person who has the
least need or interest in maintaining the relationship has more
power. By extension, this power decreases as the other person
finds other sources of reward and need fulfillment. Gillespie
(1971)~
for one, h-as used these and other ideas to argue that

Occidental society is so structured that men, as a social class,

have power and control over women in marriage and in other areas
of social intercourse.
Such an analysis lends credence to the view that women are
the less powerful, more needy, and therefore more jealous sex.
This is due not to women's intrinsic characteristics but to
existing social structures. Women have less access to the larger
social and economic resources manipulated by men, and so are
more possessive of their relationships with men. In contrast
with the sociobiological view, this analysis associates women
with greater sexual jealousy. In agreement with the
sociobiological view, this analysis centres women's jealousy
concerns with questions of resources but for social rather than
biological reasons.
Research on the interpersonal level of power has shown that
the construct has not been without its operational difficulties.
A

study designed to examine the validity of four family power

measures found no criterion validity and little in the way of

convergent validity (Olson

&

Rabunsky, 1972). It is now

generally recognized that power, even at the interpersonal

level, is anything but unidimensional (Scanzoni
1981; Lips, 1981).

&

Scanzoni,

number of writers (reviewed by Lips, 1 9 8 1 ) ~

have divided the power concept into different dimensions. For

example, Safilios-Rothschild (1976) partitioned familial power
into nine separate types or areas including legitimate or
culturally authorized power, decision making power for everday

or major choices, resource power, expert or knowledge power,

influence or persuasiveness power, affective or dependency
power, and dominance or coercion power. She made the point that
the objective assessment of any one or all of these areas of
power may not agree with people's subjective judgements. She
believed that ultimately it is the spouses' perceptions of their
relative power positions on these dimensions which most
accurately inform us about marital power structures. Reflecting
the multidimensional nature of the power concept even more, Lips
( 1 9 8 1 ) maintained that the relative power status of any

individual in a family system is influenced by factors having to

do with age, employment status, extra-familial resources, and
stage in the family life cycle. Given this analysis, the
socio-cultural view that social power is structurally maintained
by men and that this determines gender roles and gender
relations is an over-simplification. The evidence shows that
such influences do not determine the gender roles and gender
relations with one broad sweep of the socio-cultural brush.
Social power is better viewed as a multidetermined construct
which, for individual cases, can be affected by a number of
factors including cultural values and structural regulations.
Even with the recognition that social power is a
multidetermined construct, strong enculturation factors still
have implications for the relationship between power and
relational jealousy. Lips ( 1 9 8 1 ) maintained that, as a part of
the socialization process, men are rewarded for developing

abilities which increase their status and social desirability

outside of the family whereas women are encouraged to develop
skills in the areas of family and interpersonal relations. From
this perspective, women and men control different resources and
thus have different realms of greater power. Men, viewed as a
social class, may have greater power in economic and
authoritative areas whereas women, also viewed as a social
class, may~havegreater power in the politics of affection and
attachment. This would again be consistent with the view that
women's jealousy concerns focus on resource issues whereas men's
jealousy concerns focus on issues of affection and attachment.
If women do have social control over these interpersonal areas,
as they are embodied in family life, then men would be
possessive of their relationships with women in order to
maintain access to these needed emotional resources. This view
recognizes that men and,women are jealous for different reasons.
The socio-cultural and sociobidlogical perspectives agree here,
given that sexual needs can be subsumed under the more general
needs of attachment and affection.
Another socio-cultural phenomena that has been related to
issues of interpersonal power and jealousy is violence in
families. Wife-battering by husbands has been causally linked,
in part, to problems with sexual jealousy (Hilberman

&

Munson

1978; Rounsaville, 1978; Scott, 1974; Whitehurst, 1 9 7 1 ) .

Hilberman and Munson ( 1 9 7 8 ) found that 57 of 60 battered women,

referred for psychiatric evaluation, indicated that their

husbands had assaulted them after accusing them of sexual

infidelity. As well, these husbands were reported to have
severely restricted the wives' social lives with friends and
other sources of social support.
Dutton and Browning (1984) have developed an explanatory
model which recognizes that a number of factors, including
cultural influences, work and peer groups, family experiences,
and the individual's personality, contribute to men's use of
violence against women. The authors looked at power and intimacy
issues in three groups of 18 men each--one group convicted of
wife battering, one group in marital counselling, and one group
obtained through newspaper ads. Subjects were exposed to
videotapes showing a series of verbally conflicting scenes
between a husband and a wife. They were asked to imagine being
the husband. Two levels of power (male dominant or female
dominant) and three levels of attempted imtimacy change
(abandonment, engulfment, or neutral) were manipulated in the
videotaped interactions. Intimacy change manipulations were
designed to reflect the nature of the wife's psychological
relation to the husband. Abandonment was represented by having
the woman express the desire for more independence, engulfment
by requests for more communication and sharing, and neutrality
by a neutral discussion. The results provided tentative support
for the hypothesis that wife-battering men react most strongly
to abandonment themes. Relating wife battering to jealousy,
Dutton and Browning (1984) speculated that violence linked to

sexual jealousy may be an expression of a chronic form of

abandonment anxiety.
Rounsaville (1978) studied 31 battered wives using
open-ended and structured interviews. Twenty-four of the 31
women indicated that their husbands were sexually jealous and
restricted their social contacts with friends and relatives.
Sixteen of the women listed jealousy as the main topic of
discussion leading to violent arguments and 29 of the women
identified jealousy as a frequent cause of violent arguments.
Over half of the wives and their husbands had some history of
psychiatric contact--the women having problems with clinical
depression and the men with violence and alcohol abuse.
Rounsaville argued that there is little support for the
hypotheses that the women wished violence upon themselves or
that the husbands simply trapped the wives and took away their
social supports. He concluded that wife battering may be the
final end point of a number of convergent factors and provided
evidence for this view. Included in this multifactorial model
was evidence of intimacy conflicts over dependency and autonomy
for both partners in the abusive relationship. Husbands
demonstrated this conflict through degrees of paranoid jealousy
and possessive behaviour whereas the women demonstrated it
through dependent and passive-aggressive behaviour.
The linking of wife-battering with sexual jealousy and
issues of dependency and abandonment is consistent with the

63

socio-cultural view that male relational jealousy centres on

issues of affection and attachment.
C o n c l usi ons:

S o c i o b i 0 1 o g i c a l a n d s o c i o - c u l t u r a l 1 e v e 1 s of

analysis; Gender j e a l o u s y differences

Sociobiologists have criticized the social science

literature for assuming that culture-specific socialization
practices are responsible for patterns of human sexual jealousy.
They argued that sexual jealousy is genetically determined and
serves different functions for men and women which are
observable across all cultures. Daly et al. (1982) went as far
as reinterpreting and altering the findings of a number of
social scientists in order to make them fit with the
sociobiological views of jealousy. At the same time, each of the
sociobiological writers reviewed above (i.e., Symonds (1979),
Van der Berghe ( 1 9 8 0 ) and
~
Daly et al. (1982)) made the specific
point that genetic determinism does not mean rigid genetic
determinism. From their perspective, cultural influences are
seen as being responsible for variations in the expression of
biological functions but they do not alter the essential
phylogenetic foundations. The major thrust of their work,
however, is that different patterns of jealousy in men and women
are predictable and immutable. The danger in this view of sexual
jealousy is that of justification. Double standards and male
violence against women can now be viewed as justifiable and
immutable on evolutionary grounds. The implication is that no
amount of cultural interference is capable of altering the

influence of biology in a substantial way. This attempt to

provide the ultimate explanation for jealousy ignores the
tremendous interplay which occurs between biology and culture.
Hebb (cited in Miller 1 9 8 3 ) concluded that behaviour is
determined 100% by genetic factors and 100% by environmental
factors. From this perspective, both nature and nurture have to
be examined to understand the development of any given
behaviour. It would seem that both the socio-cultural and
sociobiological disciplines need to acknowledge the respective
contributions of their realms of study rather than arguing over
which science provides the ultimate explanation.
The sociobiological argument that sexual jealousy serves an
adaptive biological function is a broad and general level of
abstraction and one which has little to say about the behaviour
of any given individual. Given the broad parameters of viewing
jealousy as an evolutionary given, one is not able to go further
and ask how its variations in experience and expression are
formed. The cultural, interpersonal, and psychological
perspectives are required to address these issues.
The analysis of the close relationships amongst jealousy,
gender roles, social power, and violence shifts the focus of the
socio-cultural perspective from a general cultural one to the
more interpersonal level of relations between men and women.
This analysis leads, interestingly, to conclusions similar to
those reached by sociobiologists on gender jealousy differences.
The routes travelled to arrive at these conclusions and their

implications for the potential usefulness of psychological

interventions are, however, very different.
The first point of confluence has to do with the different
foci for men's and women's jealousy concerns. Sociobiological
researchers postulate that men show jealousy when the sexual
fidelity of their partners is threatened, whereas women
demonstate jealousy when their security of access to
resource-providing men is threatened. The socio-cultural
analysis presented above suggests that women and men, on the
basis of having different realms of power, have different foci
for jealous reactions. Men show jealousy when their access to
attachment and affection (emotional resources, including sexual
attention) is threatened, whereas women demonstrate jealousy
when their access to economic and social resources (via their
relationships with men) is threatened. These gender differences
are also corroborated by the findings of the
individual-psychological research literature.
The second point of confluence has to do with the different
intensities of jealousy demonstrated by men and women.
Sociobiology proposes that jealousy is more intensely expressed
by men. This is the case because jealousy serves as an obligate
reproductive strategy for men and as a facultative reproductive
adaptation for women. The traditional socio-cultural view is
that women are the more jealous sex because they have had less
economic and social power. The socio-cultural analysis presented
in this paper does not explicitly identify which gender will

experience the more intense jealousy. It does, however,

recognize that because men and women are socialized to express
their emotions differently, men are more likely to react in
direct and potentially violent ways (i.e., more intensely) to
jealousy situations, For the most part the
individual-psychological literature again substantiates these
differences. For example, Langfeldt (1961) and Vauhkonen (1968)
reported that women more frequently exhibited normal and
neurotic jealousy whereas men more frequently demonstrated
delusional jealousy. As well, Mooney (1965) found that 75% of
the 138 delusional cases he reviewed were men. The research
literature has also addressed the question of quantitative
gender jealousy differences. These have been examined by
comparing women's and men's means on jealousy tests. The results
do not corroborate the general gender differences but because of
interpretive problems in this research area they do not
invalidate them either. There are studies which found that women
score higher on jealousy scales (Aronson

&

Pines, 1983; Buunk,

1981; Clarke, 1982); those which found no significant

differences (Bringle et al., 1977, 1979; Hansen, 1982; White,
1980a, 1981~);and one study which reported that men scored
significantly higher (Mathes, 1981). As was discussed in an
earlier section, results from these studies must be interpreted
with caution. In addition, it has been found that women tend to
score higher than men on scales measuring emotionally-related
constructs (Spence

&

Helmreich, 1978). The above results cannot

be taken as particularly significant in terms of differentiating

which gender experiences a greater intensity of jealousy.

The socio-cultural and sociobiological perspectives make
very different predictions about the impact that cultural
changes can have on gender jealousy differences. From the
socio-cultural perspective, if men and women were to share their
realms of power or at least were less polarized such that men
became more involved in the expression and carrying out of
family/interpersonal concerns and women had greater access to
economic and authoritative resources, then these jealousy
differences would not be identified with either gender alone. In
other words, these changes in social structures and prescribed
gender roles would depolarize the gender jealousy differences.
Sociobiologists would make no such prediction as they maintain
that the gender jealousy differences are immutable.
In conclusion, the sociobiological and socio-cultural
literatures have analyzed jealousy within a broad level of
analysis, namely, humans as members of larger social groups. The
fundamental difference between the two is that sociobiologists
examine human life in the context of evolutionary adaptations
whereas socio-culturalists examine it in the context of
cultural/structural patterns. Men and women, viewed as two
sub-groups, have served as the primary units of jealousy
analysis for both perspectives. Although sociobiologists and
socio-culturalists both identify the broader bases for and the
patterns of jealousy in the human experience, they do not
address the question of how jealousy develops for an individual

in a dyad or a family ie., why jealousy varies in intensity from

one person to another.
The next section of this paper presents the basis of a new
model of jealousy which recognizes and incorporates both the
individual (developmental, experiential, intrapsychic) and the
interpersonal (familial, social) aspects of jealousy. It
provides a broad framework for examining the development of
relational jealousy within any one individual, dyad, or family.
The issue of gender jealousy differences will be examined after
the general model is presented.

Attachment Theory, Object Relations Models, and the

Interqenerational Family Model: & Framework for Understanding
the Etioloqy of Relational
-

Jealousy

Freud (1922/1955) maintained that jealousy has its roots in

the Oedipal complex. This means that the child's intrapsychic
solution to the triangular situation with the parents results in
various quantities and qualities of jealousy in future relations
with sexual partners. In Freud's drive model, relations with
others are interpreted in terms of drive related processes and
their mental event representations. The nature of the child's
relations with the parents is secondary to the emphasis on the
ego's defensive attempts to resolve the severe conflict
experienced at the Oedipal stage. The Oedipal conflict is seen
as reflecting the predetermined and universal struggle between
libidinal/aggressive drives and reality demands.
Since the 1940's and 1950's certain writers in the
psychoanalytic tradition have been attempting to account for
parental influences on the child. Psychoanalysts such as
Fairbairn (1954) and Mahler (1968) have shifted the emphasis
from a focus on the child's intrapsychic world to the child's
intrapsychic.development in the context of relations with

others.' A number of psychoanalytic theorists have developed

such "object relational" theories. These theories often place
It should be noted that the "other" usually referred to is the
mother although writers have recently referred to the influences
of the father, siblings, and the more general "mothering parentw
( ~ a n k& Kahn, 1982; Kwawer, 1982; Neubauer, 1982).
I

more emphasis on the importance of pre-Oedipal stages of

development than they do on the Oedipal stage. This shift of
developmental focus along with attempts to identify the
relational influences of the child's interpersonal context on
his/her intrapsychic' development differentiates object
relational theorists from drive theorists. There are theorists
who, despite maintaining allegiance to the drive model of
structural development, describe the growth of the infant's
internal structures in relational terms. Distinctions of this
type are aptly described in a book by Greenberg

&

Mitchell

(1983). For the purposes of the present discussion I will focus

on the ways in which relational issues have been seen as

influencing pre-Oedipal and Oedipal developments.
~
relations theories focus
According to Kwawer ( 1 9 8 2 )object

on the pre-oedipal issues of caring, attachment, trust,

separation, and individuation as they are reflected in the
relationship between mother and child. This stage of development
is seen as the precursor for the type of resolution used in the
Oedipal situation and for the quality of intimate and general
adult relationships. The mother-infant transactional matrix is
seen as laying the groundwork for intrapsychic structure and
future relations. In this section, I will link jealousy to
issues of the quality of caring, attachment, trust, separation,
and individuation experienced by the child in the family
context. I will begin by briefly reviewing the literature on the
nature of attachment in infancy and childhood. Following this, I

will present an overview of the pre-Oedipal theories of

Fairbairn and Mahler and their Oedipal implications. I will then
present the intergenerational family systems model. This is
followed by a summary of the common relational themes presented
by these perspectives and their contribution to a model of
understanding jealousy and gender jealousy differences. It is
this model which provides the basis for the study which is
subsequently described.
Attachment T h e o r y

The leading exponents of the ethological view of attachment

have been Bowlby and Ainsworth. Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1 9 8 0 )
conceived of attachment behaviour as any form of behaviour which
results in an individual attaining or maintaining proximity to
another. Attachment behaviour has its own motivational
properties distinct from and equally important to those
associated with feeding and sexual behaviour. The infant's
attachment to his/her mother is a reflection of a number of
species-specific behavioural systems which help to ensure
parental care and serve to reduce the risks during the long
period between infant vulnerability and growth to maturity. It
leads to the development of emotional bonds or attachments
between the child and parent and later between adult and adult.
The forms that attachment behaviour takes and the bonds it
develops for the individual are active throughout the life-span.

Bowlby viewed early social attachment as crucial for normal

development. The principal determinants of any individual's
development and organization of attachment behaviour are his/her
experiences with attachment figures (parents) during infancy,
childhood, and adolescence.

major focus of Bowlby's work has

been on children's and adults1 responses to loss and separation.

The primary attachment figures' evaluative and behavioural
reactions to the attachment behaviours of their dependents, from
infancy on, are viewed as being major determining factors in the
way such events are subsequently responded to.
From Ainsworthls (1969, 1982) perspective, attachment
behaviour is instinctive in the sense that predispositions to
develop attachment behaviours and emotional bonds are
species-inherited developmental capacities. Learning, via
feedback from the environment, impacts on the way in which
attachment behaviours and bonds are expressed. Throughout the
life-span, the relative amount of anxiety and security
experienced in relations with others is affected by events
occurring throughout the childhood period.
Ainsworth (1982) reported on a series of observational
studies which exposed infants to separation-from-mother
situations. These studies have resulted in infants being placed
into one of three attachment categories:

1)

securery attached;

2) anxiously ambivalent attached; and 3 ) anxiously avoidant

attached. Securely attached infants seek contact after
separations from mothers. Anxiously ambivalent infants seek

contact but also show anger and resistance after separation.

Finally, anxiously avoidant infants primarily avoid contact with
their mothers after.separation. Mothers of both anxious
attachment groups are described as being relatively insensitive
to their infants' needs, and mothers of the avoidant infants
were also described as having an aversion to close physical
contact. Ainsworth reported that infants do not necessarily fall
into the same attachment categories with their mothers and
fathers. She maintained that this finding endorses an
interactional model of attachment behaviour rather than
supporting the view that children are temperamentally secure,
ambivalent, or avoidant.
Ainsworth ( 1 9 8 2 ) extended the infant-caretaker attachment
model to mature adult bonds by speculating that people will seek
the same type of bonds of security/anxiety in later adult
relationships as they had experienced with their parents. R.
Weiss ( 1 9 8 2 ) also linked child-parent attachment styles to later
relationships. He suggested some ways in which parents can
sabotage the maturing individual's shift of attachment
behaviours from parents to peers. Parents may attempt to
maintain their children as providers of attachment in order to
forgo their own development as separate individuals. Or they may
have so undermined their children's confidence in their
independent abilities that the now grown up children rely upon
the parents for security needs.

To summarize, the attachment perspective proposes that

everyone has needs for security and proximity to providers of
security needs. The development of attachment behaviours occurs
in the context of parent-child interactions over time, and
parents, as their children's primary attachment figures, play a
powerful role in the quality of their children's existing and
potential attachments. From the above review, it can be seen
that the development of attachment behaviours, as they reflect
needs for security and proximity, will influence the quantity
and quality of jealousy experiences and behaviours. Within this
framework, jealousy is an internal and external expression of
the anticipated or actual threat to felt-security involving the
anticipated or actual loss of an attachment figure.
Attachment theory provides a model for jealousy within a
general motivational and developmental perspective. It does not,
however, provide specifics about the infant's development in
relation with others or how these in turn might influence the
structuring of the infant's intrapsychic world. Object relations
theory does address these issues.
O b j e c t Re1 a t i o n s Model s

Object relations theory refers to models within

psychoanalytic theory which are concerned with the ways in which
our interactions with others lead to the development of
internalized representations of others and self, and how this
internal object world affects our psychic functioning and the

behavioural and affective relations we have with the external

world. To varying degrees, the models are also concerned with
the ways in which these representations can be modified over
time via intrapsychic and interactional processes with others.
In summary, object relations models address the motivational,
developmental, and structural bases of our internal and external
worlds (Greenberg

&

Mitchell, 1983).

Melanie Klein (1957; Segal, 196'4, 1979) is considered one of

the first object relations theorists. Although her developmental
model did not put great emphasis on the actual relationships
between the child and his or her actual environment, she did
view the pre-Oedipal period and thus the
child-in-relation-to-mother, as crucial to development. She also
specifically addressed the issues of envy and jealousy.
Klein (1957; Segal, 1964, 1979) maintained that envy is a
developmental precursor of and forms the basis for jealousy.
Envy begins in the pre-Oedipal relationship between the child
and the mother's breast. The breast (which is related to as a
part-object) both gratifies the child with food and comfort and
also creates destructive envy in the child as he/she realizes
that the source of the need-fulfillment is external to him or
herself. Envy involves the rage and resentment that the child
feels knowing that something external to it contains the needed
sustenance and therefore has the power to confirm or deny his or
her existence. In the normal case the experience of love and
gratitude in relation to the parent(s) overcomes and diminishes

the intensity of envy. By way of contrast, Klein saw jealousy as

an Oedipal issue involving a triangular situation. Normal
jealousy is based on love of the object and hatred of the rival.
Pathological jealousy is based on envious possession of the
object so that the object does not exist as a separate entity
but as an extension of the jealous person. Klein stopped short
of specifying why it is that for some love does win out over
envy and for others it does not.
There are a number of other theorists in the object
relations tradition (Fairbairn, 1954; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut,
1971, 1984; Mahler, 1972; and Winnicott, 1965) who are more
concerned with the actual relationships the child encounters in
the external world and how these effect the structuralization of
the internal world. Although none of these theorists
specifically developed explanatory models of jealousy their
ideas do have potential applicability to the understanding of
jealousy. The object relations models of Fairbairn (1954) and
Mahler (e.g., 1968, 1972) are particularly applicable to an
intrapsychic and interpersonal understanding of jealousy.
Fairbairn's model contains some key concepts which provide
insights into the sources of relational jealousy. To some
degree, these concepts reflect and enhance Mahler's
developmental and interactional framework.
For Fairbairn libido is object seeking and the infant is
born with an ego ready to orient to objects. With experiences of
satisfactions and dissatisfactions in interaction with the

mother (not yet experienced as a whole object), the outer part

object is internalized and altered intrapsychically because it
cannot be altered in external reality. To protect its relational
investment with the outer object the ego splits (dissociation
later becoming repression) the disturbing elements of the
internalized object from its satisfying parts. The unsatisfying
split off introject is further split into the exciting and
rejecting objects because the unsatisfying part-object has both
desirous and rejecting aspects. The remaining satisfying nucleus
of the original internalized part-object (the ideal object)
remains in awareness and is cathected by the central ego to
maintain relations with needed others. In the splitting process,
parts of the ego cathect and are dissociated along with the
exciting and rejecting objects. The libidinal ego cathects the
exciting object and the anti-libidinal ego cathects the
rejecting object. This process of ego and object cathexis and
splitting involves multiple object representations and is
ongoing in the relational world of the developing child.
Experiences which increase the primacy of good object/central
ego energy increase the tolerance for the emergence into
consciousness of the bad object/rejecting and exciting ego
energies. Thus, the more positive relational experiences the
child has, the greater is his or her ability to tolerate and
integrate negative ones. On the other hand, if the child has a
preponderance of negative relational experiences then the bad
object-ego structural representations become too disturbing to
allow direct expression or conscious awareness. As such, the

central ego must dissociate them more and not allow the
aggression and pain caused by poor object relations to overwhelm
the central ego's attempt to maintain good object relations.
The libidinal ego and anti-libidinal ego express the
unfulfilled longings and the pain associated with child-parent
dependence. From its unsatisfying experiences with early
external objects the libidinal ego cathects all that is exciting
and promising, but remains forever bound to an unfulfilling
internal exciting object. The anti-libidinal ego cathects the
depriving, rejecting, and attacking aspects of the unsatisfying
object and internally persecutes both the exciting object (the
enticing parent) for its false promises, and the libidinal ego
for its dependency and longings. Even if the parents provide
primarily unsatisfactory and rejecting contacts, the child will
still maintain ties because his/her basic need for satisfying
object relations is retained in the ideal object and the promise
of the exciting part-objects of the parents.
Fairbairn argued that constructive (mature dependence) or
destructive (infantile dependence) adult love relations reflect
the quality of interactions with early love objects which have
been internalized. Guntrip (1961) and Dicks ( 1 9 6 7 ) have expanded
on this idea. In the destructive case, later love objects will
be selected for their exciting and depriving qualities in order
to maintain internal object relations allegiance and to re-enact
the longings of the libidinal ego. The anti-libidinal
ego-rejecting object relational structure attacks the libidinal

ego for these desires and projects hatred outward on to the new
objects for arousing these relational hopes. As such, the more
ambivalence and outright rejection people experience in relation
to early objects the more they will re-enact self-directed
longings and destructiveness with object-directed dependency and
hatred in adult life. In adult relationships, when the
appropriate interactional sequences and affective evocations
exist, these people will project the split off self-object
representations onto the new objects.
Fairbairn's motivational, developmental, and structural
model does introduce some important concepts which can be
applied to the development and maintenance of jealousy. An
individual's quantity and quality of jealousy experience and
expression would depend on the quality of interaction with early
love objects. As well, the projection of split-off internalized
objects in adult love relationships suggests that a jealous
person would not be able to regard another person with whom they
are intimate as a whole integrated being. Instead the other
would be seen as representing both the enticement of fulfilled
union and the disappointment of rejection. In other words, love
for the person with a preponderance of split internal
self-object representations, is fraught with the danger of
disappointment and the expectation of loss. Fairbairn's model
places the development and the maintenance of jealousy in an
interactional framework. His model would predict that people who
have never learned to be securely attached will seek out others

who will allow them to re-enact their desires for security,

their expectations for disappointment, and the projection of the
corresponding affects.
Mahler (1968, 1972; Mahler

&

McDevitt, 1980; Mahler, Pine,

&

Bergman, 1975) has developed an object relations model which

speaks of the psychological birth of the human infant. For
Mahler, psychological birth is not a reflection of the libidinal
movement to genital primacy following the Oedipal complex.
Rather, it is reflected in the progressive movement of the child
from a symbiotic embeddedness in the infant-mother matrix to a
development of a separate identity and autonomous functions and
the recognition of others' separateness. She refers to this
process as separation-individuation. Mahler views the child's
developmental task as being the need to reconcile powerful urges
to develop and maintain a separate identity and autonomous
functions with equally powerful urges to reunite with the
symbiotic self-object fusion. She extends her model's
application to the whole life span by viewing life as a dance
between the desire for autonomy and the desire for re-fusion.
Mahler divides infancy into six stages of development, four
of which encompass the separation-individuation progression. For
the first month of life the infant is psychologically in the
stage of normal autism, wherein its only awareness concerns
physiological needs and hallucinatory wish fulfillment. It is
not yet aware of outside sources of need satisfaction and still
assumes that desiring leads to satisfaction. In the second and

third months the infant, via physiological maturation, increases

its responsiveness, becomes aware of the mother's role in need
satisfaction, and comes to experience her as a part of itself in
a dual unity. This is the stage of symbiosis. The child's

increasing ego functions of perception and memory allow for the

experiencing and categorization of painful (bad) and pleasurable
(good) experiences. Bad experiences are projected outside of the
safe and good realm of the symbiotic mother-child matrix. This
"symbiotic orbit" is experienced as unitary and omnipotent.
The first stage of the four separation-individuation
sub-phases is called differentiation. From the fourth to the
tenth month the child's body and sensory acuities increase to
allow for sensory exploration of the outside world. The mother
is always maintained as a base but the child learns the first
differences between the mother and other external objects. As
well, the child develops discriminations between self and other
objects through the ability to distinguish between internal
sensations and the perceptions of external events.
The next sub-phase, the practising subphase, occurs from ten
to fourteen months. The early practising subphase is marked by
increasing body differentiation via locomotion, the use of
mother as a base for "emotional refueling", and the development
of autonomous interests in the world of inanimate objects. The
practising subphase proper involves the expansion of
psychological horizons and possibilities with the onset of
upright locomotion. The child takes great pleasure in its

enlarged scope for omnipotent functioning but still relies upon

the mother as a home base. The mother plays the important role
of allowing the child to move away from her and return. In order
to do this, she must relinquish some of her fusion with the
child.
From 15-24 months the child is in the rapprochement
subphase. As the child experiences and recognizes more of its
separateness, it comes to realize that it is not omnipotent or
ideal but small and dependent. The mother is now recognized as a
separate being, although not yet a whole and separate being. The
mother is experienced as being split into the good mother and
the bad mother. The good mother is internalized and the bad
mother is projected outwards. The child experiences growing
frustration as it realizes that desiring no longer brings
satisfaction. All of these factors lead to the rapprochement
crisis around the 18th month of life. At this point the child
recognizes its dependency on help from outside itself but in
order to maintain its desire for autonomous and individuated
functions it denies that dependency. The child experientially
vacillates between desires for reunion in the omnipotent orbit
and desires for separate-autonomous functioning. Behaviourally,
this is expressed by intense demandingness of and clinging to
the mother, alternating with equally intense negativity and
battling. ~mbi;alence in relations marks this period of
development. The child both fears the loss of the mother's love
because of its developing separateness and fears re-engulfment

in the symbiotic matrix because of dependency needs.

The beginning resolution of the rapprochement crisis begins
in the normal child around the second year of life. This is
referred to as the phase of libidinal object constancy which
proceeds through the Oedipal phase and in various forms
throughout the remaining life span. The two developmental tasks
of this phase are to develop a stable sense of self and a stable
sense of others. Resolution involves the child being able to
experience and recognize her or himself as a separate individual
capable of autonomous functioning, and the recognition of the
mother and other external objects as psychologically separate.
A

preponderance of good self-object experiences and images

throughout the symbiotic and separation-individuation subphases

.

works in favour of the integration of good and bad self-object

images. This allows for the development of a positive and
trusting sense'of self and other.

preponderance of negative

self-object experiences and images throughout the phases of

development lead to the child maintaining split self and object
images. The child will also continue to struggle with the
abandonment fears of separation and the engulfment fears of
fusion.
It must be remembered that the resolution of the
rapprochement crisis is only a relative and not an absolute
achievement. The degree to which the child resolves this crisis,
however, is crucial for normal or abnormal development.

Relatively faulty or unattained resolutions will lead to

psychopathologies of various kinds. Mahler believes that the
mother-child interactions play the most important role in the
resolution of the rapprochement crisis. Within this relational
dyad the mother is viewed as having the more powerful influence.
The child needs the mother to share in and encourage its
emerging sense of separateness and autonomy. This is a difficult
task for the mother at the time of the rapprochement crisis
because the child may appear to have regressed from an achieved
level of independence (ie., practising subphase) to a stage of
increased demandingness and anxiety (eg., both wanting and
rejecting the mother's help). What the mother does in response
to the crisis depends, in large measure, on her own affective
needs and attitudes towards dependency and separation-autonomy.
On the one hand, the mother may reject the renewed dependency
and push the child towards independence so that the latter must
prematurely separate and develop autonomy before being ready. On
the other hand, the mother may welcome the child's return to
dependency by serving her or his needs for too long and thus
hinder the opportunity for the emergence of a separate self and
autonomous functions. The ideal response would involve a balance
of giving and letting go in synchrony with the child's
developing needs and abilities.
As was previously mentioned about most object relations
models, Mahler's account refers almost exclusively to the
relationship between the child and the mother. Recent articles

have begun to speculate about the role the father plays in the
separation-individuation process. Both Abelin ( 1 9 7 1 ) and
Henderson ( 1 9 8 2 ) maintained that the child becomes aware of the
father as it emerges from the symbiotic phase with the mother.
The father is then seen as playing a catalytic role in helping
the child develop a sense of separateness and autonomy. This
view has been lauded because it identifies a role for the father
but it also been criticized because it polarizes the parental
roles. Spieler ( 1 9 8 4 ) argued that this portrayal of the father
is only true in traditional families where mothers are
responsible for child rearing. She maintained that the child is
capable of developing concurrent mental representations of the
father and mother in the symbiotic stage--as long as both
parents are involved in child care. Chodorow ( 1 9 7 8 ) and
Dinnerstein ( 1 9 7 6 ) analyzed this issue in some depth and their
ideas are presented in the section examining gender jealousy
differences below.
Mahler's model can be seen as theoretically incorporating
the basic components of attachment theory and Fairbairn's model.
Before going on to examine the implications of Mahler's model
for the development of jealousy I will present the
intergenerational family systems model. This model captures and
extends the same themes presented in Mahler's work.

T h e I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l Fami 1 y S y s t e m s Model

There is another theoretical orientation which addresess the

same parent-child issues from a different vantage point. The
intergenerational systems model is primarily presented in the
works of Bowen ( 1 9 7 8 ) Framo
~
(1970, 1982), ~inuchin ( 1 9 7 4 ) and
~
Boszormenyi-Nagy and Ulrich (1981). These and other exponents of
the model have different names for fheir approaches and their
levels of analysis vary in complexity. They do, however, share
some basic assumptions about the family and its role in the
relational development of individuals. These assumptions can be
stated as follows: 1 ) the family is a system of interacting
parts which function to maintain a dynamic relational balance
between needs for belongingness and homeostasis, and needs for
autonomy and expansion; 2 ) characterological, dyadic, and
familial problems are believed to simultaneously reilect
relational difficulties in the family of origin; and 3 ) through
symbolic transactions parents project their legacies,
unfulfilled childhood needs, and degrees of fusion and autonomy
onto their children--these having been introjected on the basis
of their own experiences with their parents.
The family system is viewed as having a tremendous impact on
the ways in which an individual balances his or her needs for
belonging and autonomy (read, attachment and individuation). The
terms differentiation and non-differentiation refer to the
relative balance between these needs. Their definitions have
been adapted from the writings of the theorists identified

above. In the intergenerational model an individual can be

described as relatively more differentiated when she or he has a
clearly estblished sense of self, fewer split-off subidentities
requiring projection, a lower level of relational anxiety, and
an ability to react-to stress with independent and proactive
thought and behaviour. Individuals who are relatively more
non-differentiated can be described as being either enmeshed or
disengaged. An enmeshed individual has a sense of self which is
relationally tied to others (eg., the person tends to seek
approval), has split-off subidentities which are externalized
via projection, experiences a high level of relational anxiety,
and is emotionally reactive and other-focussed in thought and
behaviour when under stress. The disengaged person is also
relationally tied to others, uses projection to deal with
split-off subidentities, and is relationally anxious but the
style of expressing these traits tends to be the opposite of the
enmeshed style. The disengaged person appears relationally
cut-off, represses the experience of relational anxiety, and is
self-focussed in thought and behaviour when under stress.
The same descriptors are used to describe family styles of
interaction. Parents with higher degrees of emotional enmeshment
or disengagement are more likely to rely upon others (spouses
and children) to meet unmet needs and to reenact intrapsychic
conflicts over relational issues experienced earlier in their
own families of origin. This intergenerational projective
process tends to restrict the extent to which the children can

differentiate or find a balance between their needs for

belonging and needs for autonomy. On the other hand, individuals
in healthy families experience a range of interactive styles.
Autonomous functioning can be a reflection of self-expression
unhindered by relational needs. Enmeshment can be seen as an
experiential aspect of intimacy and a form of emotional
refueling a la Mahler. Disengagement can be viewed as a step
required for the integration of new information prior to the
reemergence of a modified sense of self. As such, relational
enmeshment and disengagement are not necessaril; indicators of
pathology at the individual or family levels. It is when these
interactive styles become rigidly ensconced on the relational
level that symptoms, reflecting lower levels of differentiation,
begin to appear.
Framo ( 1 9 7 0 ) linked the differentiation/non-differentiation
dimension to Fairbairn's (1954) structural theory. He maintained
that children deal with painful and frustrating emotional
relationships with their parents through internalization. These
experientially based internal representations become
subidentities. Children with a preponderance of negative
experiences will enforce the splitting off of the "bad"
emotional relationship representations (libidinal and
anti-libidinal egos) in order to establish satisfying object
ties through the conscious maintenance of "good" self
subidentities. In later relationships, these individuals will
project the split-off negative feelings onto certain other

people. Framo maintained that in families the projection of

parental needs has the effect of emphasizing aspects of the
children's (or spouses') characteristics which result in their
being assigned particular roles in the family. He argued that
the irrational role-assignment allows parents to symbolically
reenact the same emotional relationships experienced earlier.
This "repossession of old objects" prevents parents from
separating as to do so might result in overwhelming feelings of
depression and abandonment. Projective processes with children
and spouses permit the avoidance of the emergence into
consciousness of split-off painful longings (libidinal ego) and
vindictive anger (anti-libidinal ego).
Not every child in a given family will take on the same role
assignment. The specific nature of a child's role and the
particular conflicts faced by a child will depend on
aM0 n j

interactions beWeen many factors including:

1)

the ways in

which the child interprets and transactionally reconstructs the

role assignment projections; 2 ) the parental reactions to the
child's temperament, birth order, sex, and age; 3 ) the stage of
the family life cycle; and 4) the impact of sibling and
extra-familial relations and cultural influences. In this model
growth or healthy change involves the modification of
misperceptions and the reintegration of split-off subidentities.
This process allows for the achievement of greater separation
and individuation which in turn results in greater tolerance for
both aloneness and togetherness in relationships.

It is clear from the above review that there is a great deal

of conceptual confluence amongst the attachment, the object
relations, and the intergenerational family systems models. The
first two identify the relational and intrapsychic themes
associated with the early mother-child dyad. The third views
these same themes as existing in the broader context of the
immediate and extended families. The primary relational needs
discussed by these models have to do with needs for belonging
and attachment and needs for individuation and autonomy. All of
these models assume that healthy psychological functioning
results when these needs are flexibly balanced in the family.
Individuals in such families will be able to intrapsychically
develop a separate sense of self and others--i.e., develop
autonomy and relate with others in less driven and more
differentiated and proactive ways.
How does all of this relate to the development of relational
jealousy? You will recall that psychoanalytic thought linked
jealousy to the Oedipal stage of psychosexual development. The
implication of the theory was that the quality of the child's
intrapsychic attempts to resolve his or her Oedipal crisis
determined the quantity and quality of his or her jealousy. The
parental roles were viewed as relatively fixed and were not the
primary focus of the Oedipal theory.

Schechter ( 1 9 6 8 ) provided a model of the Oedipal complex

which integrates the impact of parental behaviour and the
child's intrapsychic world on the degree and quality of
resolution. He essentially restated Mahler's rapprochement
crisis in Oedipal t-erms. He believed, as did Mahler, that the
young child experiences the mother as an exclusive possession in
the early years of life. With maturation and a growing awareness
of the mother's extended interests in her interpersonal world,
the child experiences conflict over desires for symbiosis
(exclusive possession, including sexual) and continued
individuation. The awareness that threats to the exclusive
possession of the mother exist (ie., her other object interests
including the father and the siblings) leads to the first
experience of jealousy. The child wishes to be rid of these
intruders and maintain exclusive possession of the mother.
Looked at in this light, the Oedipal crisis is in many ways
a re-working of Mahler's rapprochement crisis which the child
has experienced at an earlier age. Both involve the working out
of a balance between needs for autonomy and needs for others, or
the forging of a sense of self and a sense of self-in-relation
to others. This view is consistent with Fairbairn's (1954)
conclusion that the resolution of the Oedipal period results in
certain qualities of relational potential'(of which sexuality is
a part) or the establishment of the basis for future relational
capacities. Rather than conceiving of the rapprochement and
Oedipal crises as discrete and unrelated, they may better be

regarded as different culminating periods along a developmental

line.
For both Mahler and Schechter the relative resolution of the
respective crises depends to a large degree on the nature of the
parents' interactions with the child. If the child, from infancy
through childhood, has experienced affirming and consistent
parenting then she/he will internalize a basic sense of security
and trust and begin the process of being able to function
autonomously. As such, the sense of loss and betrayal associated
with the rapprochement and Oedipal crises will be tolerated and
absorbed with little conflict. On the other hand, an overall
lack of parental responsiveness will result in the child
developing a poor sense of internalized trust and security. This
will make it difficult for the child to absorb the negative
feelings associated with the sense of loss in the Oedipal period
and will result in the continuation of conflicts over desires
for merger and desires for autonomy. As well, seductive parental
behaviour or parental behaviour which strives to maintain the
child in symbiotic dependence will also result in the latter
being conflicted over issues of attachment and autonomy.
Children who emerge from either of these broadly defined
transactional contexts will to varying degrees experience
difficulty in their capacity for intimate relations throughout
life. Desires for closeness and attachment will always be imbued
with fears relating to potential abandonment by the love object
and by the potential dissolution of the self.

Relational jealousy then is a reflection of people's

maturation in the context of their transactions with parental
and familial figures. Children, whose pre-Oedipal, Oedipal and
post-Oedipal lives with their families can be characterized as
having a preponderance of security experiences over anxiety
experiences, or good object relations over bad, will develop
better integrated and better defined self and other
representations. Their subsequent ability to experience merger
or separateness without fears of engulfment (loss of self) or
)

abandonment (loss of the objects love or the object) by the

other will be enhanced. As a consequence, the likelihood of
their experiencing relational jealousy difficulties will be
reduced. Conversely, parents whose own relational needs take
priority over their children's will hinder the latters'
development of separate and securely defined images of self and
others. These children will continue to seek out the fulfillment
of needs related to Mahler's stages of separation-individuation.
They will experience ambivalent and conflictual feelings in
their relational lives; namely, fears and desires of merger and
separation experiences. Merger experiences will evoke fears
related to the loss of a more tenuous sense of self and desires
related to wanting need fulfillment through exclusive
possession. Separation experiences will evoke fears of
abandonment and desires for individuation and autonomy. When
they are subsequently involved in intimate adult relationships
these basic relational conflicts will re-emerge. For some adults
there will be a propensity to handle the anxiety engendered by

intimate relationships through moving away from closeness or

merger-evoking experiences. These adults will present a more
self-sufficient or autonomous way of dealing with their fears of
engulfment (loss of tenuous self) in the merger experiences of
intimate relationships. The current model suggests that these
people grew up in families whose interactional styles were more
disengaged or distancing. These people tend to deny their
painful needs for exclusive possession and by extension they
deny feelings of jealousy. Other adults will handle their
anxiety in intimate relationships through moving toward
closeness or merger experiences. They will present as more
anxiously attached as a way of dealing with their fears of
abandonment in the separation experiences of intimate
relationships. These people most likely grew up in families
whose interactional style was more enmeshed. These people have
more difficulty maintaining a sense of self as separate from the
other and to varying degrees require the other in order to feel
substantial. As a result, they are more prone to express
feelings of possessiveness and jealousy in relationships.

Gender Differences

How does this model account for gender differences in

jealousy? Feminist scholars, such as Chodorow (1978) and
Dinnerstein (19761, provide perspectives on this question which
combine individual and interpersonal levels of analyses
consistent with the general model of jealousy provided above.

Both authors have linked the double standard and the genders'
differential power bases to the fact that women have assumed the
primary care taking role with infants and young children. Of the
two authors, Chodorow provided the most in-depth analysis of the
intrapsychic and social structural consequences of gender care
taking differences. Her main focus is on how parenting
structures influence the intrapsychic development of women and
consequently their desires to mother children. Dinnerstein's
analysis is analogous to Chodorow's and she identified the
psychological impact of parenting structures on gender
differences in jealousy. &hat -io~rowsis a summary of the
asguments presented by these authors.
Chodorow has adopted the object relations view that infants
come into the world with a drive to have contact with others
(objects). The outcome of this relational drive is the
development of primary or symbiotic love in which the infant
does not differentiate the primary caretaker (mother) from
itself. As a part of its pre-Oedipal development the infant,
between the ages of six months to 2 years, begins the process of
differentiating itself from the mother until both are recognized
and experienced as separate and whole beings. Originally the
infant does not recognize that the mother has interests separate
from its own. This is a struggle for the infant even after the
process of recognizing the mother a s a separate person begins.
By way of contrast, once the infant is capable of recognizing
separatness it more easily recognizes that the father has

separate interests. This is because the father has never been an

object of primary or symbiotic love. Since the child's

'

dependence on and attachment to the mother has been more

absolute it experiences a powerful draw to become one (merge)
with the mother again and, at the same time, a dread of this
merger because it would entail the loss of reality-based
capacities and functions. Relations with the mother have been
based on primary love and are capable of evoking primary
fantasies of desire and fear around merger and separation. As a
result of this the mother "looms large and powerful" to the
child. For the mother's part, while she is going to experience a
sense of continuity with all of her children, this sense of
identification and symbiotic cathexis is going to be much more
pervasive and extended over time with daughters. Sons, because
of their different gender and what it signifies, are not as
strongly identified with and they are generally encouraged
towards earlier differentiation than girls.
The boy's movement from the mother and towards separate and
independent functioning is aided in part by the physical
difference of having a penis and by his identification with the
father (who is separate from the mother). On a deeper level,
boys have both a primary dread of the omnipotent mother (which
engenders the fear of loss of self and thus movement away from
her) and a sexualized "primary love" attraction to her (the
desire to merge). For heterosexual men, the experience of
primary love can be recaptured through relations with women

later in life. Girls also turn away from the omnipotent mother
but not because of a literal penis envy. Instead, girls turn to
the father because they envy the freedom from the mother which
he appears to embody and the power this appearance bestows upon
him. Since the mother also remains the girl's primary love
object, the girl's relation to the father is in reaction to and
in competition with her relation to her mother./A girl retains
/

her intense primary identification with and dependence upon her

mother. As such, women experience heterosexual relations in a
triangular context wherein men, as partners, are not women's
sole objects. As was true for men, heterosexual women will
attempt to recapture and resolve issues of separateness and
merger through intimate relations with members of the opposite
sex. Men, however, will not fully satisfy women's narcissistic
unity needs as they were never the providers of such relational
experiences. As a result, women need to recapture the symbiotic
relation by becoming mothers themselves. Having children gives
women the opportunity to fulfill primary identification needs
whereas men use their relations with women for such purposes.
According to the Chodorow, these are the consequences of women
having the responsibility for child-rearing.
Chodorow ( 1 9 7 8 ) argued that if men were as equally involved
in infant care as women then they would not have to so carefully
guard themselves from maternal omnipotence through the practice
of devaluing women and erecting social structures to exclude and
control women. As well, women would not have the same struggles

over issues of separateness and autonomy, and would not require

children for emotional completion.
After proposing similar ideas, Dinnerstein ( 1 9 7 6 ) argued
that when a woman is unfaithful she re-evokes the Oedipal
situation for her mate i.e., the pain in the recognition that
the mother did not belong to him or serve his interests alone.
For a woman, a man's infidelity will not arouse the same level
of grief and anger'because the man is only a partial recapturing
of the original unity experienced with the mother. The woman,
through the identificati.on process with her mother, instead
carries an image of herself as the primary love object. As such,
women are much more capable of evoking men's feelings of
helplessness and vulnerability in intimate relations than vice
versa. Men deal with this through the maintenance of
sex-segregated institutions, by controlling women, and by
denying dependency in order to maintain feelings of competency
and autonomy. Women's greater ability to accept fusion and
merger is a reflection of their embodiment of the powerful
mother image. Dinnerstein also suggested that if a woman has had
a poor relationship with her mother and has not developed a
sense of positive continuity with her, then she will not have
access to these same internal feelings of primary unity and will
be more vulnerable to the pain and grief of jealousy.
I

Q>C

How does this Lrmsaetimal-developmental model account for

the different jealousy foci and intensities? According to the
above analysis women maintain power in the interpersonal

emotional realm because they are the primary caretakers of

children. Girls incorporate and identify with the mother as the
omnipotent primary object. On the other hand, the gender role
development of men involves the incorporation of and
identification with-fathers as embodiments of separateness and
freedom from the primary love object. As such, men are more
likely to develop strategies which both guard against and allow
them access to women.
According to Chodorow, traditional psychoanalytic writers
have neglected to separate out the following components in love
and object choice:
"...conscious heterosexual erotic orientation--what we
usually mean by heterosexuality, that is, being sexually
attracted to people of a different gender; heterosexual
love--forming a deep emotional attachment to a person of
a different gender with whom one is sexually involved;
and general, nonsexualized emotional attachments and
their internalized object-relational counterparts--which
do not speak to conscious sexual involvement or
attraction." (p. 128)
Chodorow maintained that mothers (women) are the pre-Oedipal
object of the third element for both genders, and generally the
Oedipal and post-Oedipal objects for men. Fathers/men, on the
other hand, generally only become the Oedipal and post-Oedipal
objects (the first and second components) for girls. Men's
relationships with women are essentially based on all three of
the components--most importantly the third. It is this
pre-Oedipal element, the "generalized, nonsexualized emotional
attachments and their internalized object-relational
counterparts1' which is the most essential to the internal

conceptions of self and object, and external relations with

others. Men will therefore be potentially more reactive to the
issues of emotional attachment, caring, trust, and
separation-individuation in intimate relationships with women
than vice versa.
Men not only repress their Oedipal desires for the mother
but more importantly they must repress and displace the
pre-Oedipal desires upon which the former are built. Men who
have had poor pre-Oedipal relationships will be severely
hindered in their abilities to integrate their split-off
subidentities and handle relational conflicts. Intimacy will be
expressed as a struggle for control between self and other. From
this perspective, the easiest and most conscious love concern
that men can have is their conscious sexual attraction to
others--devoid of the repressed attachment issues. Thus sexual
issues become the focus of their relational and jealousy
concerns. Women will tend to have more generalized and more
diffuse jealousy preoccupations, ie., not as specifically
focussed on issues of sexual behaviour as much as on their
general needs for attachment and emotional fulfillment. These
same needs establish the basis for jealousy in men but are
repressed. Recall that Chodorow and Dinnerstein claim that
mothers, as the primary caretakers of children, carry images of
the powerful primary object which are incorporated by girls and
not by boys. This incorporation by girls allows them internal
access to this image even when their sense of separateness and

autonomy is not developed. Thus women, who experience an overall

lack of or too much parental involvement will, like men, not be
able to develop a secure and separate sense of self or other.
They will, however, be relationally tied to and identified with
their mothers (the primary love object) whereas men will not.
For women, relationships with men will only partially re-evoke
the original issues of separation and fusion. Thus, women who
develop in this type of relational matrix will more often show
normal and neurotic degrees of jealousy and will rarely
demonstrate delusional jealousy. The latter might only occur
when the symbiotic transactions of mother and daughter are
seriously disturbed such that no internal sense of primary unity
develops in the daughter.
For men, the image of the powerful primary object is
external to themselves, ie., embodied in the woman. When they
have issues concerning desires for union and for separation and
autonomy then women may come to represent the double-edged sword
of the original object's capacity to abandon or engulf them. Men
rarely have the capacity to relationally affect women in this
way. The tendency for men to express jealousy more intensely (in
either ego-syntonic or ego-dystonic forms) can be viewed as an
expression of their desire for the exclusive possession of the
object, the anger for not getting it, the fear of possession,
and the desire for separateness. For these reasons, men are more
likely than women to develop delusional or paranoid jealousy and
to use violence against women.

Overview of the Present Study

The present study was proposed as a means of evaluating the

validity of regarding jealousy as a relational concept
reflecting attachment, object relations, and intergenerational
issues. The study was designed to assess the general hypothesis
that young adults whose needs for attachment and needs for
individuation are imbalanced and who come from less
differentiated familites of origin are more likely to have
difficulties with relational jealousy.
The specific constructs measured to examine this question
are jealousy, the attachment-individuation balance, and the
level of differentiation in the family of origin.

general

description of each of the measures used to examine these

constructs will now be provided. (The administration and scoring
of each measure is described in more detail in the Method
section.) Following the description of each measure below I will
present the specific hypotheses tested.
J e a l ous y

The instrument used to measure relational jealousy was the

Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS) developed by Mathes and
Severa (1981) and Mathes et al. (1982) (see Appendix

A).

The IJS

has established content validity, internal reliability,

convergent validity, and some predictive validity. As concluded

in the evaluative section of the psychological literature

review, the IJS currently provides the most valid and reliable
objective measure of jealousy.
T h e At t a c h m e n t - I n d i v i d u a t i o n B a l a n c e

The measure used to evaluate the attachment-individuation

balance was the Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) developed by
Hansburg (1980a, 1980b); Hansburg developed the SAT on the basis
of his clinical work with adolescents and on his reading of the
work of Bowlby and Mahler. Along with these theoreticians,
Hansburg believed that people have a need for a balance between
attachment and individuation in their lives. Stresses placed
upon this balance call upon the individual's psychological
systems to respond. He referred to dysfunctional responses as
separation disorders. He defined these terms as follows:
"...a separation disorder can be conceived of as a
pattern of dysfunctioning or pathological psychological
systems aroused inappropriately by separation
experiences. These dysfunctional psychological systems
are set in motion whenever any separation is experienced
either in retrospect because of some current stress,
because of some present shifts in environmental
conditions (vocation, home, and others), because of a
recent loss of an attachment figure, or because of the
prospect of an impending abandonment or dislocation.
The term psychological system is represented by both
cognitive and affective unconscious patterned reactions
developed over many years by constant repetitive
processing (Bowlby, 1980). On a conscious level the
psychological system is translated into a behavioural
system. When the system becomes dysfunctional,
inappropriate, or pathological in the presence of
separation threats or experiences and affects other
systems, this condition is referred to as a separation
disorder." (p.2)

Hansburg identified the following psychological systems or

response patterns as being most relevant to separation events:
1 ) attachment; 2 ) individuation; 3 ) painful tension; 4 )

hostility; 5) reality avoidance or defensive process; and 6) the

self-evaluative system which includes self-love loss,
self-esteem preoccupation, and identity stress. The SAT is
designed to assess the individual's need and capacity for
attachment and individuation and evaluate the relative strength
of the other response patterns. It consists of two sets of 1 2
black and white captioned ink drawings (one for boys and one for
girls) which depict a child in different separation scenes. Six
of the scenes are described as involving mild separation
situations (more common and less intense) and six are described
as involving strong separation situations (less common and more
intense). An example of a mild separation scene caption is "The
family is moving to a new neighbourhood", and an example of a
strong separation scene caption is "The judge is placing the
child in an institution". The respondent is asked to indicate
which and how many of 1 7 emotional reactions the child in the
picture will have in response to each situation. These 17
feeling statements accompany each picture and are presented in
varying orders (an example is presented in Appendix B). On the
basis of particular profiles of response patterns, Hansburg
(1980b) has identified six specific separation disorder
categories: 1 ) anxious attachment; 2 ) hostile anxious
attachment; 3 ) hostile detachment; 4 ) dependent detachment; 5)
excessive self-sufficiency; and 6) the depressive syndrome.

Hansburg (1980a) initially tested and developed the items,

procedures and categories of the SAT by assessing approximately
250 adolescents from residential centres and from intact
families. He found that these groups of children had
differential patterns on the SAT. He reported an internal
reliability coefficient of .89. Black (cited in Levitz-Jones

&

Orlofsky,'1985) found an internal reliability coefficient of .86

and test-retest coefficients ranging from .61 to .82.
A

number of recent studies with older adolescents and young

adults have provided further support for the validity and

utility of the SAT. In a study of abusing and non-abusing
mothers, Delozier (1982) found the former group to have a
significantly greater number of SAT profiles indicative of
separation disorders (especially that of anxious attachment)
than the latter group. Levitz-Jones and Orlofsky (1985) used the
SAT to examine the relationship between intimacy statuses and
attachment-individuation patterns in college-aged women. They
found that high intimacy women exhibited healthier patterns on
the SAT than low intimacy or merger women. Kroger (1985) has
used the SAT to examine the relationship between identity
statuses and separation-individuation patterns in New Zealand
college students. She found that high identity statuses showed
significantly more patterns of secure rather than anxious or
detached attachment patterns.
The above studies corroborate the view that the SAT is a
reliable and valid measure of people's response patterns in

reaction to separation situations and that it provides a measure

of the degree to which people have achieved a balance between
needs for attachment and needs for individuation.
T h e F a m i l y of O r i g i n L e v e l of D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

The instrument used to measure this construct was the Family

of Origin Q-Sort (FOQS) developed by Kuchenmuller (1984) (see
Appendix C). The FOQS was designed to evaluate the validity of
the interpersonal/intrapsychic family models as they are
presented in the writings of Bowen, Boszormeny-Nagy, Wynne, and
Lidz. The 120 items in the FOQS were generated on the basis of
descriptors used by these authors to define the interactional
styles of differentiated and non-differentiated (disengaged and
enmeshed) families. Sixty of the items represent the
differentiation pole and sixty items the non-differentiation
.pole. Kuchenmuller (1984) had 44 people from contrasted groups
( 1 1 couples from gymptomatic families and 1 1 couples from

non-symptomatic families) complete the Q-Sort. Their data were

used to examine the fit between the theoretically expected and
empirically derived factor structure. The data yielded three
family of origin factors: 1 ) parental coalition and parent/child
guidance; 2) parental conflict and parent/child disengagement;
and 3 ) parental conflict and parent/child enmeshment. The items
in the first factor primarily reflected a greater degree of
differentiation in the family of origin relationships. A sample
item reads "My parents treated me and gave me responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my age and maturity". The second

factor items reflected a lower level of differentiation with

features of parental conflict, and disengagement or emotional
distancing between parents and child. A sample item reads
"Although I sometimes wanted to be closer to or more
affectionate with my mother or father, I often became anxious
and backed off". The items in the third factor also reflected a
lower level of differentiation expressed through parental
conflict and parent/child enmeshment. A sample item reads "How I
saw and did things was largely influenced by what my parents saw
as appropriate and useful". The majority, though not all, of the
items in each factor were rationally consistent with the
expected descriptions of the differentiation and
non-differentiation poles. Of those individuals from
non-symptomatic families 67% loaded on the differentiation
factor. Of those individuals from symptomatic families 56%
loaded on the non-differentiation factors. The test-retest
reliability coefficients for four subjects averaged .82. These
initial findings with a small sample of subjects contributed to
but did not establish the construct validity of the FOQS.
Nevertheless, the FOQS was chosen to evaluate the family of
origin construct because the items themselves demonstrated face
validity and were derived from the same body of literature which
generated the intergenerational component of the current
relational model of jealousy.

Hypotheses

In the present study the following specific hypotheses were

proposed on the basis of the relational model of jealousy. The
first set of hypotheses relate the IJS to the SAT.
la: Young adults who express patterns of secure
Hypothesis attachment in response to separation situations will score in
the medium or average range on the jealousy measure.
Ib: Young adults who express patterns of anxious
Hypothesis attachment in response to separation situations will score in
the high or above average range on the jealousy measure.
Hypothesis

x:Young adults who express patterns of

self-sufficient detachment in response to separation situations

will score in the low or below average range on the jealousy
measure.
Hypothesis Id: Young adults who express patterns of dependent
detachment in response to separation situations will score in
the medium or average range on the jealousy measure.
Rationale: It is expected that young adults who have a relative
balance between their needs and capacities for attachment and
individuation (i.e., those who are securely attached) will
neither over-react nor repress their reactions to
jealousy-provoking situations; those whose sense of self is more
interwined with and reliant upon important attachment figures
(anxiously attached) will tend to be more reactive in response
to jealousy provoking situations; those who maintain their sense

of self by distancing from others (self-sufficiency detached)

will not consciously acknowledge their sensitivity and
reactivity to jealousy provoking situations; and finally, those
who oscillate between dependency and detachment in relations
with others (dependent detached) will either over-react or
distance themselves in response to jealousy provoking
situations.
The next set of hypotheses make predictions about gender
differences in relation to the SAT and FOQS categories.
Hypothesis &: Proportionally more women than men will express
anxious attachment patterns on the SAT whereas proportionally
more men than women will express self-sufficiency detached
patterns on the SAT.
Hypothesis 2b: Proportionally more women than men will depict
their families of origin as having had enmeshed relationships on
the FOQS whereas proportionally more men than women will depict
their families of origin as having had disengaged relationships
on the FOQS.
Rationale: When the relative balance between attachment and
individuation needs is disturbed then, in terms of intrapsychic
development and family relations, women are more likely, in
general, to be more attachment-oriented and to derive their
sense of self through relationships whereas men are more likely,
in general, to be more individuation-oriented and to break away
from the relational sphere. This line of thought is based on the
ideas presented by Chodorow (1978) and Dinnerstein (1978).

The next series of hypotheses relate the IJS to the FOQS.

Hypothesis 3a: Young adults who depict their families of origin
as having had differentiated relationships will score in the
medium or average range on the jealousy measure.
3b: Young adults who depict their families of origin
Hypothesis as having had enmeshed relationships will score in the high br
above average range on the jealousy measure.

s:Young adults who depict

~ypothesis

their families of origin

as having had disengaged relationships will score in the low or

below average range on the jealousy measure.
Rationale: It is expected that young adults who depict their
families as having had a relative balance between satisfying and
fostering attachment and individuation needs will neither
over-react nor repress their jealous feelings; those who depict
their families as more enmeshed will be more sensitive and
reactive to situations which threaten their self-sustaining
closeness with others; and those who depict their families of
origin as having had more disengaged relationships will be more
likely to have repressed their attachment needs, and to deny the
importance of jealousy provoking situations.
The final series of hypotheses predicts a correspondence
between subjects' placements in the SAT categories and their
placements in the FOQS categories.
Hypothesis

s:Those young adults who express patterns of

secure

attachment in response to separation situations will depict

their families of origin as having had differentiated

relationships.
Hypothesis &: Those young adults who express patterns of
anxious attachment in response to separation situations will
depict their families of origin as having had enmeshed
relationships.
~ypothesisg : Those young adults who express patterns of
self-sufficiency detachment in response to separation situations
will depict their families of origin as having had disengaged
relationships.

ati ion ale: These hypotheses are consistent with the views
proposed by the relational model's integration of the
attachment, object relations, and intergenerational family
models. It is expected that people who experienced the
satisfaction and fostering of attachment and individuation needs
in their families will reflect the same balance in their
response to separation situations; those who experienced their
families of origin as disengaged will fear engulfment or the
loss of a tenuous self in intimate relationships and will
present as more self-sufficient in response to separation
situations; and those who experienced their families of origin
as enmeshed will fear abandonment in intimate relationships and
will present as more anxiously attached in response to
separation situations.

PART B

METHOD

Subjects

Participants in the current research were 154 undergraduate

students enrolled in social science, pure science, or business
programs at Simon Fraser University. Subjects ranged in age from
18 to 27 years and of the total number, 92 were women and 62

were men. They were recruited via: verbal requests in class

tutorials; ads placed on bulletin boards across the campus and
in the university newspaper; and informal contacts in the
hallways of the.university. Potential subjects were told that
this was a study concerning people in relationships and thus
volunteers were needed who were currently involved in a
relationship with a member of the opposite sex. As well, it was
required that participating subjects were born in North America.

Materials
Interpersonal

Jeal ous y Scal e

The IJS is a self-report paper and pencil measure consisting of

28 items (see Appendix A). Subjects are asked to indicate the

degree of their agreement (on a nine point scale) with

statements indicating reactions to the behaviour of their
partners with other people. A sample item reads "If
admired someone of the opposite sex I would feel irritated".
Seven of the 28 items are keyed in the reverse direction.
Obtaining a subject's score on the IJS involves summing the
numbers chosen for the 28 items. The lowest possible score is 28

and the highest is 252. Means and standard deviations have been
reported in single studies with the IJS but no standardized
norms have been established.
Separation Anxiety Test

As indicated above the SAT is the measure used in the

current study to measure the attachment-individuation balance.
Subjects are asked to imagine that they are the child in each of
the 12 separation-depicting drawings. They are then instructed
to look at the pictures one at a time, read the accompanying
caption, and indicate which of the 17 possible reactions the
child would have to each of the situations. The subjects'
responses are recorded on a tally chart developed by Hansburg
(1980a) (see Appendix D). In addition, subjects are asked if
they had experienced any of the separation situations as a
child. Once the subject has completed this procedure for the 12
drawings then the number and type of statements chosen for the
mild, strong, and all of the drawings are summed. The 17
emotional reaction statements accompanying each picture are
designed to reflect components of the larger response patterns
or psychological systems. For example, the attachment response
pattern is contributed to by the rejection, loneliness, and
empathy reaction statements. For one drawing, rejection is
represented in the statement "The girl feels that her mother
doesn't like herw; loneliness by the statement "The girl feels
alone and miserable"; and empathy by the statement "The girl
feels sorry for her mother". The total number of the rejection,

loneliness, and empathy statements chosen for all 12 drawings

indicate the total number of responses in the attachment
response pattern. This number is then divided by the total
number of responses across all response patterns to obtain the
attachment percentage of the total protocol. The same procedure
is followed for the individuation response pattern (which is the
sum of the adaptation, well-being, and sublimation reaction
statements); the hostility response pattern (the sum of the
anger, projection, and intrapunitiveness reaction statements);
the painful tension response pattern (the sum of the phobic,
anxiety, and somatic reaction statements); the reality avoidance
response pattern (the sum of the withdrawal, evasion, and
fantasy reaction statements); the self-love loss response
pattern (the sum of the rejection and intrapunitiveness reaction
statements); the self-esteem preoccupation response pattern (the
ratio of concentration impairment and sublimation reaction
statements); and the identity stress reaction statement for each
drawing. The numbers of responses and percentages established
for each of the response patterns is recorded on the Pattern
Summary Chart developed by Hansburg (1980a) (see Appendix E).
The percentages provide the basis for the interpretation of the
test.
Hansburg (1980b) developed norms for adolescents which
provide weak, adequate, and strong percentage ranges for the
response patterns (see Appendix F). As well, he operationalized
six separation disorder categories based on the pattern of

percentages obtained across the response patterns and the

differential number of attachment and individuation responses to
mild versus strong separation situations. These separation
disorder categories are labeled: 1 ) anxious attachment; 2 )
hostile anxious attachment; 3 ) hostile detachment; 4 ) dependent
detachment; 5) excessive self-sufficiency; and 6 ) the depressive
syndrome. A mild form of the anxious attachment pattern is
regarded as the non-disordered secure attachment category. In a
pilot study with the SAT I attempted to categorize people into
one of the seven types mentioned above using Hansburg's (1980b)
criteria. The pattern of response pattern percentages required
to categorize people did not clearly match the percentage
patterns the subjects obtained. For example, in order to place a
person in the anxious attachment category Hansburg requires that
the person's attachment response pattern percentage be above the
norm, the individuation percentage below the norm, the reality
avoidance percentage above the norm, the combined painful
tension and hostility percentages above 30%, the self-love loss
percentage above the norm, and the identity stress percentage
either above or below the norm. He did not identify the minimum
number of these criteria required in order to confidently place
a person in this category. Similarly, the other categories had
long lists of specific criteria for placement. As a result, an
effort was made to simply examine people in terms of their
percentages on the response patterns and ignore the overlapping
and confusing categories established by Hansburg. Thus, I
anticipated making predictions regarding jealousy if people's

percentages on, for example, the attachment response pattern

fell above, at, or below the norms established by Hansburg. I
planned on making similar predictions on the basis of people's
high, medium, or low percentage scores for the remaining
response patterns. Subsequently, I discovered that this scoring
system is similar to the one Levitz-Jones and Orlofsky ( 1 9 8 5 )
reported initially trying with the SAT. This system did not
prove to be satisfactory in their study and they modified it
post-hoc to include categories based on patterns of percentages
across different psychological systems. The results were better,
but their system did not incorporate the majority of Hansburg's
separation disorder categories.
Instead of using the seven categories described by Hansburg,
Kroger ( 1 9 8 5 ) adapted the system and used three categories which
subsumed much of Hansburg's original criteria and identified
minimum requirements for inclusion. These categories were
described as

1)

secure attachment; 2) anxious attachment; and 3 )

detachment. The secure attachment category remained unchanged.

The anxious attachment category subsumed Hansburg's anxious and
hostile anxious categories. The detached category subsumed
Hansburg's hostile detachment, dependent detached, and excessive
self-sufficiency categories. The depressive syndrome category
was dropped as it is essentially similar to the anxious
attachment category. Kroger's criteria for the configurations of
response pattern percentages required to place people in one of
the three categories are listed in Appendix G (J. Kroger,

personal communication, October 31, 1986). It was Kroger's

criteria which formed the basis for the placement of the
subjects in the current study. There were, however, some minor
modifications required in the criteria in order to place all of
the subjects in the -present study into a category (see Appendix
H for a listing of the criteria used in the present study). In

addition, the category of dependent detached was extracted from

Kroger's broad detachment category. Hansburg's (1980b)
description of dependent detached people (ie., they have a low
capacity for individuation and attachment and so are dependent
on others but resist ongoing closeness) suggested that they
would score differently on the jealousy measure than those
described as hostile detached or excessively self-sufficient.
Thus, in the present study, Kroger's detached category was
divided into two categories labelled dependent detached and
self-sufficiency detached, respectively.
Kuchenmull er's Family of O r i g i n Q - S o r t

The FOQS consists of 120 cards, each with one statement

typed onto it. Of the 120 items, 60 are worded to represent the
differentiation pole and 60 are worded to represent the
non-differentiation pole. An example of a differentiation item
is "My parents usually didn't interfere in the things t.hat were
personal in my life", and an example of a non-differentiation
item is "My parents often seemed emotionally distant from each
other". The latter is also an example of a non-differentiation
item reflecting disengagement. An example of a

non-differentiation item reflecting enmeshment is "My parents

often treated me as a miniature grown-upw.
The 60 differentiation and 60 non-differentiation items can
be taken to represent the opposite pole if they are regarded as
being untrue of one's family of origin rather than true. For
example, if one says that the disengaged non-differentiation
statement "My parents often seemed emotionally distant from each
other" is true then this item is taken to reflect a disengaged
style. If one says that this statement is false then this item
is taken to reflect a differentiated style. Thus, all of the 120
statements represent potential differentiation or
non-differentiation items. When they are all taken to represent
the non-differentiation pole then 80 are enmeshment and 40 are
disengagement statements (see Apendix C for a listing of the 120
items and their differentiation, enmeshment or disengagement
designations).
To complete the Q-Sort, subjects are first asked to identify
the members of their families of origin while they were growing
up--approximately from birth to age 18 years. They are then
instructed to read the 120 cards and divide them into two piles.
Those cards with statements which best represent or are true of
the patterns of relationships within their families of origin
are placed to their left, and those cards with statements which
least represent or are false of the patterns of relationships
within their families of origin are placed to their right.
Subjects are asked to think about what it was like growing up in

their families and to generally consider whether the statement

is true or false across the time span of their childhood and
youth within their families. They are told that a number of the
statements contain the phrase "My parents...",

and they are to

consider any of these statements as true if it is true for one

of their parents while growing up.
Once the 120 cards are sorted, subjects are then asked to
sort the "true" cards into gradations of truth regarding their
families of origin. The following distribution of numbers is
then placed in front of the subject: 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13.

box

is drawn above each number where subjects can place the

corresponding number of cards. They are instructed to go through
the cards they have placed in the "True" pile and again sort
those statements into two piles. On one side they are to place
those cards with statements which are more true of what their
family relationships were like while they were growing up,
especially during times of tension or stress within the family,
and on the other side they are to place those cards with
statements which are less true of what their family
relationships were like, etc. The cards in the "Truer" pile are
then sorted onto the distribution such that the two cards put in
the number 2 box are to be those having statements which are
most true of what family relationships were like, the three
cards put in the number 3 box are also to be very true but not
as true as the preceding two cards, the four cards put in the
number 4 box are to be true but not as true as the preceding

cards, etc. Subjects are instructed to fill the boxes working

from left (number 2 box) to right (number 13 box). If subjects
are not able to fill the latter box because they did not select
38 or more cards for the "Truer" pile then they are simply
instructed to put whatever cards they have remaining in the
number 13 box. This is not problematic as it is only those cards
placed in the first five boxes (2, 3, 4, 6, 10) which are used
in establishing subjects' scores.
The same basic procedure is then followed for the "False1'
pile such that subjects are required to place cards onto the
following distribution: 13, 10, 6, 4, 3, 2. They first divide
the cards into those statements that are more false and those
which are less false. They then sort the cards from the "Falser"
pile onto the distribution. They are instructed to work from
right to left by first finding the two cards which they will
place in the number 2 box. These two cards will have statements
which they feel are the most false in terms of describing their
family relationships while they were growing up, especially
during times of tension or stress within the family. As they
fill in the boxes moving towards the left, the cards will have
statements which will be false but not as false as those in the
preceding piles.
Kuchenmuller's (1984) original procedure had subjects place
all 120 cards onto the following pseudo-normal distribution:

10

13

Most like my family

14

16

14

13

10

Least like my family

It was found in the pilot study that the one hour and a half to
two hours it took subjects to complete the FOQS was simply too
taxing and time-consuming. As a consequence the 2-13 and 13-2
distributions were derived from the larger pseudo-normal
distribution and used in the analysis of the FOQS. Kuchenmuller
(1984) had also analyzed only those items chosen for boxes 2-10
and 10-2. That is, in the original and in the present study it
is only the 25 most true (2, 3, 4, 6, 10) and 25 most false (10,
6, 4, 3, 2) items which contribute to subject's scores and

placements on the FOQS.

There are two methods of obtaining information from the FOQS
for the purposes of further analyses. One involves tallying the
50 items chosen as most true and most false by any one subject
in terms of whether they are differentiation or
non-differentiation (enmeshed or disengagement) items and
calculating the percentage of items falling into each of these
categories. The 25 items chosen to represent the most false
items for any one subject's family must be scored in the reverse
direction for this calculation. That is, when a subject places a
differentiation item in the most false distribution then this
item is tallied as a non-differentiation item and is designated
as enmeshment or disengagement. Again see Appendix C for reverse
scoring designations of differentiation items. A
non-differentiation item placed in the most false distribution

is automatically tallied as a differentiation item regardless of

whether it was originally an enmeshment or a disengagement item.
As a result of this scoring procedure any one subject will
obtain four possible percentage scores calculated on the basis

of 50 items: 1 ) the percentage of differentiation items;

2)

the

percentage of non-differentiation items; 3 ) the percentage of

enmeshment items; and 4) the percentage of disengagement items.
The other procedure of obtaining information from the FOQS
involves factor analyzing the subjects into hypothetical types
using the subjects as variables and the items as cases. This
procedure is discussed more fully in the results section. The
basic goal of this analysis is to place subjects into one of
three categories which essentially represent differentiated,
enmeshed, and disengaged family styles of interaction.
Marl o w e - C r o w n e S o c i a1 D e s i r a b i 1 i

y Scal e

The Social Desirability Scale (SDS) (Crowne

&

Marlowe, 1964)

was included in the test package in order to examine the

relationship between jealousy and the desire to avoid being seen
in a negative light (see Appendix I). As was indicated in the
literature review, the experience of jealousy is generally
regarded as being negative or socially undesirable. Crowne and
Marlowe (1964) originally intended that the SDS measure the need
for social approval or the desire to present oneself in a
socially favourable light. Recent research on the SDS (Millham
Kellog, 1980; Nederhof, 1985) indicates that the scale

&

predominantly measures the motive to avoid negative evaluation

rather than a need to seek approval.
Re1 a t i o n s h i p Q u e s t i o n s

In the present study subjects were asked a number of

quantitative and qualitative questions about their past and
current relationships. Each of them was thought to be
potentially related to the jealousy scores subjects would
obtain. The quantitative questions included: 1 ) the length of
time the subject has been in the present relationship (Current);
2) the number of previous important relationships a subject has
had

rev); and

3 ) the length of time of the longest of these

previous relationships (Long). The qualitative questions

included: 1 ) a rating of how a subject feels about their present
relationship (Feel); and 2) ratings on how the subject feels
about the quality of his/her relationship with a) his/her mother
(Rmo) and b) his/her father

fa) while growing up. These

questions were responded to on a five point scale anchored on

one end with the word "terrible" and on the other end with the
word "delightful" (see Appendix J).
Demographi c Q u e s t i ons

Subjects were also asked a series of demographic questions

including their age ( ~ g e ) ,cultural and religious backgrounds,
generation in Canada, marital status and living arrangements,
birth order, number of siblings, and each subject's estimate of
the losses they had experienced while growing up in their

families of origin (Estlos). The broad estimate of the number of

losses any one subject experienced was based on whether the
subject indicated having experienced a change in contact with
one or more family members due to separation or divorce, or the
death of a significant other in the family (see Appendix J).
Procedure

Subjects were met with individually. Prior to testing they

were given a document which included an outline of the study and
a consent form (see Appendix K). Subjects were then verbally
asked the demographic and relationship questions with the
exception of those relating to their families of origin. These
initial questions allowed the researcher to develop rapport with
subjects and they required subjects to focus their attention
onto their present relationships prior to being given the IJS.
Subjects were then given the IJS and SDS to complete while the
researcher read a book. Once these were completed, subjects were
given the SAT following the standard instructions presented by
Hansburg ( 1 9 8 0 ) and reviewed above. Following this the subjects
were verbally asked the demographic and relationship questions
concerning their families of origin. This focus on their family
facilitated the introduction of the FOQS which was given next.
The instructions used for this test were the same as those
reviewed above. While subjects worked on the FOQS the researcher
read a book and answered questions as they arose.

The actual testing period took anywhere from one hour and
fifteen minutes to two hours depending on the speed at which the
subject worked. Subjects were paid $3.00 for their participation
and were given a summary of the purpose of the study which was
then discussed (see Appendix L).

PART C
RESULTS

The presentation of the results takes the following order:

1 ) subject characteristics; 2) descriptive statistics; 3 ) the

analyses relating the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS) to the

Separation Anxiety Test (SAT); 4) the proportional tests on the
SAT; 5) the creation-of family categories using the Family of
Origin Q-Sort (FOQS) data; 6) the proportional tests on the
FOQS; 7) the analyses relating the IJS to the FOQS; 8) the
relationship between the SAT and the FOQS; and 9) additional
analyses.

Subject Characteristics

The means and standard deviations for the demographic and

relationship variables are presented for all, male, and female
subjects in Table 1. Comparisons of female and male means
revealed that male subjects were significantly older
than female subjects (M
- = 21.21,

(t (152) = 2.2, p

(M =

22.2)

< .05); and

that the mean of the longest previous relationship was

significantly greater for female subjects (M
male subjects

(M

= 1.1),

(t (152) =

-2.2,

Q <

1.7) than for

.05).

All of the subjects were born in North America and were

involved in a heterosexual relationship. Their cultural and
religious backgrounds are presented in Table 2. Approximately
95% of all subjects iell into one of three marital and living
status categories: 45% were single and living with their
parent(s); 25% were single and either living alone or with

Table

Means and Standard Deviations for Demographic

and Relationship Variables
All
Subjects

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

SD

SD

SD

Duration of current
relationship in years
(Current)

2.0

1.7

1.9

1.8

2.1

1.7

Feeling about
relationship rating
(Feel)

4.3

0.8

4.2

0.9

Number of previous
relationships
rev)

1.7

1.4

1.7

1.6

Longest previous
relationship in years
(Long)

1.5

1.4

l.lb 1.2

Past relationship with

mother rating
( Rmo )

4.0

1.0

4.0

0.9

Past relationship with

father rating
fa)

3.5

1.1

3.5

1.0

Variable
Age in years
(Age)

Note. Means having the same subscript differ significantly at

Table 2
Subjects' Cultural and Religious Backgrounds
Cultural Background

All
Subjects

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

West and East European

62

40

26

42

36

39

British

64

42

27

44

37

40

North American

19

12

11

12

13

Asian

Total

154

100

Religious background

62

100

92

100

All
Subjects

Males
Subjects

Female
Subjects

Roman ~atho'lic 3 2

20

15

24

17

19

72

47

25

40

47

51

~gnostic/Atheist

44

29

19

31

25

27

Total

154

100

62

100

92

100

Eastern

&

Protestant
Other

'

same-sex friends; and another 25% were married or living

common-law. The remaining 5% fell within one of the additional
categories listed for this variable (see Appendix J).
Table 3 presents the frequencies and percentages of all,
male, and female subjects who were placed within one of the
three categories established as an estimate of the number of
separations and losses experienced by subjects in their families
of origin (~stlos). The Low category includes those subjects who
experienced no major separations from or losses of family
members and who indicated having had none or only one of the
strong separation experiences depicted in Hansburg's SAT. The
Medium category includes those subjects who also did not
experience any major separations or losses but who did indicate
having experienced two or more of the strong separation scenes
depicted in the SAT. Finally, the High category includes those
who did experience major separations from or losses of family
members regardless of the number of strong separation scenes in
the SAT they indicated having experienced.

Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations obtained by all, male, and

female subjects on the IJS and the Social Desirablity Scale
(SDS) are presented in Table 4. There was no significant
difference between female and male means on the IJS (125.4
t (152) = 0.9, 2 >
versus 129.6, respectively; -

.lo).

The range

Table

Estimation of Separations and Losses (Estlos)

All
Subjects
Category

Low
Med i urn
High
--

Total

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

of IJS scores for male subjects was 61-220 and the range for
female subjects was 76-189. Male and female subject means on the
SDS (12.5 versus 15.1, respectively) were significantly
different,

(t (152) = -3.0, p

< .01). Table 4 also presents the

means and standard deviations obtained by all, male, and female

subjects on the SAT response patterns and the FOQS scores. Of
the SAT response patterns only the painful tension (Pain)
category had male and female means (18.2 versus 21.3,
respectively) which showed a significant difference,

(t (152) =

-2.9, 2 < .01). Of the FOQS scores only the Enmeshment (En)
category had male and female means (26.4 versus 32.0,
respectively) which were significantly different

(t (152) =

-2.5, p < .01).

The male and female Pearson correlation matrices for the
IJS, SDS, SAT response patterns, FOQS scores and most of the
demographic and relationship variables are presented in Table 5.
The demographic and relationship variables used were age in
years (Age), length of time in current relationship (Current),
number of previous relationships (Prev), longest previous
relationship (Long), feeling about the current relationship
rating

eel), past relationship with father rating (Rfa), and

past relationship with mother rating (Rmo). The number of

significant IJS correlations was greater for male than for
female subjects. In terms of the SAT response patterns and IJS
correlations, both male and female subjects showed significant
and positive correlations between the attachment (Att)

Table 4
Means and Standard Deviation for the IJS, SDS, SAT
Response Patterns, and FOQS Scores
All
Subjects

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

Attachment (Att)%

23.3

6.5

22.6

7.3

23.7

6.0

Individuation (Ind)%

18.9

9.8

20.1

10.9

18.1

8.9

Hostility (Has)%

15.6

5.8

16.1

7.1

15.2

4.7

Painful tension (Pain)%

20.1

6.9

18.2b

6.7

21.3b

6.7

Reality avoidance
void)%

12.9

5.9

12.1

5.6

13.4

6.1

Differentiation (Dn)%

58.4

21.7

60.9

20.5

56.7

22.5

Enmeshment(En)%

29.8

14.1

26.4,

13.3

32.OC

14.3

Disengagement (Dt)%

11.8

12.1

12.6

12.0

11.3

12.3

IJS
SDS
SAT Response
-

Patterns

FOQS

Note. Means having the same letter subscript differ

significantly at 2 < .01.

M IJS

-.05

-35,'

LONC

-.I4

RFA

* p c .05

w:Correlation

-.02

RMO

.29*

-.41*** .05

PREV

FEEL

-.08

CURR

0.14

.07

.13
-.I8

-.21*

.10

.08

-.I2

32'2

.07

.28*

-.07

-.I1

-.la*

-.04

.33**

.12

.O1

.18

.34**

-.06

.07

-.79***

-.82***

-.I4

-.07

-.01

-.I5

-.24*

-.06

-.08

30"

-.42***

-.09

.O1

-.I6

-.32**

.19

-.03

-.lo

.04

.01

.45***

.36**

.26*

.03

.43***, -.05

.02

-.I1

.20*

-.07

.07

-.27**

-.I2

-.04

ACE

-.22*

.04

.03

.03

-.I8

.41***

.01

.04

-.03

-.01

.ll

-.08

-.05

-.06

-.05

.14

CURRENT

coefficients for females are presented above the diagonal and for males below the diagonal.
*** p < .001
** p < .01

.09

-.04

.18

.30+*

-.08

.12

.21*

.05

-.lo

-.I1

.ll

.05

-.01

-.I4

.10

-.08

-.29*

-.05

.14

-.04

-.08

.07

.06

-.I5

.29*

-.33**

.21*

-.318*

-.15

-.30**

.35** -.I2

-.I7

.29*

-.I9

-.I6

-.17

-.09

-.1 1

-.04

-.dl*** -.43***

-.37***

-.21

-.I6

-.01

AVOID

-.I7

-.18*

-.05

PAIN

.21

-.I5

.03

HOS

-.48*** -.05

-.52***

-.26**

.24**

.I5

.24*

-33"

ACE

-.02

-.01

.33** -.28*

DT

-.01

.09

.35** -.I8

EN

-.04

-.I3

-.03

.40+**

-.51***

.02

-.41C** .29*

-.02

IND

.26** -.19*

ATT

DN

A V O I D -.02

.35** -.06

PAIN

-.I7

.24*

-.45*** .16

.27*

-.25'

-.I5

SDS

HOS

S ATT
(n=62)
IND

L SDS

IJS

FEMALES (n=92)

-.08

-.01

-.01

-.lo

.I5

-.22*

-.02

-.27**

PREV

.02

-.05

.07

.03

-12

-.19*

-.03

-.07

LONC

Female and Male Correlation Matrices On Continuous Variables

TABLE 5

-.03

-.OS

.03

.04

-.02

.10

-.07

-.01

FEEL

.29**

.02

-.I1

.05

-.I1

.24*

-.07

.06

RMO

.49***

.18*

.09

-.07

-.I3

.O1

.21*

-.18'

RFA

percentage and the IJS (r

-

.27, 2 < .05 and r

= .26,

2 < .01,

respectively); and significant and negative correlations between

the individuation (Ind) percentage and the IJS (I= -.45, 2 <
.001 and r

-.19, 2 < .05, respectively). For males the

correlations between-the IJS and the FOQS Differentiation ( ~ n ) ,

Enmeshment ( ~ n ) ,and Disengagement (Dt) scores were all
r = .35, 2 < .01; and r
significant ( L = -.41, 2 < .001; -

.33,

2 < .01, respectively). For females only the correlation between

the IJS and FOQS En scores was significant

(I= .18, p

< .05).

In order to better examine the relationship between the IJS

scores and the other continuous variables the male and female
subject correlation matrices were factor analyzed. A principal
components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on each
matrix. For males and females the number of factors with
eigenvalues of 1.0 and above were seven and six, respectively.
The male sorted and rotated factor loadings are presented in
Table 6 while the female sorted and rotated factor loadings are
presented in Table 7. In both tables the IJS has been
repositioned as the first variable. The interpretation of the
results for those factors in which the IJS has a loading of .25
or above are summarized below. It should be noted that for
purposes of interpretation the valence of the loadings within
any one factor can be reversed.
Males
1
Factor -

This factor indicated that for male subjects lower

jealousy scores are associated with lower disengagement and

Table
Males

Principal Components Analysis:

Eigenvalues and Sorted Rotated

Factor Loadings for the IJS and Selected Variables
Factor

Cumulative
Proportion of
Variance

Variance
Explained

Sorted and Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor

Factor

IJS
34
Dn
.95
Dt
-.80
En
74
Att
.OO
.OO
Ind
Hos
.OO
.oo
Age
Long
.OO
Prev
.OO
Current . O O
Avoid
.OO
Pain
.OO
.oo
Rmo
Feel
.OO
SDS
.42
Rf a
.49

.39

-.
-.

Factor
3

Factor
4

Factor
5

Factor
6

.OO
.OO
.OO
.80

-.77

.76

.oo
.OO
.OO
.OO
.OO
.OO

.oo

-.. O26O
.OO

Note. Loadings less than . 2 5 have been replaced by zero.

Factor
7

Table
Females

Principal Components Analysis:

Eigenvalues and Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings for the

IJS and Selected Variables
Variance
Explained

Factor

Cumulative
Proportion of
Variance

Sorted and Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor
1

IJS
Dn
Dt
En
Rf a
Long
Prev
I nd
SDS
Hos
Pain
Current
Age
Rmo
Att
Avoid
Feel

Factor
2

Factor

Factor
4

Factor

Factor

.OO

.96
-.
82
-.81
.67
.OO
.OO
.OO
.33
.OO
.OO
.OO

.oo
.32
.oo
.OO
.OO

Note. Loadings less than . 2 5 have been replaced by zero.

enmeshment scores, and higher differentiation, social

desirability, and relationship with father rating scores.
2
Factor -

This factor indicated that for male subjects higher

jealousy scores are associated with higher attachment and

hostility scores, and lower individuation and social
desirability scores.
Factor

3 - This factor indicated that for male subjects lower

jealousy scores are associated with being older, having had

longer previous relationships, and having had a greater number
of previous relationships.
5
Factor -

This factor indicated that for male subjects higher

jealousy scores are associated with higher painful tension and

enmeshment scores as well as lower individuation and avoidance
scores and fewer previous relationships.
Factor

1-

This factor indicated that for male subjects higher

jealousy scores are associated with higher feelings about the

relationship rating scores.
Females
Factor

2-

This factor indicated that for female subjects lower

jealousy scores are associated with lower attachment scores and

with having had longer previous relationships, a greater number
of previous relationships, and with being older.
Factor

4-

This factor indicated that for female subjects higher

jealousy scores are associated with having been in the current

relationship a longer time, being older, and having higher
painful tension scores.
5 - This factor indicated that for female subjects higher
Factor -

jealousy scores are associated with higher attachment and

relationship with mother rating scores, and lower painful
tension scores.

The Relationship
-

Between the SAT and the IJS

Hypotheses la to Id predicted that the four SAT categories

would differentiate subjects' jealousy scores. Specifically, it
was expected that subjects who were placed in the securely
attached (SA) and dependent detached (DD) categories would have
mean jealousy scores in the medium or average range; those
placed in the anxiously attached (AA) category would have a mean
jealousy score in the high or above average range; and those
placed in the self-sufficiency detached (SSD) category would
have a mean jealousy score in the low or below average range.
This section presents the results of the analyses which
addressed these hypotheses and which examined the relationship
between the IJS and the SAT with other continuous variables
taken into account.
The IJS mean for all 154 subjects was 127.1 with a standard
deviation of 27.4. The means and standard deviations of the IJS
scores across the four categories of the SAT for all, male, and
female subjects are presented in Table 8. The means are also
presented in Figure 1 (presented in descending order from
highest to lowest). The two way analysis of variance

SAT(^) by

Gender(2)) on the IJS means is presented in Table 9. The

analysis showed that there was a significant main effect for the
SAT categories

( F (3,146) = 6.98, 2

Gender ( F (1,146)
(3,146)

0.75, 2

0.67, 2

.lo).

>

< .001), no main effect for

>.lo), and no ~nteractioneffect

(F

Bonferroni corrected pairwise

comparisons were then carried out comparing IJS means for all
subjects amongst the SAT categories. The comparisons and results
are presented in Table 10. It was found that a significant
difference existed between the IJS means of the anxiously
attached group (M
- = 136.6) and the self-sufficiency detached
group ( g

115.1), (t (150) = 4.09, 2 < .001). Although the

pattern of the means was consistent with the predictions made in

the hypotheses, none of the other pairwise comparisons reached
significance. Then the IJS means of the anxiously attached and
the self-sufficiency detached groups were each compared with the
IJS means of the three remaining groups combined in order to
provide another less conservative test of the strength of the
predictions concerning the highest and lowest scoring groups.

Thus, the AA IJS mean (M

136.6) was compared with the mean of

- = 120.2) and it was

the combined SA, SSD, and DD IJS scores (M
found to be significantly higher (t (152) = 3.81, p < .001); and
the SSD IJS mean (g

115.0) was compared with the mean of the

combined SA, AA, and DD IJS scores (M

-

- (152)
to be significantly lower (t

131.4) and it was found

-3.35, 2 < .001).

-.
In summary, t&se

results supported the hypotheses which

stated that for young adults high jealousy would be associated

with being anxiously attached, low jealousy with being

Table 8
IJS Means and Standard Deviations Across the SAT Categories
for All, Male, and Female Subjects
All
Subjects

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

SD

SD

125.6
Securely
~ttached(S~)

26.3

36

123.3

26.8

11

126.6

26.6

25

Anxiously
136.6
~ttached(AA1

27.7

65

144.9

33.8

24

131.7

22.5

41

Self 115.1
Sufficiency
~etached(SS~1

25.7

40

118.2

30.8

23

110.8

16.5

17

Dependent
121.5
~etached(DD)

16.9

13

121.5

23.0

121.4

15.1

SAT Categories

SD

Figure 1. IJS means across the SAT categories

for all, male, and female subjects

Legend
0 All

0 Males
- - -

AA

SA
DD
SAT CATEGORY

SSD

Table

Analysis of Variance on the IJS: SAT by Gender

Source

SAT
Gender
Interaction
Error

d.f.

M.S.

14258.9

4752.9

6.98

O.OOOk**

459.1

459.11

0.67

0.413

1524.4

508.1

0.75

0.526

99400.0

146

680.8

S. S.

Table

10

Pairwise Comparisons for All Subjects

Comparison
Groups

comparison
Means

Mean
diff.

d.f.

self-sufficiency detached, and medium jealousy with being

securely attached or dependent detached.
The next analysis looked at whether or not the categories of
the SAT also differentiated the IJS scores when the latter were
factorially combined with the SDS, demographic, and relationship
variables. As the same analysis was to be performed on the FOQS
as well as the SAT categories, the continuous variables which
were not independent of the SAT and FOQS measures (namely, the
attachment (Att), individuation (~nd),hostility (Hos), painful
tension (Pain), reality avoidance (Avoid), Dn, En, and Dt
scores) were dropped from the male and female correlation
matrices presented earlier in Table 5. Principal components
analyses with varimax rotations were then performed on the new
male and female matrices. Both analyses produced four factors
with eigenvalues of 1.0 and above. The results for male and
female subjects are presented in Table 1 1 and Table 12,
respectively. As was done in the earlier factor analysis tables,
the IJS has been repositioned as the first variable. The results
for those factors upon which the IJS has a loading of .25 or
more are summarized below.
Males
1 - This factor indicated that for male subjects lower
Factor -

jealousy scores are associated with being older, having had

longer previous relationships, and having had a greater number
of previous relationships.
Factor

3-

This factor indicated that for male subjects lower

Table
-

11

Males - Principal Components Analysis: Eigenvlaues and Sorted

Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and Selected Variables
Eigenvalues and Proportion of Variance
Factor

Variance
Explained

Cumulative Proportion of
Total Variation

Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

IJS
Age
Long
Prev
Rfa
Current
SDS
Rmo
Feel

Note. Loadings less than . 2 5 have been replaced by zero.

Table
Females

12

Principal Components Analysis: Eigenvalues and Sorted

Rotated Factor Loadings for the IJS and Selected Variables

Eigenvalues and Propotion of Variation
Variance
Explained

Factor

Cumulative Proportion of
Total Variation

--

Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

I JS
Prev
Long
Current
Age
SDS
Rf a
Rmo
Feel

Note. Loadings less than . 2 5 have been replaced by zero.

jealousy scores are associated with higher social desirability

scores, higher relationship with mother rating scores, having
been in the current relationship a longer time, and higher
relationship with father rating scores.
Factor 4

- his

factor indicated that for male subjects higher

jealousy scores are associated with higher feelings about the

relationship rating scores.
Females
Factor

1-

This factor indicated that for female subjects lower

jealousy scores are associated with having had a greater number

of previous relationships, having had longer previous
relationships, and with being older.
3
Factor -

This factor indicated that for female subjects lower

jealousy scores are associated with higher social desirability

scores, lower relationship with mother rating scores, and higher
relationship with father rating scores.
Analyses of variance were then carried out to compare the
factor score means across the SAT categories for each of the
derived factors in which the IJS was included. For male subjects
the one way analyses of variance proved to be non-significant
for Factors 1, 3, and 4

(F

(3,581

1.39, 2 > .lo; F (3,581 =

1.40, 2 > .lo; and F (3,581 = 0.39, 2 > .lo, respectively).

These results and the factor score means and standard deviations
are presented in Table 13. For female subjects the one way
analyses of variance were found to approach significance for
Factor 1

( F (3,881

2.65, 2 < .06) and to be significant for

Factor 3

(F

(3,88) = 3.66, 2 < .05). The Factor 3 analysis

produced a significant Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparison

between the self-sufficient detached group (g

0.46) and the

anxiously attached group (-M

-2.95, 2 < .05).

-0.351,

(t (88)

These results and the factor score means and standard deviations
are presented in Table 14. In summary, the SAT categories had no
main effect within the male factors which included the IJS but
did show an effect within two of the female factors which
included the IJS. In particular, it was found that for female
subjects the self-sufficiency detached group had the highest and
the anxiously attached the lowest scores on the female factor
which associated lower jealousy scores with higher social
desirability scores, lower relationship with mother rating
scores, and higher relationship with father rating scores.
As a final step in analyzing the relationship between the
IJS and the SAT, analyses of covariance were carried out in
order to examine the possible confounding or biasing effects of
the SDS, demographic, and relationship variables. In these
analyses the SAT served as the grouping variable, the IJS as the
dependent variable, and the SDS, Age, length of time in current
relationship (Current), number of previous relationships

rev),

longest previous relationship (~ong),feeling about the

relationship rating (Feel), past relationship with father rating

f fa), and past relatioiship with mother rating (Rmo) variables

served as the covariates. A series of analyses of covariance
were performed in order to establish which covariate or

Table

Male Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard Deviations;

Analyses of Variance for Factors 1, 3 , and 4
Means and Standard Deviations
Factor

Factor 3

Factor 4

SAT
Category

SD

Securely
Attached

0.20

1.04

0.53

0.89

0.23

0.63

-0.29

0.95

-0.18

1.03

-0.03

1.08

0.11
Self Sufficiency
Detached

0.93

-0.08

1.02

-0.13

1.10

Dependent
Detached

1.42

0.10

0.79

0.25

0.85

Anxiously
Attached

0.58

SD

SD

Analyses of Variance
Factor -1
Source
Between
Within
Factor 3
Source
Between
Within
Factor
Source

S.S.
4.08
56.92

S.S.
4.12
56.88

M.S.
3
58

d.f.
3
58

1.36
0.98

M.S.
1.37
0.98

1.39

0.256

F
1.40

0.252

Between
Within

S.S.
1.21
59.79

d.f.
3
58

M.S.
0.40
1.03

F
0.39

0.759

Table

fi

Female Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard Deviations;

Analyses of Variance for Factors

and 3

Means and Standard Deviations

Factor
SAT Category

Factor 3

SD

SD

Securely Attached

-0.14

0.96

0.18

1.03

Anxiously Attached

-0.20

0.95

-0.35,

Self-Sufficiency
Detached

0.52

0.98

0.46,

Dependent Detached

0.3 1

1.13

0.25

-.9 0
0.94

1.05

Note. Means with same subscript differ significantly at

< .05.

Analyses of Variance
Factor -1
Source
Between
Within
Factor
Source

S.S.
7.53
83.47

d. f

3
88

M.S.
2.51
0.95

F
2.65

0.054

Between
Within

S.S.
10.09
80.91

d.f.
3
88

M.S.
3.36
0.92

F
3.66

P
0.015*

covariates were the most consistently significant when different

combinations of covariates were used. The results of this
procedure for all subjects were that two covariates, SDS and
Prev, proved to be the most consistently significant covariates.
The results of the total sample's analysis of covariance with
SDS and Prev acting as the covariates are presented in Table 15.
The SDS and Prev covariates were significant

(F

(1,148) = 6.13,

< .05 and F (1,148) = 15.64, 2 < .001, respectively). The main

effect for the SAT remained significant

(F

(3,148) = 3.57, 2 <

.05).
Since the correlation matrices and factor analyses showed
that the relationship between jealousy scores and the continuous
variables differed for male and female subjects separate
analyses of covariance were performed on these samples. Once
again all of the covariates in both samples were subjected to a
series of analyses of covariance in order to discover which
covariate or covariates were the most consistently significant.
For the male subjects this proved to be the Feel covariate
whereas for the female subjects it was the Prev covariate. The
results of the analysis of covariance for male subjects, with
Feel as the covariate, are presented in Table 16. The Feel
covariate and the SAT main effect were both significant (F
(1,571

10.21, 2 < .O1 and F (3,57) = 4.93, E < .01,

respectively). The results of the analysis of covariance for

female subjects, with Prev as the covariate, are presented in
Table 17. This time both the Prev covariate and the SAT main

effect approached but did not attain significance (F

- (1,87) =
3.88,

,052, and F (3,87)

2.50, 2

.064, respectively).

Proportional the SAT

Tests
- on Hypothesis 2a predicted that proportionally more women than
men would express anxious attachment patterns on the SAT and
that proportionally more men than women would express
self-sufficiency detached patterns on the SAT. The numbers and
percentages of male and female subjects in each of the SAT
categories are presented in Table 18. The numbers and
percentages of female and male subjects in the anxiously
attached category were 41 or 45% and 24 or 39%, respectively.
The results of a normal deviate squared analysis (Ferguson,
1976) showed that the proportional difference was not
significant (-Z

0.75, p > .05). The numbers and percentages of

male and female subjects in the self-sufficiency detached

category were 23 or 37% and 17 or l8%, respectively. The normal
deviate squared test showed that a significantly higher
proportion of males than females were in this category ( 2 = 2.7,

< .01).

Table

15

All Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS on SAT Categories

Source

S.S.

d.f.

M.S.

SAT

6479.6

2159.9

3.57

0.016*

SDS

371 1.6

371 1.6

6.13

0.014*

Prev

9460.8

9460.8

15.64

89547.9

148

605.1

Error

0. O O O * * *

Table

16

Male Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS on SAT Categories

Source

S.S.

d.f.

M.S.

SAT

12229.1

4097.0

4.93

0.004**

Feel

8489.1

8489.1

10.21

0.002**

Error

47410.6

57

831.8

Table

17

Female Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for

IJS on SAT Categories
d.f.

M.S.

3596.2

1198.7

2.50

0.064

1856.5

1856.5

3.88

0.052

414643.8

87

478.7

Source

S.S.

SAT
Prev
Error

Table

18

Number o f All, Male, and Female Subjects in SAT Categories

SAT Category

All Subjects

Male Subjects Female Subjects

Securely Attached

36

23

11

18

25

27

Anxiously Attached

65

42

24

39

41

45

Self-Sufficiency
Detached

40

26

23

37

17

18

Dependent Detached

13

10

154

100

62

100

92

100

Total

The
- Family

of Origin

Q-Sort

Prior to discussing the relationship between the IJS and the

FOQS I will review the procedures used to generate and to place
subjects within the FOQS categories.
The first step in analyzing the FOQS data was to recode the
box values assigned to items such that the numbers once again
reflected a pseudo-normal distribution. This allowed for the
standardization of scores. The boxes were renumbered in the
following way:
False Items

True Items
-Original
Distribution:

6 1 0 13

- -

13 10

Recoded
Distribution: -7 -6 -5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 +1 +2 +3 + 4 +5 +6 +7
Q-Sort methodology involves treating subjects as variables
and items as cases. Therefore, the correlation matrix generated
is amongst subjects rather than items. This procedure was
carried out with the FOQS data generated in the present study.
The correlation matrix was factor analyzed using a principal
components analysis and the unrotated subject factor loadings
were then factor analyzed using a series of different factor
number solutions and both varimax and direct oblimin rotations.
This procedure was designed to help examine which number of
factors best fit the data both empirically and theoretically.
The direct oblimin rotation was decided upon as it was

theoretically expected that the factors would not be orthogonal.

The various factor number solutions, ranging from 1 to 10, were
then examined by verifying which subjects fell into which factor
for the different solutions. In this case the factors into which
subjects fell stabilized at the 5 factor solution. An
examination of subject loadings for the 3, 4, 5, and 6 factor
solutions revealed that the 4 factor solution had the highest
number of subjects (129 out of 154) with factor loadings of .35
and above. A scree test of the eigenvalues (see Figure 2)
suggested that either 4 or 5 factors best fit the data.
On the basis of these analyses, it was decided to examine
the item factor scores for the 4 and 5 principal components
solutions and, on the basis of the identifying items in each
factor, generate profiles of hypothetical family types. Item
factor scores were multiplied by the standard deviation of the
distribution of each subject's scores (SD
- = 2.88) in order to
obtain an estimate of the original scale score mean for each
item. Items with scale score means of 22.9 or greater were
retained in each factor represented in the 4 and 5 factor
solutions. On the basis of a rational examination it was decided
that the 4 factor solution provided the most theoretically and
internally consistent hypothetical family types. The items
making up each of the four factors and their scale and factor
scores are presented in Appendix M. The items in each factor are
listed such that those which are most true of or most like the
hypothetical family type are listed first (from the highest to

2. Family of Origin Q-Sort

FACTOR NUMBER

scree test

the lowest negative scale scores) followed by those items which

are most false or least like the hypothetical family type (from
the lowest to the highest positive scale scores). As such, the
first item in each factor is the one deemed most characteristic
of the family type whereas the last item in each factor is the
one deemed least characteristic of the family type.
The items constituting the FOQS thematically relate to four
areas of family functioning: 1 ) the quality of the parent/child
relationships; 2) the quality of the parent/parent relationship;
3 ) the emotional climate in the family; and 4 ) the quality of

communication in the family. With these family themes in mind,

the following is a summary of the items found in each of the
four family types.
Factor

The parents valued and supported the child's independent

perceptions, feelings and actions; differences were
encouraged; clear boundaries were maintained; both parents
were involved in the family.
The parental relationship was close, trusting, and
respectful.
In general, family relationships were close and harmonious.
Disagreements were not discouraged and were worked through;
good communication.
Factor

A very close relationship existed between the mother and

child but the father-child relationship was poor; father was

an outsider in the family; parents seen as somewhat rigid in

thinking; some valuing of child's separateness.

The parental relationship was distant and conflictual, and

lacked respect and trust; the mother was more reliant upon
the child than upon her spouse.

In general, a conflictual family climate with parent/child

alliances and cut-offs.

Factor

The child shared the perceptions and viewpoints of the

parent(s1; agreeing with and living up to parental
expectations were important; differences were discouraged;
both parents involved in family.

Boundaries between the parent/parent and child relationships

were not clear.

The family valued closeness, harmony, and the gaining of

approval.

Disagreements were avoided.

4
Factor -

The child felt restricted by the parents; the child had the
feeling of being different, misunderstood, and unsupported;
clear but distant parent/child boundaries although less so
with mother.

The parents were very close and presented a strong almost

impenetrable coalition.

There was a distant and demanding emotional climate for the

child in the family.

Communication in the family as a whole was not particularly

good.
The theoretical expectation was that the principal
components analysis of the FOQS would result in three factors
representing differentiation, enmeshment, and disengagement. The
items comprising Factor 1 of the four factor solution are
consistent with the differentiation construct. The items reflect
a balance in the family between the meeting of needs for
attachment and the encouragement of needs for individuation.
This factor was labelled Differentiation (Dn). The items making
up Factor 2 are not consistent with either the enmeshment or
disengagement construct alone. In fact, the items appear to
reflect a mixture of both of these constructs. The child in this
family appears to have experienced an enmeshed relationship with
the mother and a disengaged relationship with the father. For
this reason this factor was labelled Mixed (Mix). The items
comprising Factor 3 are consistent with the enmeshment
construct. The family emphasizes closeness and sameness, and
discourages differences and independent functioning. This factor
was labelled Enmeshment (En). The items making up Factor 4
reflect a distant and rigid relationship between the child and
the parents. This factor was labelled Disengagement (~t).
The next step was to place subjects into their appropriate
factor or category. This was done on the basis of their factor
loadings and communalities. Subjects with factor loadings of .30
and above on any one factor and with communalities greater than
.20 (115 of 154 subjects) were simply assigned to the

corresponding category. Subjects with loadings below .30 and/or

whose communalities were below .20 were considered not to fit
into any one of the factors and were placed into a new category
called No-fit (n = 1 8 ) . The remaining 2 1 subjects had
communalities of .20 -and above and had factor loadings of .30
and above on two of the four factors. Rather than create new
categories for these subjects it was decided to examine the 50
items selected by each of these subjects and rationally
establish the main family themes identified by the items. Then,
on the basis of this face validity procedure, 20 of these
subjects were placed into one of the existing four categories.
It was not possible to decide between the two factors for one
subject and this subject was placed into the No-fit category.
The numbers and percentages of all, male, and female subjects
placed in each of the five FOQS categories are presented in
Table 19.
The above analysis of the FOQS examined the data of all the
subjects combined. The next analysis involved factor analyzing
the data separately by gender. The same principal components
analysis procedure was carried out for the male and female data.
Once again, the 4 factor solution provided the best fit for both
samples. The items making up the four factors for male and
female subjects and their scale and factor scores are presented
in Appendix N and Appendix 0, respectively.
A

description of each of the four factors or FOQS categories

for each gender follows below.

Table

Number of All, Male, and Female Subjects in FOQS Categories

FOQS Category

All Subjects

Male Subjects

.n

Differentiation

64

42

Mixed

29

Enmeshment

Female Subjects

26

42

38

41

19

11

22

24

18

12

10

12

13

Disengagement

24

16

14

23

10

11

No-fit

19

12

15

10

11

154

100

62

100

92

100

Total

1tl

Factor

Although there was some dropping and adding of items this

factor's basic theme in both the male and female solutions
remained the same as it was for all subjects. In other words,
the child in this family felt that his or her needs for
attachment and individuation were supported by the parents, the
parents had a good relationship, there was good family
communication, and clear boundaries between generations were
maintained. Therefore the first factor for both male and female
subjects retained the Differentiation (Dn) label.
Factor

The biggest change in items for this hypothetical family

type occured for the male sample. With one exception, the items
which had indicated a close relationship between the mother and
the child dropped out. In other words, the enmeshment aspect of
this family type no longer applied for males. In most other
respects this factor remained the same for the male sample. The
general impression of this family type was one of disengagement
within a conflicted family environment. As such, the second
factor or category for male subjects was labelled

is engagement-conflicted (~tc). The items for the female sample

basically captured the same theme as existed in the earlier
analysis, namely the mixture of enmeshment and disengagement
within a conflicted family. Therefore, the label Mixed ( ~ i x )was
retained for the second category of the female subjects' factor

The third factor in the separate analysis for males

primarily consisted- of those items which comprised Factor 4 or
the ise engagement factor in the all subjects solution. In turn,
the items of the fourth factor in the separate analysis for male
subjects were essentially the same as those which had been
Factor 3 or Enmeshment in the all subjects solution. For the
purpose of consistency in subsequent analyses, however, the
order of the third and fourth male factors was reversed such
that the third factor for males remained the Enmeshment ( ~ n )
category and the fourth factor remained the Disengagement (Dt)
category. The theme of the items of the third family category
for female subjects once again reflected the enmeshment
construct. The family emphasized closeness and harmony, and
discouraged independent thought and action. As such the third
factor for female subjects retained the Enmeshment label.
Factor

As indicated above, the basic family type identified by the

items in the male subjects' fourth factor was consistent with
the Disengagement ( ~ t )construct. The child felt restricted and
unsupported by parents who themselves had a very close
relationship. The overall impression was again one of a distant
and rigid family environment. Although the fourth factor for
female subjects was consistent with this description there were

also a few modifications. The female child in this family felt

unsupported, especially by the mother, and restricted. The
parents, however, were described as having more of a conflicted
rather than a close relationship. The overall impression was one
of a distant, rigid,-and conflicted family environment. The
fourth factor for female subjects retained the ~ i s e n d a ~ e m e n t
( ~ t )label.
As with the earlier analysis on all subjects, the next step
was to place subjects into one of the family categories. Once
again those subjects who had factor loadings of .30 and above
for any one factor and who had communalities of .20 and above
were assigned to the corresponding category. In this manner, 46
of the 6 2 males and 6 5 of the 92 females were placed into
categories. Ten of the remaining 16 males and 20 of the
remaining 27 females had communalities above .20 and had factor
loadings of .30 and above on two factors. As was done in the
earlier analysis, the 50 items selected by each of these
subjects were scrutinized in order to decide on a rationally
based placement into one of the existing four categories. The
remaining six male and seven female subjects had factor loadings
below .30 and/or had communalities below .20 and were placed
into the No-fit categories. The numbers and percentages of male
and female subjects placed into each of the two sets of five
categories are presented in Table 20. The family category
placements of nine males and twenty-two females were different
than they had been in the all subjects analysis.

Given that the nature of two of the four hypothetical family

types were altered when the separate gender analyses were
performed and that they were informative of gender differences,
it was decided that the separate gender categories would be used
in all of the subsequent analyses involving the FOQS.

Proportional Tests
on the FOQS
-Hypothesis 2b predicted that proportionally more women than
men would depict their families of origin as having had enmeshed
relationships on the FOQS and that proportionally more men than
women would depict their families of origin as having had
disengaged relationships on the FOQS. The numbers and
percentages of male and female subjects in the Enmeshment
categories were 12 or 19% and 19 or 2 1 % , respectively.

he

normal deviate squared test showed that the proportional

difference was not significant (-Z

0.29, 2 >

.lo).

The numbers

and percentages of male and female subjects in the Disengagement

categories were 14 or 23% and 7 or 8%, respectively. The normal
deviate squared test showed that a significantly higher
proportion of males than females were in this category ( Z = 2.5,

2 < .05). As was the case with the proportional tests on the SAT
categories, support was only found for the prediction concerning
the category in which the number of males was expected to be
greater.

Table
-

20

Number of Male and Female Subjects in the

Separate Gender FOQS Categories
FOQS Category

Male Subjects
n

Female Subjects
n

24

39

37

40

10

--

--

Enmeshment

12

19

19

21

Disengagement

14

23

Total

62

100

92

100

Differentiation
Disengagement-conflict
(Males only)
Mixed
(Females only)

The Relationship
-

Between the FOQSandtheIJS

Hypotheses 3a to 3d stated that young adults who depicted

their families of origin as having had differentiated, enmeshed,
and disengaged relationships would have mean jealousy scores in
the medium, high, and low ranges, respectively. This section
presents the results of analyses done separately.for male and
female subjects which addressed these hypotheses and which
examined the relationship between the IJS and the FOQS taking
other continuous variables into account.
The means and standard deviations of the IJS scores across
the five FOQS categories for male and female subjects are
presented in Table 21. The means are also presented in Figure 3
and Figure 4 (shown in descending order from highest to lowest).
On the basis of a visual analysis it was immediately clear that
the pattern of IJS means for the Dn, En, and Dt categories was
consistent with the predictions for female subjects and that
this was not the case for male subjects.
For male subjects, the one way analysis of variance
comparing the IJS means across the four interpreted FOQS
categories and the Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons are
presented in Table 22. The results indicated that the effect of
the FOQS categories approached but did not attain significance

(F

(3,521 = 2.52, p

.068). None of the Bonferroni corrected

pairwise comparisions were significant. However, the Dn IJS mean

(M

= 115.4) was found to be significantly lower than the mean of

the combined Dtc, En, and Dt IJS scores

(g =

138.6),

(t (60) =

-2.88, 2 < .01). The one way analysis of variance was also
performed on all five FOQS categories. With the No-fit category
IJS mean included the main effect for the FOQS categories on the

- (4,57) = 2.52, 2 = .05).

IJS means for males-was significant (F
Once again, all of the corrected pairwise comparisons were
non-significant.
The one way analysis of variance comparing the female
subjects' IJS means across the four interpreted FOQS categories,
and the corresponding Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisions
are presented in Table 23. The results indicated that the main

- (3,811 = 3.08, 2 <

effect for FOQS categories was significant (F
.05).

None of the corrected pairwise comparisons reached

significance. Less conservative tests which involved comparing

the highest and the lowest scoring groups with the IJS mean of
the three remaining groups were then carried out. Thus, the EN
IJS mean (g

134.0) was compared with the mean of the combined

Dn, Mix, and Dt IJS scores

(g =

123.2) and the difference was

found to approach but not attain significance (t (90) = 1.83, 2

=

.07); and the Dt IJS mean (M

-

109.3) was compared with the

mean of the combined Dn, Mix, and En IJS scores

(g =126.8)

and

the difference also approached but did not attain significance

(r (90) =

-1.94, 2

.06). When the No-fit category was included

in the dne way analysis of variance the main effect for the FOQS
categories on the IJS means for female subjects approached but

- (4,87)
did not attain significance (F

2.32, 2 = .06). Once

E
i

again, all of the pairwise comparisons were non-significant.

In summary, the results for female subjects supported the
predicted relationships between the IJS and the FOQS categories.
That is, high jealousy was associated with an enmeshed family
style, low jealousy with a disengaged family style, and medium
jealousy with a differentiated and a mixed family style. The
results for male subjects did not follow the predicted pattern
but did show that the FOQS marginally differentiated jealousy
scores. For males, high jealousy was associated with an enmeshed
and a disengaged family style, low jealousy with a
differentiated family style, and medium jealousy with a
disengaged-conflicted family style.
As was done in the analysis of the SAT, the male and female
factors which were derived from the correlation matrices of the
IJS, SDS, demographic, and relationship variables (and which
excluded'those variables not independent of the SAT and FOQS)
were used to generate factor scores in each of the interpreted
FOQS categories. These four male and four female factors are
listed in Table 1 1 and Table 12, respectively. For each factor
which included the IJS a one way analysis of variance was
performed on the factor score means across the FOQS categories.
For male subjects, the FOQS mean factor scores were
significantly different in Factor 1
and Factor 3

(F (3,521

= 8.60,

(F (3,521

3.65, p < .05)

2 < .001). The Bonferroni

corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that the Dn mean factor

Table 21
Male and Female Subjects: IJS Means and Standard Deviations
Across the Separate Gender FOQS Categories
Males
FOQS Categories
I JS

Dn

Dtc

En

Dt

No-f it

Dt

No-f i t

Females
FOQS Categories
I JS

Dn

Mix

En

Figure 3. IJS means across the separate FOQS

categories for male subjects.

EN

DT
DTC
FOQS CATEGORY

Figure 4. IJS means across the separate FOQS

categories for female subjects.

EN

MIX

NOFlT DN
FOQS CATEGORY

DT

Table

22

Male Subjects: Analysis of Variance and Pairwise Comparisons

for IJS on FOQS Categories
-

Source

S.S.

Between

6423.6
44230.4

Within

Analysis of Variance

M.S.

2141.2

2.52

.068

52

850.6

d. f

Pairwise Comparisons
Comparison
Groups

Comparison
Means

Mean
Diff.

d.f.

Table

23

Female Subjects: Analysis of Variance and Pairwise

Comparisons for IJS on FOQS Categories
.

Analysis of Variance
d.f.

M.S.

4708.9

1569.6

3.08

0.032*

41308.3

81

510.0

Source

S.S.

Between
Within

Pairwise Comparisons
Comparison
Groups

Comparison
Means

Mean
Diff.

d.f.

score was significantly higher than the Dt mean factor score in

the Factor 1 (0.05 vs. -0.48) and the Factor 3 (0.52 vs. -0.83)
analyses

(t (52) =

3.05, 2

.05 and t (52) = 5.08, 2

.001,

respectively). The factor score means, standard deviations, and

analyses of variance-for male subjects are presented in Table
24. For female subjects the FOQS mean factor scores were also
compared in those factors which included the IJS, namely Factor
1 and Factor 3. The one way analyses of variance were

- (3,81) = 1.15,
non-significant for both factors (F
(3,811 = 1.50,

>

.lo).

> .10 and F

The descriptive statistics and analysis

of variance results for female subjects are presented in Table

25.
In summary, the FOQS categories showed no main effect within
the selected female factors but did have an effect within two of
the selected.male factors. In particular, it was found that male
subjects with differentiated and disengaged family styles had
the highest and lowest means, respectively, on the factor which
associated lower jealousy with being older, having had longer
previous relationships, and having had a greater number of
previous relationships (Factor 1); and on the factor which
associated lower jealousy with higher social desirability
scores, higher relationship with mother rating scores, having
been in the current relationship a longer time, and higher
relationship with father rating scores (Factor 3).
The possible confounding effects of the SDS, demographic and
relationship variables on the observed IJS mean differences

Table
-

24

Male Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard Deviations;

Analyses of Variance for Factors 1 , 3, and 4
Means and Standard Deviations
Factor 1
SD

Factor 3
M

Factor 4

FOQS Category

SD

SD

Differentiation

0.50,

0.95

0.52b

0.90

0.13

0.71

Disengagementcon
lict

0.18

0.94

0.03

0.50

0.00

1.17

Enmeshment

-0.25

0.90

-0.01

0.65

0.09

1.08

Disengagement

-0.48,

1.01

-0.83b

-.77

-0.33

1.10

Note. Means with the same subscript differ significantly.

Analyses of Variance
Factor
Source

1
S.S.

Between
Within
Factor
Source

9.90
47.03

d.f.

M.S.

3
52

3.30
0.90

3.65

0.018"

d.f.

M.S.

3
52

5.35
0.62

3
S.S.
- - -

Between
Within
Factor 4
Source
Between
Within

16.04
32.30

0.OOO***

0.76

0.522

M.S.

S.S.
2.05
46.89

8.60

3
52

0.68
0.90

Table
--

25

Female Subjects: Mean Factor Scores and Standard Deviations;

Analyses of Variance for Factors 1 and 3
Means and Standard Deviations
Factor
FOQS Category

Differentiation

Factor 3

SD

0.09

SD

1.06

0.21

0.90

Mixed

-0.01

0.96

-0.25

0.93

Enmeshment

-0.31

0.91

-0.27

1.12

1.20

0.15

1.43

Disengagement

0.45

Analyses of Variance
Factor
Source

3.57
83.75

Between
Within
Factor
Source
Between
Within

M.S.

S.S.

3
81

1.15

0.334

1.50

0.221

M.S.

S.S.
4.55
81.87

1.19
1.03

3
81

1.52
1 .O1

across the FOQS categories were examined through analyses of

covariance. The four interpreted FOQS categories were used to
comprise the FOQS independent variable. As was done for the
analysis of covariance on the SAT, a series of analyses of
covariance were performed to establish which covariate or
covariates were the most consistently significant when different
combinations of covariates were used. Once again, the Feel
covariate for the male subjects and the Prev covariate for the
female subjects proved to most often demonstrate significance.
The results of the analysis of covariance for male subjects,
with Feel as the covariate, are presented in Table 26. The Feel

covariate and the FOQS main effect were both significant (F

(1,511 = 6.55, 2 < .05 and F (3,51) = 3.88, 2 < .05,
respectively). The results of the analysis of covariance for
female subjects, with Prev as the covariate, are presented in
Table 27. The Prev covariate was significant

(F

(1,80) = 6.51,

< .05) whereas the FOQS main effect approached but did not

attain significance (F
- (3,80)

The Relationship
-

2.55, p = .062).

Between the SAT and the FOQS

The expected correspondence between the categories of the

SAT and the FOQS formed the basis of the final hypotheses
stipulated in the present study. Hypotheses 4a to 4c predicted
that young adults who expressed patterns of secure attachment,
anxious attachment, and self-sufficient detachment on the SAT
would depict their families of origin as having had

Table
-

26

Male Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for the IJS

on FOQS Categories
Source

S.S.

d.f.

M.S.

FOQS

8940.5

2980.2

3.88

0.014*

Feel

5032.9

5032.9

6.55

0.014*

Error

39197.5

51

768.6

Table 27
Female Subjects: Analysis of Covariance for IJS
on FOQS Categories
Source

FOQS
Prev
Error

S.S.

d.f.

M.S.

differentiated, enmeshed, and disengaged relationships,

respectively. The frequency data presented in Table 28 are for
the original SAT and FOQS categories identified in the
hypotheses. In other words, the Mixed, Disengagement-conflict,
and No-fit categories were not included. The Pearson chi-square
test of the obtained versus the expected frequencies was
N
significant for all subjects (/2 (6, -

113) = 17.35, 2 < .01),

N = 50)
significant for male subjects (/2 (6, -

15.36, 2 < .05),

and non-significant for female subjects (/2 (6, N

>

.lo).

63) = 6.18,

visual analysis of the patterns of frequencies,

however, revealed that they were not in the hypothesized

directions.
The frequency data for male and female subjects with all of
the categories included are presented in Table 29 and Table 30,
respectively. The Pearson chi-square tests of the obtained
versus the expected frequencies were non-significant for both
N = 62)
male and female subjects (/2 (12, -

/2 ( 1 2 , N = 92) = 7.89,

19.70, 2 > .05 and

> .lo, respectively). These results

along with a visual analysis of the patterns of frequencies

again established that they were not in the predicted
directions.

Additional Analyses

The relationship between the IJS and the blocked concomitant

variable which estimated the number of losses/separations

subjects experienced while growing up in their families (Estlos)

was explored via analyses of variance. Table 31 presents the
means and standard deviations of the IJS scores for all, male,
and female subjects in the three Estlos categories. As can be
seen, the pattern for male subjects was that their IJS means
increased as the Estlos categories went from Low to High. This
pattern did not hold true for female subjects.

able

32 presents the results of the Estlos (3) by Gender

(2) analysis of variance. There was a significant main effect

for Estlos

(F

(2,148) = 3.75, 2 < .05) and non-significant

- (1,148)
effects for the Gender (F
- (2,148)
Interaction terms (F

2.64, 2 >

.lo)

and the

2.62, 2 > .05). Bonferroni

corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that Low males and Low

females both scored significantly lower on the IJS than High
males

(fL

(148)

-3.17, 2 < .05 and

fL

(148)

-3.04, E < .05,

respectively). Separate analyses of variance were also carried

out for male and female subjects. The Estlos main effect was
significant for male subjects (F
- (2,591

3.74,

< .05) and

- (2,89) = 0.30,
non-significant for female subjects (F

> .lo).

Table 28
The Observed Frequency of All, Male, and Female Subjects in the
Hypothesized SAT by FOQS Categories
SAT/FOQS
Categories

Total

All
Subjects

Male
Subjects

Female
Subjects

113

50

63

Note. Asterisked category pairs were those expected to have the

highest frequencies.

Table
-

29

The Observed Frequency of Male Subjects in the

SAT by FOQS Categories
SAT Category
FOQS Category

SA

AA

SSD

DD

Total

11

24

23

62

Dn
Dtc
En
Dt
No-Fit

Total

Table 30

The Observed Frequency of Female Subjects in the

SAT by FOQS Categories
SAT Category
FOQS Category

SA

AA

SSD

DD

Total

Dn

10

16

37

Mix

22

En

11

19

Dt

No-f it

25

41

17

92

Total

Table

31

All, Male, and Female Subjects: IJS Means and Standard

Deviations for Estlos Categories
All
Subjects
Estlos

SD

Male
Subjects
n

SD

Female
Subjects
n

SD

Category
- -

Low

122.1

22.9

58

121.3

27.1

28

122.8

18.6

30

Medi urn

127.3

27.9

57

127.7

29.4

20

127.1

27.4

37

High

134.4

31.6

39

149.1

40.8

14

126.1

21 - 9

25

Table 32
Analysis of Variance on the IJS: Estlos by Gender
Source

S.S.

d.f.

M.S.

Estlos

5389.2

2699.1

3.75

0.026*

Gender

1900.0

1900.0

2.64

0.106

Interaction

3771.1

1885.8

2.62

0.076

106445.9

148

Error

719.2

PART D
DISCUSSION

The discussion of the results of this exploratory study

takes the following order:

1)

relating the IJS to the SAT and

the FOQS; 2) gender differences; 3 ) the relationship between the

SAT and the FOQS; 4 ) methodological limitations; 5) assumptions
and directions for future research; and 6) concluding remarks.

The Relationship of
-

the IJS

to

the SAT and the FOQS

The overall analysis of variance which tested for mean

jealousy score differences across the SAT categories was
significant. The finding that only one of the corrected pairwise
comparisons proved to be significant does not alter the fact
that the mean jealousy scores showed the predicted pattern
around the grand mean. The latter suggests that more of these
comparisons would have reached significance had the sample size
been larger. These results are consistent with the hypotheses
relating the IJS to the SAT. In other words, people high in
jealousy tend to be anxiously attached, people low in jealousy
/

tend to be self-sufficiency detached, and people in the

mid-range of jealousy tend to be securely attached or dependent
detached.
These results also provide support for the rationale upon
which the hypotheses were based; namely, that the relative
balance between attachment and individuation needs and
capacities plays a significant role in accounting for the degree
to which young adults respond to jealousy-provoking events. In

theory, this balance is a reflection of an intrapsychic dynamic

structure which contains self-in-relation to others
9

representations. The results support the view that jealousy in

intimate heterosexual relationships can be understood in terms
of the broad developmental themes presented in the attachment
\

and object relations literatures.

The other major set of hypotheses related the jealousy
scores to the FOQS. There are two important aspects of the
results pertaining to these hypotheses which need to be
addressed. The first is the examination of the pattern of mean
jealousy scores across the FOQS categories for women and men.
The second is the examination of the FOQS categories themselves.
Both aspects will be included in the discussion below. As well,
for the purposes of the discussion of these results it is
assumed that the FOQS is a valid measure. Its limitations will
be discussed in the section examining the relationship between
the SAT and the FOQS.
The results of the analyses of variance on the mean jealousy
scores across the four interpreted FOQS categories for women and
men revealed significant and marginally significant results,
respectively. In comparison to the SAT'group effects these
findings were not as strong or as stable. The pattern of mean
jealousy scores around the grand mean for women, however, was
consistent with the theoretically-based predictions. That is,
those women who depicted their families as enmeshed had the
highest jealousy mean, those who depicted their families as

disengaged had the lowest jealousy mean, and those who depicted
their families as differentiated or mixed had mid-range jealousy
means. The one unforeseen result was that the mean jealousy
score for women in the Mixed category fell between the overall
and the Enmeshment category means. One possible explanation for
this finding is that the items in the Mixed family type reflect
an enmeshed relationship with the mother and a disengaged
relationship with the father in the context of a conflicted
parental relationship. In line with the integrated relational
model of jealousy, such a configuration might lead to a mixture
of both reactive and self-protective responses to jealousy
situations. In other words, this mixture of reactions would
cause the mean jealousy score of this group to be close to the
jealousy mean for all women.
For men, the pattern of mean jealousy scores across the FOQS
categories was not consistent with the predictions made. Those
men who depicted their families as differentiated had the lowest
jealousy mean whereas those who depicted their families as
disengaged had their jealousy mean above that of the overall IJS
mean for men. As expected, those men who depicted their families
as enmeshed had the highest jealousy mean. Finally, the jealousy
mean of those men who depicted their families as
disengaged-conflicted fell close to and slightly below the
overall jealousy mean for men.
The explanation for why the Dn men scored so low may lie in
the fact that these men obtained the highest factor score on the

male factor which linked low jealousy scores with high social
desirability scores, higher relationship with mother and father
rating scores, and with having been in the current relationship
a longer time. It may be that the desire to avoid being
negatively evaluated-and the associated tendency to positively
evaluate one's past relationship with one's parents leads one to
both avoid the acknowledgement of jealous feelings and describe
one's past family relationships in more positive terms. The key
variable here is the desire to avoid negative evaluation. This
description of the men who loaded on the Differentiation
category is not consistent with theory ie., by definition they
should not be this concerned with the avoidance of appearing in
a negative light.
The most surprising result was that the second highest mean
jealousy score occurred for men in the Disengagement family
category. In this category the parents were described as having
had a very close relationship from which the child felt
excluded. It is possible that the men who loaded on this factor
would have had lower jealousy scores, as did the women in the
corresponding Disengagement category, were it not for the fact
that they felt excluded from what they perceived to be a close
relationship between their parents. It is perhaps this feeling
of exclusion from sharing in this closeness which most
contributed to their elevated mean jealousy score. The women who
described their families as having had disengaged relationships
did not convey the same impression of a close relationship

between their parents. They too were excluded from being a part
of their parents1 lives but the parental relationship did not
appear to be one which would stimulate desires for the sharing
of attachment needs. Rather it would more likely have led to
emotional self-protection and distancing.
The mean jealousy score of the men in the
Disengagement-conflict category may be explained by reasons
similar to those given to explain the women's Mixed category
mean jealousy score. To speculate further, although the men did
not acknowledge the importance of their relationships with their
mothers to the same degree that the Mixed category women did
(i.e., they did not indicate being as enmeshed with the mother
as women did) they did indicate being closer to their mothers
than to their fathers. The items which provided a description of
the father stated that he was inconsistent, insecure,
bad-tempered, and not actively involved - all in the context of
a conflicted parental relationship. Seen in a traditional light,
this sense of disengagement from the father would provide the
boy with no proactive male figure with which to identify in the
movement from his primary attachment to the mother. Thus the
boy's sense of disengagement in relation to the father may be
tempered by some on-going dependency upon the mother. Again,
such a configuration might lead to a mixture of both reactive
and self-protective responses to jealousy situations.
For the women in the Mixed category and the men in
Disengagement-conflict category the relationship with the father

and between the parents was poor. As was mentioned above, the
women described their relationship with the mother as enmeshed
whereas the men, at best, identified it as being close. This
pattern may identify the differential modal experience for boys
and girls in families where the mother is involved with the
children, the father is an outsider, and the parental
relationship is conflicted. The mother may naturally turn more
to the daughter than to the son in order to meet her relational
needs (Chodorow, 1978). The present results do not suggest,
however, that this differential experience for men and women
makes any real difference in their comparative levels of
jealousy.
In sum, the crucial feature in understanding the mean
jealousy score patterns for women and men across the FOQS
categories involves an examination of the degree and quality of
closeness and distance, which the child perceives, in the
triangular relationships in the family. In other words, the
child's perception of these dimensions in the parent's
relationship is as important as the child's perception of these
dimensions in his or her own relationship with each parent. It
is also clear that the ways in which these triangular
attachment-individuation themes can be expressed in families are
not limited to the three which were originally predicted.
Although the content of the FOQS categories and their
ability to account for differences in mean jealousy scores were
more in line with predictions for women than for men, the

statistical and content analyses of the male FOQS categories

revealed that they too differentiated the degree of reported
jealousy. As such, the results do provide some suport for the
rationale upon which the hypotheses relating the IJS to the FOQS
are based; namely, that for young adults their recall of the
relative balance betweeen meeting and fostering belonging and
autonomy needs in their families of origin plays a significant
role in accounting for the, degree to which they respond to
jealousy-provoking situations.

Gender Differences

Among the hypotheses which related directly to gender

differences were those which predicted that proportionally more
women than men would be in the anxiously attached category of
the SAT and in the Enmeshment category of the FOQS. Neither of
these hypotheses were supported by the results; This finding
might indicate that the rationales for these predictions are
simply inaccurate. Another possible explanation relates to an
issue which is discussed again in the section reviewing the
limitations of the study. Namely, a higher than representative
percentage of the men who volunteered to partake in this study
appeared to have androgynous or traditionally feminine
characteristics (Colwill

&

Lips, 1 9 7 8 ) . In other words, the men

who volunteered to take part in this study appeared to be more

willing to share their emotional/relational concerns than most
of the men who were asked to volunteer. If this was the case

then this could have elevated the number of men in the anxiously
attached and Enmeshment categories. Providing some support for
the rationale of these proportional hypotheses was the finding
that enmeshment items most clearly differentiated the women in
the Mixed category f-rom the men in the Disengagement-conflict
category of the separate FOQS analyses.
The other hypotheses related to gender differences were that
proportionally more men than women would be in the
self-sufficiency detached category of the SAT and in the
Disengagement category of the FOQS. The results supported the
view that, in general, men have a greater push for individuation
in interpersonal and family relationships than women. These
results are also consistent with Chodorow's (1978) views as they
are recapitulated in the relational model of jealousy presented
above.
In the results section two sets of factors relating the IJS
to different combinations of continuous variables were presented
for both women and men. Rather than attempt to label and discuss
all of these factors, the most salient patterns for women and
men will be identified and, where possible, interpreted. Some of
the patterns appear to be consistent with theoretical
expectations. Others do not lend themselves to straightforward
explanations but they are suggestive nevertheless. What follows
is a summary and discussion of these patterns.

There are three primary categories of variables whose

patterns can be summarized in terms of relating them to the
jealousy measure. These are:

1)

the demographic and relationship

variables; 2 ) the SAT response patterns scores; and 3 ) the FOQS

scores and the famil-y of origin relationship variables.
In terms of the demographic and relationship variables, a
number of factors revealed an association between jealousy
scores and the Age, Prev, and Long variables for both women and
men. In general, lower jealousy scores were associated with
being older, having had longer previous relationships, and
having had a greater number of previous relationships. This
pattern is consistent with the view that, for non-clinical
subjects, experience in relationships tends to temper people's
emotional reactivity to jealousy-provoking situations. For both
genders, as well, lower jealousy scores were associated with
higher scores on the SDS. This pattern is consistent with the
view that acknowledging feelings of jealousy risks placing
oneself in a negative light. For men, this association was found
to be especially true for those who described their families as
having had differentiated relationships. For women, this
association was strongest for those who were categorized as
self-sufficient detached on the SAT. The final finding in this
category of variables is the association of higher jealousy with
higher feelings about the relationship ratings for men only. It
may be that this confirms the view that men show a greater
reliance on their attachment objects ie., their emotional

reactiveness to jealousy-provoking situations is more closely

aligned to how they feel about or how attached they are to the
love object. This is the view expressed by Dinnerstein ( 1 9 7 8 )
and reiterated in the relational model of jealousy.
In terms of the SAT response patterns, higher attachment
percentages were associated with higher jealousy scores for both
women and men. For men, higher jealousy scores were also
associated with higher painful tension and hostility scores, and
lower individuation and reality avoidance scores. These results
are consistent with the view that when, in response to
separation situations, one's attachment need and emotional
reactivity are greater than one's capacity for individuation and
ability to use avoidance mechanisms then one will be more likely
to demonstrate jealous reactions. Women, however, did not show
this overall pattern. Aside from the attachment percentage, the
only other SAT response pattern which was associated with
jealousy scores for women was the painful tension percentage. In
one factor higher jealousy scores for women were associated with
higher painful tension percentages, being older, and having been
in the current relationship for a longer time. In another factor
high jealousy scores for women were associated with lower
painful tension percentages in combination with higher
attachment and higher relationship with mother rating scores.
Why is it that, in combination with certain variables, either
lower or higher painful tension was associated with higher
jealousy? As well, why is it that for women, being in the

relationship for a longer time and being older were associated

with higher painful tension and jealousy scores? At this point,
attempts to answer these questions would be speculative but they
are worthy of further empirical investigation.
The factors showed different patterns for women and men in
relation to the FOQS scores and family of origin relationship
variables. For women, none of the FOQS scores were associated
with jealousy but low relationship with mother ratings and high
relationship with father ratings were associated with lower
jealousy scores. This was especially true for those women
categorized as self-sufficient detached and least characteristic
of those women categorized as anxiously attached on the SAT.
Keep in mind that the interpretation of these results can be
reversed. In other words, the pattern can also be read as high
relationship with mother ratings and low relationship with
father ratings were associated with higher jealousy scores; and
this was especially true for women in the anxiously attached
category and least characteristic of those in the
self-sufficiency detached category of the SAT. Overall, this
suggests that for women their tendency to be overreactive or
denying in the face of jealousy-provoking situations depends on
and their
both their type of attachment-individuation balance feelings about their past relationships with each of their
parents. The expansion and apriori blocking of the latter
variables in future research would be helpful in sorting out the
role these variables play in relation to jealousy.

For men, the association of higher jealousy scores with

higher enmeshment and lower differentiation percentages is
consistent with theoretical expectations. As was true for the
FOQS categories, the finding that higher disengagement
percentages were associated with higher jealousy scores is not
consistent with expectations. This finding again suggests that,
for the men in this sample, distant family relationships
engender jealousy. In line with this view was the finding that
for men, particularly those who described their families as
having had disengaged relationships, lower relationship with
mother and father ratings were associated with higher jealousy
scores.
The analysis of covariance for all of the subjects revealed
that the desire to avoid being seen in a negative light (SDS)
and the number of previous relationships (Prev) were those
variables which most consistently covaried with jealousy scores
across the SAT categories. The separate analyses of covariance
for women and men revealed that respectively, the number of
previous relationships (Prev) and the feelings about the current
relationship (Feel) most consistently covaried with the jealousy
scores across the SAT and FOQS categories. The explanation as to
why SDS and Prev covaried with the IJS for all subjects across
the SAT and FOQS categories seems straightforward. Jealousy has
negative connotations and it tends to covary with the number of
previous relationships people have. The latter result seemed to
be particularly true for this sample of women. In fact, the Prev

covariate for women rendered the SAT and FOQS jealousy score
comparisons insignificant, but this does not mean that this
variable accounts for the originally observed mean IJS
differences. Only the apriori experimental control of this
covariate and not its statistical control can clarify its role
in relation to jealousy ( ~ y e r s ,1 9 7 9 ) . The covariance of
jealousy and the Feel variable for men may again indicate that,
relative to women, they rely more upon their partners to meet
their primary attachment needs.
Finally, one of the most striking results in terms of gender
differences was that for men, and not for women, the mean
jealousy scores across the estimate of losses (Estlos)
categories were significantly different. Again, this finding is
consistent with the view that men are more vulnerable than women
to relational losses because, in general, they do not develop
the same kind of internalized sense of primary attachment which
women do. More generally, it has also been reported that men are
more developmentally vulnerable to life stress than women
(Rutter, 1 9 7 9 ) .

The Relationship
-

Between the SAT and the FOQS

The examination of the results has, until this point,

provided general support for the proposed relational model of
jealousy. In the comparison of the subject's SAT and FOQS
categories, however, it was immediately apparent that the

assumption of a simple one to one correspondence between them

just did not apply. It is worthwhile to speculate about a number
of factors which may have contributed to this result. In general
terms, this result may reflect the complexity of the
relationship between intrapsychic structural development and
family patterns of interaction. The intergenerational literature
(e.g., Framo, 1 9 8 2 ) recognizes this, in part, when it maintains
that siblings raised in the same family do not necessarily
develop similar roles or coping strategies. As was suggested by
the pattern of results, identifying oneself as having grown up
in a family with a certain type of interaction does not lead one
to have a corresponding type of attachment-individuation
balance, and vice versa. The myriad of factors which result in
people's expressions of certain attachment-individuation
balances may be too complex to be captured in one retrospective
measure of family relationships.
The last point relates to another possible contributing
factor--the question of the demand characteristics of the FOQS.
The purpose of the FOQS is much more apparent to subjects than
that of the SAT and thus it is probably much more susceptible to
conscious distortion. In doing the FOQS subjects are being asked
to recall and report on the patterns of relationships in their
families of origin. It is common clinical lore that most people
are loathe to do this and especially so in the face of possible
critical scrutiny. This difference between the SAT and the FOQS
may be highlighted by the fact that the largest percentage of

subjects (approximately 42%) fell within the anxiously attached

category of the SAT (a category which appears less socially
desirable than the securely attached category) whereas the
largest percentage of subjects (approximately 40%) fell within
the Differentiation category of the FOQS (the FOQS category
which appears to be the most socially desirable).
In addition, because the task on the FOQS involves asking
subjects to recall patterns from the past this measure is more
susceptible to memory distortions than the SAT. Although the SAT
might involve some recall of how one responded to events as a
child, the instructions direct subjects to imagine that they are
currently in the child's shoes. Hansburg (1980a) intended the
SAT to be a measure of current rather than past ways of dealing
with separation situations. As such, the rewriting of history
(for purposes of self or other deception) and memory distortions
in general seem more likely with the FOQS than with the SAT. In
relation to the relational model proposed, the SAT would appear
to have measured the product of a number of developmental
processes (specifically, the internalized
attachment-individuation balance) whereas the FOQS attempted,
through retrospection, to measure one of the influencing
processes (the family pattern of interaction related to the
meeting and fostering of attachment and individuation needs and
capacities). Given its limitations, the FOQS may be better
regarded as a measure of the current beliefs and perceptions
people are willing to acknowledge about their families of

origin.
Despite the greater number of problems with the FOQS both
its categories and those of the SAT were found to differentiate
jealousy scores. In other words, the current beliefs and
perceptions one reports about one's past family type and one's
expression of the intrapsychic attachment-individuation balance
both appear to influence the degree of one's reaction to
jealous-provoking events. What this study did not clarify,
however, was the nature of the relationship between these two
constructs.

Other Methodological Limitations

The discussion of other limitations of the present study
focusses on

1)

the subjects and 2) the measures.

Subjects

Many of the same criticisms made in an earlier section about

the majority of the psychological research on jealousy can be
applied to the current study. In particular, the use of
university students as subjects limits the generalizability of
the results.

study which included clinical subjects grouped

according.to their showing normal, neurotic, and delusional

levels of jmealousy,as well as non-clinical subjects, would have
provided a more powerful test of the model. It is not possible
to say whether any of the subjects in the current study had
clinical levels of jealousy as this variable was not

experimentally controlled. It would be expected, however, that

the contrasts amongst the groups' mean jealousy scores across
the SAT and FOQS categories would have been even more striking
had appropriate clinical populations been included. The use of a
more homogeneous group of subjects may also have limited the
scope of family types revealed in the FOQS categories and caused
more overlap in the defining criteria of the SAT categories.
A

final note on the limitations of the subjects relates to

the size of the sample. Quite simply, the sample size should
have ideally been at least twice as large, with approximately
equal numbers of men and women, in order to draw stronger
conclusions. This relates to the difficulty experienced in
recruiting men to take part in this study. In fact, a rough
estimate would be that it took twice as long to find the 62 male
volunteers as it did to find the 92 female volunteers. The
greater difficulty in finding men willing to take part in a
"study on relationships" is consistent with the oft reported
finding that women are more willing than men to acknowledge
emotions (e.g., Spence

&

Helmreich, 1978), and with the view

that women are, in general, more relationally-oriented than men

(e.g., Chodorow, 1978). As was mentioned earlier, it was my
impression that a greater number of the men who volunteered were
more emotionally open than is representative of the male student
population. This is.another disadvantage to not having a
representative subject pool.

Measures

The limitations of the measures used in this study also

merit comment. Some of the difficulties with the FOQS have
already been touched upon and I will begin by mentioning some
others before commenting on the IJS and the SAT.
The results of the FOQS analysis give some empirical support
to the theoretically expected factor structure of the
differentiated, enmeshed, and disengaged family types. The
addition of the Mixed and the Disengaged-conflict categories for
women and men respectively, adds to the potential usefulness of
the FOQS. Some of the limitations of the FOQS analysis have been
referred to above and include the smaller than ideal number of
subjects as well as their homogeneity. Further work on the FOQS
with different populations must involve the modification,
addition, and deletion of items until those which best define
and discriminate between family types are found.
The IJS has been validated with young university students.
Whether or not it is capable of discriminating amongst the
normal, neurotic, and delusional levels of jealousy with
different ages and groups of subjects remains untested. With
this in mind, it is not clear what extreme scores on the IJS
indicate regarding the level of jealousy.
The SAT has been used in studies with both clinical and
non-clinical subjects and it has established some degree of
construct validity. A recent study by Kroger ( 1 9 8 6 1 , however,

suggests that many of its untested assumptions are in need of

empirical evaluation. Among other things, Kroger found that, of
the SAT'S eight response patterns, only two had the factor
structure expected on the basis of Hansburg's
theoretically-based-descriptions. Kroger's (1985, 1986) research
demonstrates that, while the SAT is a valuable research
instrument, it can still be improved. This is especially true in
the area of establishing criteria for the placement of subjects.

The review of some of the limitations related to the

subjects and the measures highlights some of the ways in which
the current study merits being regarded as an exploratory study.
On the other hand, given the limitations in both areas, the fact
that the majority of the hypotheses were supported is probably
indicative of the power of the relationship between jealousy and
the relational themes of attachment and individuation in
people' s lives.

The Underlying
-

for Future Research

and Directions Assumptions -

This section discusses the conceptual limitations of the

study by examining the underlying assumptions of the relational
model of jealousy and the degree to which these have been
validated. As well, this section will identify some possible
directions for future research.

The model of relational jealousy presented in this thesis is

based upon the developmental perspectives of the attachment,
object relations, and intergenerational models, The primary
assumptions of the attachment and object relations models are
that experiences in infancy and early childhood with attachment
figures are responsible for the formation of internalized
representations or working models of self and self-in-relation
to others; that these representations come to.be enduring
structures; and that they persist, relatively unchanged, from
the early period on (Blanck

&

Blanck, 1986; Bowlby, 1973). It

can be argued that the intergenerational family model makes

similar assumptions but rather than having infancy and early
childhood as critical periods, this model views the sum of one's
experiences within one's family of origin (i.e., across
childhood and adolescence) as determining the in-ternalized
self-in-relation to other structures.
These kinds of blanket assumptions are increasingly coming
under attack from those who are generating empirical evidence to
back their claims that development is better viewed as more of a
flexible, discontinuous process. For example, Thompson and Lamb
(1986) present evidence that the assumption of structural
continuity on the basis of early experiences may be justifiable
only when there is on-going continuity in the quality of the
parent-child experiences and living conditions. As well, the
important formative role assigned to parents is being
supplemented by the recognition that siblings, peers, and other

significant people can influence, alter, and expand the

internalized representations one has of self and
self-in-relation to others (Skolnick, 1986). The results from
two longitudinal studies (Chess

&

Thomas, 1984; Skolnick, 1986)

suggest that plasticity in development is more of a reality than

most clinically-oriented theorists have suspected. That is, poor

or good parent-child relationships do not necessarily result in

poor or good relationships in adolescence or adulthood. On the
other hand, Skolnick (1986) has also found that many people do
show continuity from early to later development.in terms of the
quality of their social relationships. It may be that the
majority of those people who are identified as having clinical
problems are also those who have experienced more continuity (on
the side of poor parent-child relationships) across their
relational lives. Finally, it may also be that what is important
is how the self actively constructs a sense of continuity or
discontinuity from earlier experiences and how this, as a
current working model, affects one's relational life.
The relational model of jealousy is based on the same
developmental assumptions and is therefore open to the same
criticisms as those of the attachment, object relations, and
intergenerational perspectives. The results of the present study
are consistent with the expectations generated from the
attachment and object relations models, and separately, to a
somewhat lesser degree with the intergenerational model. The
study did not directly measure the relational experiences of the

child as he or she moved from infancy through to young

adulthood. Instead, the study measured the effects of prolonged
experience in young adults. As such, the results do not exlude
interpretations which run counter to those of the integrated
models. In other words, the results do not establish that
infancy and early childhood are the critical periods in the
formation of jealousy (as one aspect of one's relational
potential) as the attachment and object relations models claim;
nor do they establish that the sum of the relational experiences
in one's family of origin is the sine qua non of later
relational functioning as the intergenerational model claims.
What the results do support is the view that jealousy can be
understood in the context of people's current expressions of
attachment-individuation patterns, and of their current beliefs
and perceptions about their family of origin experiences. In
other words, jealousy can be understood as an expression of
people's current sense of self-in-relation to others.
In order to substantiate the assumptions that jealousy has
its origins in actual early childhood experiences and/or all of
the relational experiences within one's family of origin then
longitudinal research of the kind reported by Chess and Thomas
(1984) and Skolnick (1986) would have to be conducted. In a
study of this magnitude a number of quality of relationship
variables including jealousy, trust, capicity for intimacy, etc.
could be evaluated. The instruments used to measure these
variables would ideally capture these qualities in the context

of people's relationships with a number of significant others as

they moved from infancy through to adulthood. Both the SAT and
the FOQS, in modified and refined forms, could provide useful
measures of the attachment-individuation themes from childhood
on.
Barring the possibility of carrying out such a large scale
project it would be interesting to repeat the present study with
representative clinical and non-clinical populations. Such a
study could explore a number of the interesting questions which
arose out of the present study. These include the following:

1)

Would the relational model of jealousy be even more strongly

supported with the inclusion of clinical groups? 2) Does the IJS
provide a meaningful measure of jealousy in clinical
populations? 3 ) What are the implications of the observed gender
differences on the expression of normal, neurotic, and
delusional levels of jealousy? 4 ) Would the hypothesis that
women are more relationally-oriented find stronger support? 5)
What other hypothetical family types will different populations
generate on the FOQS? and 6) How can the Prev, SDS, Feel, Rmo,
and Ria variables be meaningfully blocked into categories so
that their relationship to jealousy can be further explored?
Just as important is finding a means of examining and exploring
the relationship between the constructs underlying the SAT and
FOQS measures. The inclusion of other measures which purport to
measure the same or similar constructs might help to clarify
this question.

Concluding Remarks

This study has provided evidence for the importance of the

relational themes identified by the attachment, object
relations, and intergenerational models but did not provide
empirical support for their developmental assumptions. The study
shows that the relational themes of attachment and individuation
needs and capacities are relevant to an understanding of
jealousy. The expression of the attachment-individuation balance
in reaction to separation situations and the recall of how those
needs and capacities were met and fostered in family of origin
relationships were separately found to differentiate the degree
of people's jealousy. The attachment-individuation theme
provides a beginning framework from which to examine the
intrapsychic and relational contexts for the etiology of
jealousy. It will, no doubt, continue to provide a useful
framework for research into jealousy and other relational
issues.

APPENDIX A

The Interpersonal
-

Jealousy Scale (IJS)

These questions ask you about your relationship with your

partner (that is, your spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend). In
responding to each item place the name (or initial) of your
partner in the blank space. Then use the scale below to express
your feelings concerning the truth of the item. For example, i f
you feel the item is "absolutely true" of you, place a 9 in the
blank before the item number. If it is only "definitely true"
(that is, not as absolute) then place an 8 in the blank, etc.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE; AGREE COMPLETELY
DEFINITELY TRUE
TRUE
SLIGHTLY TRUE
NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE
SLIGHTLY FALSE
FALSE
DEFINITELY FALSE
ABSOLUTELY FALSE; DISAGREE COMPLETELY
were to see an old friend of the opposite sex and
respond with a great deal of happiness, I would be annoyed.

- 1. If

- 2.

If
went out with same sex friends, I would feel
compelled to know what he/she did.

If
- 3.
irritated.
4. If
- homework,

admired someone of the opposite sex I would feel

were to help someone of the opposite sex with
I would feel suspicious.

likes
- 5. When
6. If
were to
- only
concern would

one of my friends I am pleased.

go away for the weekend without me, my
be whether he/she had a good time.

- 7.

If
were helpful to someone of the opposite sex I
would feel jealous.

When - talks of happy experi.ences of his/her past, I

feel sad that I wasn't part of it.

- 8.

- 9.

If
were to become displeased about the time I spend
with others, I would be flattered.

10. If
- him/her,

and I went to a party and I lost sight of

I would become uncomfortable.

- 11.

I want
to remain good friends with the people
he/she used to date.

- 12.
- 13.

were to date others I would feel unhappy.

When I notice that

and a person of the opposite sex
have something in common, I am envious.

- 14.

If
were to become very close to someone of the
opposite sex, I would feel very unhappy and/or angry.

&.

ki

If

- 15.
-

I would like

to be faithful to me.

1 6 . I don't think it would bother me if

someone of the opposite sex.

flirted with

- 17.

If someone of the opposite sex were to compliment - I

I would feel that the person was trying to take
away
from me.

- 18.
-

I feel good when

makes a new friend.

1 9 . If
were to spend the night comforting a friend of
the opposite sex who had just had a tragic experience,
's compassion would please me.

- 20.
I

If someone of the opposite sex were to pay attention to

I would become possessive of him/her.

If - were to become exuberant and hug someone of the

opposite sex, it would make me feel good that he/she was
expressing his/her feelings openly. -

- 21.

- 2 2 . The thought of

kissing someone else drives me up

the wall.

- 2 3 . If someone of the opposite sex lit up at the sight of

I would become uneasy.

-I

- 24.
- 25.
- 26.

I like to find fault with

I feel possessive toward

's old dates.

If - had been previously married, I would feel

resentment towards the ex-husband/ex-wife.

- 27.

If I saw a picture of
unhappy.

and an old date I would feel

were to accidently call me by the wrong name, I

would become furious.

- 2 8 . If

APPENDIX B

-A

Sample

of the Reaction

Statements from the

Separation Anxiety Test (SAT)

THE GIRLS MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN T O THE HOSPITAL

Did anything like this ever happen in your family? Yes

NO

If it didn't, can you imagine how you would feel if it did happen?
Yes
N.o
Now check olj as many statements below which tell what you think this child
/eels. Check as many statements as you wish.

T h e Girl Feels

very angry at somebody.

that she will not be the same person any more.
glad that her mother is leaving.
like hiding in her room.
that she doesn't care what happens.
that it's not really happening-it's only a dream.
that she's going to have a bad headache.
that she will d o her best to get along..
scared about what is going to happen to her.
sorry for her mot her.
that nobody likes her any more.
like watching TV.
that her mother became sick because she was bad.
that somebody else caused all this trouble.
that her room is going to be a scary place to stay in now.
alone and miserable.
that she won't be able to concentrate o n her school
work.

Item

I needed the support o f my parent(s) and often felt attached to

them.
My mother often WQrried about me.
While my mother expected me to be mature. competent and even
gifted, s h e also wanted me to be dependent upon her.
My mother often needed me for emotional support.
When I didn't know how I felt about something. I often relied o n
my mother to help me understand what I was experiencing.
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time my mother
or father c a m e too close to me.
One of my parents o f t e n needed the other parent to make his/her
decisions or handle things for him/her.
It was difficult for my parents to share their personal
thoughts. feelings and experiences with each other.
My parents often controlled their conflict by keeping their
distance from each other.
Both o f my parents often seemed lonely or somewhat aloof in
their relationships with others.
The members of my family were primarily concerned about feeling
comfortable with each other.
The members of my family usually longed for closeness with e a c h
other, even though they appeared to avoid it.
The major decisions in our family were made o n the basis of what
felt right.
I was often influenced by what other family members felt or
thought.
I put a lot of value o n gaining love. approval and harmonious
relationships with the members of my family.

I tems

True Scoring
Category
Designation

Items of tha Family of Oriuin Q-Sort (FOQS)

( K e y : DN = Differentiation: EN = Enmeshment: DT = Disengagement)

APPENDIX C

Reverse Scoring
Category
Designation

I o f t e n felt a n obligation to d o something to save my parents'

marriage from falling apart.
My parents often solicited my support or involvement In their
personal and our family problems.
My parents often treated me as a mlniature grownup.
My parents often enlisted me tn helping them solve their
conflicts.
I w a s often the scapegoat in our family.
How I s a w and did things was largely influenced by what my
parents saw as appropriate and useful.
It often seemed that my parents wanted me to be somebody or d o
something that they felt was Important.
I was often able to express my mother's .or father's feelings.
without having been told what they were.
No matter what I did to please my parents. 'one or both of them
still felt I owed them more.
My parents had a lot of conflicts whlch came u p over and over.
My parent's disagreements or fights often made m e feel hurt and
rejected.
O n e or both of my parents were influenced by or o f t e n made
decisions either for or against the wishes of their parent(s).
When I left my parents I worried about whether or not they would
b e a b l e to manage without me.
I often felt guilty because my mother gave so much of herself
that I could never repay her.
I felt that I was somehow obligated to repay one or both of my
parents for all the things they did for me.
I o f t e n felt that I was rewarded or praised only when I behaved
according to my parents' expectations.
It was often important for m e to share the viewpotnt of one or
both of my parents.
The beltefs and values in our family were important because they
stressed how things should be d o n e and the consequences If they
weren't done that way.
I o f t e n had the feeling that my parents dtdn't appreciate what I
needed o r wanted to do.
I was rarely.if ever. a problem because I usually knew what was
right without being told.

i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o meet one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s '

I would a g r e e o r say

I was o f t e n n o t c o n f i d e n t about h a n d l i n g

I f e l t t h a t one o r b o t h

My p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t f r o m each o t h e r .

O f t e n one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s needed t h e o t h e r ' s h e l p i n

making d e c i s i o n s o r h a n d l i n g t h i n g s .

One o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n d i s r e g a r d e d t h e o t h e r ' s needs o r

wishes.

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s was t r y i n g t o w i n me
over t o t h e i r s i d e .

When I was a t home.

t h l n g s o n my own.

Whenever I was a p a r t f r o m my p a r e n t s ,
became o v e r l y concerned about me.

Whenever I was d o i n g something o n my own. one o r b o t h o f my

parents o f t e n Interfered.

p o i n t o f view.

No m a t t e r how h a r d I t r i e d . my p a r e n t s o f t e n c o u l d n ' t see my

perceptions.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n a l t e r e d o r d ~ s t o r t e dissues t o f i t t h e i r

t h e same.
I o f t e n f e l t r e s t r i c t e d by my p a r e n t s .

I sometimes had t h e f e e l i n g t h a t my mother and/or f a t h e r t a l k e d

about i m p o r t a n t and u n i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s as i f they were one and

My mother o r f a t h e r o f t e n d i s t o r t e d t h i n g s and made d i s c u s s i o n s

seem meaningless.

I t was u s u a l l y i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o have a harmonious

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a t l e a s t one o f my p a r e n t s .

I f e l t t h a t my p a r e n t s o f t e n c a r e d more about me t h a n t h e y d i d
about each o t h e r .

Rather t h a n argue w i t h my mother o r f a t h e r .

nothing.

A l t h o u g h I sometimes wanted t o b e c l o s e r t o o r more a f f e c t i o n a t e

w i t h my mother o r f a t h e r . I o f t e n became anxious and backed o f f .

My p a r e n t s and/or my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s seemed t o be i n

p e r p e t u a l c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r .

I t was u s u a l l y i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o agree w i t h one o r b o t h o f my

parents.

I saw m y s e l f as b e i n g l i k e one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s .

expectations.

I t was

My parents often didn't seem to trust o n e another.

My mother was usually more involved with m e than with anyone
else in the family.
I often felt that my mother didn't want the boy(s) in our family
to grow u p to be like our father.
My father was often inconsistent in the things that h e said and
did.
My father was insecure and longed for recognition in the family.
When I was growing up. I usually had n o difficulty admitting to
my parents that I needed their physical or emotional support.
When my mother became concerned about something I knew she could
handle it o n her own.
My mother and I didn't usually know what each other was
thinking.
My mother usually relied o n my father, instead of m e for
emotional support.
Whenever I didn't know how I felt about something. my mother
encouraged me to figure it out for myself.
As a child I found it relatively easy to have close personal
relations with others.
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their marriage as
compatible or good.
My parents could usually remain involved with each other for
long periods of time without arguing o r threatening each o t h e r .
The members of our family felt comfortable about having intense
emotional involvement with each other.
My parents were usually involved and interested in relationships
with others.
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our family.
Our family members usually depended o n what other family members
thought.
In our family it seemed that people usually wanted a s well as
obtained closeness with other family members.
My thoughts and opinions about things were usually a s important
a s those of anyone else in my family.
It wasn't Important for me to please my parents.
I was usually more concerned about meeting my o w n expectations
rather than those of my parents.

b.

My parents were more loyal to our family than to their parents.

My parents treated me and gave me responsibilities more or less
in accordance with my age and maturity.
My parents rarely, if ever. enlisted me in helping them solve
their conflicts.
Neither one of my parents treated me like a parent.
I rarely. if ever, felt that I was a source of my parents'
stength or their reason for carrying on.
Neither of my parents seemed to be emotionally over-involved in
my 1 ife.
The needs or requests of my parents didn't usually interfere in
my 1 ife.
In our family, we usually were able to resolve differences
between family members.
My parents were usually able to come to an agreement on issues.
My parents didn't discount or reject one another during their
arguments or fights.
My parents had regular involvement with their parents.
Whether or not my parents would be able to manage without me
rarely, if ever. worried me when I left home.
I was rarely. i f ever. jealous of the attention that my parents
gave my brothers and sisters.
My parents wanted me to become independent and usually
discouraged my reliance upon them.
I often received praise or recognition for doing things that
were important to me.
s
Feeling and doing things differently than usual. were generally
well received by one or both of my parents
I usually had the feeling that my parents were aware of and
valued my needs.
I rarely. if ever, felt anxious after I had done something
different from the way i t was usually done.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what they said
and did.
Although my parents may not have approved of some of the things
I did. they rarely got very upset.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from other
family members.

Agreeing with one or both of my parents was not of prime

importance to me.
I usually experienced meaningful interactions with other family
members .
Being close and affectionate with my parents was usually a
pleasant experience.
My relationship with one or both of my parents was fulfilling
and meaningful.
In our family. ways of doing and seeing things changed over time.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue rather
than agree or say nothing.
When my mother and father talked. it was usually clear whether
the things they were talking about were important or unimportant
to them.
Family members generally seemed to communicate clearly and
meaningfully with each other.
My ideas and beliefs were usually considered important by my
parents.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
My parents usually distinguished between mine and their needs.
In general. my parents saw things as they really were.
Whenever I was doing something, my parents usually let me do i t
on my own.
I was usually not aware o f how my mother felt about things.
unless she told me.
My, parents usually didn't interfere in the things that were
personal in my life. '
I rarely felt that my parents competed over my attention.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
My parents rarely. i f ever, threatened each other with
separation or divorce.
I felt comfortable bringing my friends home.
,
My mother was no more involved with me than anyone else in the
family.
In my father's opinion my mother was secure in herself and
competent.
My father was generally even tempered.
My father was usually actively involved in our family.

APPENDIX D
Hansburq's Tally Chart for SAT Responses

.r

more &an 22%.

(see Note 4)

more than 65

more than 4

more than 38%

more than 9%
more than 1 4 9

more than 8%

much higher percent

than self-love loss

more than 13%

See Note 5

Intrapunitive

See Note 2 below.

Withdrawai

Phobic

self-esteem.
3. Examine reacrions to cards to determine whether there is excessi& reactivity to the mild cards or inadequate reactivity to the strong cards.
4. Examine the cards to determine whether there is inadequate reactivity to mild cards or excessive reactivity to the strong cards.
5. Indicates reality testing.

1. These figures are approximate; figures on individual factors must be considered in relation to one another.
2. This categor?. indicates whether intellectual functioning is disrupted by high sensitivity to separation. I t can also be thought of as concern with

18-22%

less than 18%

(see Note 3)

...........

Difference Score
(Mild-Strong)

40-50-Fair
50-65-400d

less than 40
(constricted)

28-38%

T o d Responses . . . . . . . . . . . .

less than 28%.

Balance ...................

10-144

0-3

less than 7%
less than 10%

Identity Stress:
age1 1-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
age 13-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5- 8%

.4bsurd Responses ..........

less than 5%

Self-Love Loss ..............

higher percentage than

self-love loss

10-13%

less than 1OR

p~

15-17%

less than 15%

more than 17%

Anger

more than 15%

12-14'3

Loneliness

morethan25%

SmngRange

less than 12%

I
I
Adaptation

'20-25%

Adequate Range

more than 2 8 4

I
I
16-28s

than 20%

e of scores

less than 4 5 9

s1;

I ~ u lht g

lower percentage than

Concentration impairment
self-love loss
and Sublimation ............

.4ttachmeni ,.

.............
I ndi\.iduation ..............
Hostility :. .................
Painful Tension ............
Reality Avoidance ..........

Factor

SEPARATION ANXIETY TEST NORMS

(See Note 1 Below)

APPENDIX G

Kroger's SAT Cateqory Criteria

The following is an adaptation of Kroger's (J. Kroger,
personal communication, October 31, 1986) outline of the
configuration of response patterns which define her three SAT
categories.
I. Secure Attachment
a) secure attachment
- a normal attachment percentage (20 - 25%);
a normal individuation percentage (16 - 28%);
- the strong attachment raw score greater than the strong
individuation raw score;
- the mild individuation raw score greater than the mild
attachment raw score;
other factors in normal range (see Appendix F).
b) mild anxious attachment
an above normal attachment percentage ( > 25%);
- an individuation percentage greater than or equal to the
norm ( > 16%);
an above normal painful tension percentage ( > 17%);
- the painful tension percentage greater than the
hostility percentage;
- other factors in normal range.
11. Anxious Attachment

a)

b)

stronq anxious attachment

an above normal attachment percentage ( > 25%);
a below normal individuation percentage ( < 16%);
the mild attachment raw score greater than the mild
individuation raw score;
painful tension and hostility percentages greater than
30% when combined;
- possibly, an above normal reality avoidance percentage
( > 13%);
severe anxious attachment
all of the criteria listed in I I a plus
an above or below normal identity stress score ( > 14% or
< 10%);
possibily, an above normal self-love loss percentage ( >
8%).

...

1 1 1 . Detachment

a)

detachment
-- a below normal attachment percentaqe ( < 20%);
the individuation percentage is greater than.the
attachment percentage.

b)

c)

d)

hostile detachment
all of the criteria listed in IIIa plus...
an above normal hostility percentage ( > 15%);
- an above normal reality avoidance percentage ( > 13%).
excessive self-sufficiency
a normal attachment percentage (20 - 25%);
an above normal individuation percentage ( > 28%);
the strong individuation raw score greater than the
strong attachment raw score;
a hostility percentage greater than or equal to the norm
( > 12%).
dependent detached
- a below normal attachment percentage ( < 20%);
a below normal individuation percentage ( < 16%);
an above normal painful tension percentage ( > 17%).

APPENDIX H

Clarke's SAT Category Criteria

I. Secure Attachment
a normal attachment percentage (20 -25%) and a normal
individuation percentage ( 16-- 28%) or
an above normal attachment percentage ( > 25%) and an
individuation percentage greater than or equal to the norm
( > 16%) plus the attachment percentage minus the
individuation percentage is less than plus nine percent
(att% - ind% < +9%);
an above normal painful1 tension percentage ( > 17%);
a general pattern of hostility, painful tension, and reality
avoidance percentages greater than 35% and less than 55%
when combined.

Anxious Attachment
the mild attachment raw score greater than or equal to the
mild individuation raw score;
an above normal attachment percentage ( > 25%) and a below
normal individuation percentage ( < 16%) or
an attachment percentage score greater than or equal to the
norm ( > 20%) plus the attachment percentage minus the
individuation percentage is greater than plus eight percent
(att% - ind% > 8%);
a general pattern of hostility, painful tension and
avoidance percentages greater than 45% and less than 70%
when combined.
111. Self-sufficiency detached

the strong individuation raw score greater than or equal to

the strong attachment raw score;
an individuation percentage greater than or equal to 20% and
an attachment percentage less than 20% or
an above normal individuation percentage ( > 28%) plus the
individuation percentage is greater than the attachment
percentage;
a general pattern of hostility, painful tension and reality
avoidance percentages greater than 30% and less than 50%
when combined.

IV. Dependent detached

- an attachment percentage less than 20% and an individuation
percentage less than 20%;
- a general pattern of hostility, painful tension, and reality
avoidance percentages greater than 45% and less than 70%.

APPENDIX I

The Marlowe-Crowne
-

Social ~esirabilityScale (SDS)

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal

attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the
statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.
Please circle "TW(true) if the item describes you and "FW(false)
if it does not.
1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications
of all the candidates. --T-- --F--

2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in

trouble. --T-- --F-3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am
not encouraged. --T-- --F--

4.

I have never intensely disliked anyone. --T-- --F--

5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed

in life. --T-- --F-6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. --T---F-7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. --T-- --F--

8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in

a restaurant. --T-- --F-9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I
was not seen, I would probably do it. --T-- --F-10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something
because I thought too little of my ability. --T-- --F-11.

I like to gossip at times. --T-- --F--

12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against
people in authority even though I knew they were right.
--T-- --F-13. No matter who I am talking to, I'm always a good
listener. --T-- --F--

14. I can remember playing sick to get out of something.

--T---El--

15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of

someone. --T-- --F--

16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.

--T-- --F-17.

I always try to practice what I preach. --T-- --F--

18. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with

loud-mouthed obnoxious people. --T-- --F-19. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and
forget. --T-- --F-20. When I don't know something I don't at all mind
admitting it. --T-- --F-21. I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable. --T-- --F-22'. At times I have really insisted on having my own way.
--T-- --F--

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing

things. --T-- --F-

23.

I would never think of letting anyone else be punished

for my wrongdoings. --T-- --F--

24.

25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. --T---F-26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own. --T-- --F-27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of
my car. --T-- --F-28. There have been times when I was quite envious of the
good fortunes of others. --T-- --F--

29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
--T---El--

30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.

--T-- --F--

31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

--T-- --F-32. I sometimes think that when people have a misfortune
they only got what they deserved. --T-- --F--

33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt

someone's feelings. --T-- --F--

APPENDIX J

The Demographic and

-

elations ship Questions

Code
Age
Cultural backaround
Subject's ~ e l i ~ i o n Generation in Canada

Marital status and living situation

1)single--living alone 2)--living with parents 3)--with same-sex
friends 4)--with opp. sex friends 5)common law 6)married
7)sep/div--alone 8)--with children 9)--with same-sex friends
10)--with opp. sex friends 1l)other
Length of time in current relationship
No. of previous important relationships
Longest previous relationship
How do you feel about your relationship with your
partner/spouse?
1. Terrible 2. Dissatisfied 3. Mixed 4. Satisfied 5. Delighted

Birth order
No. of siblings
Members of family of origin:
Relat. w/ mother? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Relat. w/ father? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1.

Terrible 2. Dissatisfied 3. Mixed 4. Satisfied 5. Delighted

Losses in family:
NOTES :

APPENDIX K

The Outline of the

-

Study and the Informed Consent Form

To all subjects participating in Edward Clarke's study on

relationships:
I am interested in understanding some of the factors which
affect the quality of relationships we have with important
people in our lives. In this study I will ask you to answer some
background questions about yourself and your relationships with
important others. I will also ask you to complete the following:
1 ) statements describing family relations when you were growing
up--you will be asked to sort them according to those which best
and least describe your family relationships.
2) a series of pictures depicting a child observing or doing
certain activities in relation to important others--you will be
asked to rate your impression of how the child feels in each
situation.
and 3) a questionnaire which asks you questions related to the
reactions you may have in response to your partner's behaviour
with others.

Since the questions I will ask of you and the procedures you
will follow involve an emphasis on important relationships they
may evoke both pleasant and unpl-easant feelings and memories.
Please be assured that all answers are confidential and that you
may withdraw from participation'at any time. Thank you.

The University and those conducting this p r o j e c t subscribe to the e t h i c a l

conduct of research and to the p r o t e c t i o n a t a l l tines of the i n t e r e s t s ,
c a n f o r t , and s a f e t y of s u b j e c t s . This farm and the information it a o n t a i n s
are given to you f o r your own p r o t e c t i o n and f u l l understanding o f thc
procedures, r i s k s arld berrefits involved. Your s i g m t u r e on t h i s form w i l l
s i c p i f y that you have received the d o m m n t described b e l w reqrrrding this
p r o j e c t , t h a t ycxl have r e o e i w d adequate o p p r t u n i t y to oonsider the
i n f o r m t i o n i n the docment, a d that you v o l u n t a r i l y agree to p a r t i c i p a t e
in the project.

Having been asked by

of the

University to p a r t i c i p a t e in a researdh pltoject experiment, I have read

the procedures s p e c i f ietl i n the documnt e n t i t l e d :

I understand the procedures to b~ used on this experiment and the personal

r i s k s to r
m i n t a k i r q part.

I understand that I may w i t h d r a w my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this expcrin-cnt a t

any tim?.
I also understa-d t h a t 1 may r e g i s t e r any c u r p l a i n t I might have ahout the
e x p e r b n t with t h e c h i e f researcbr namd above or with

, Chairman

o f the

Deparant,

S i m n maser University.
I m y o b t a i n a copy o f t h e results of this study, upon its ocnpletion, by
aontac tiq
I agree to p a r t i c i p a t e by

T&-~T
s u b j cct &
w i i l do)
as &scribed i n the tlocumcnt r c f c r r e d to d m c , during the [=rid
/
(day)

/138
(month)

/
/198
( a a y ) O

to

at
(plaoc where procedures w i l l bc c a r r i e d o u t )

-.

APPENDIX L

The Summary of
-

the Study for Subjects

There are certain theorists (eg., Bowlby, Mahler, Framo) who

have expanded and modified some of the traditional
psychoanalytic thinking about the nature of relationships.
Essentially their work, as it applies to my study, can be
summarized as follows:
The quality of early attachments or emotional bonds (the
nature of trust, caring and stability between child and parents)
in part, determines the quality of attachments between the
grown-up child and those people close to her or him.
A growing child has basic needs for a secure environment
wherein the parent(s) provide(s1 the child with a felt sense of
security, trust and caring. Of course, the child must be able to
develop the capacity for facing anxiety.producing situations on
its own. This developmental process is achieved more easily when
the overall quality of the child's attachments to parental
figures (and the general environment) is primarily positive in
nature (ie.! fairly stable, secure and caring).
Separation-individuation is a term used to denote the process
whereby the child begins to recognize itself as being
psychologically separate from its important attachment figures
and to develop the ability to function more and more
independently (ie., not having to rely upon the presence of
important others to complete tasks etc.). This is a progressive
development in the child's life which is affected by the quality
of interactions between the child and its attachment figures. If
the child's essential needs for felt-security are met then the
child will be able to develop a balance between those on-going
needs for attachment (closeness and intimacy) and those for
self-sufficiency and autonomy.

It is suggested in the literature that certain styles of

parent-child interaction can disturb the quality of
felt-security the child feels while growing up. Some parents may
undo the child's developing sense of separateness and
independence because it is threatening to the parents or family
unit or because a parent needs the child to fulfill some of his
or her own basic desires. This can have the effect of keeping
the child in a needy and anxious position relative to the
parents and to hinder the former's development of a clear sense
of separateness and individuation. Other parents may undo the
child's sense of felt-security by pushing the child towards
independence or separateness prior to the child being ready for
these moves. Thus the child will present as highly individuated
and separate but not have a clear idea of how'to express or get
needs for attachment met.

Within close relationships people bring with them their

styles or means of expressing their needs for attachment
(intimacy) and needs for individuation (autonomy). I think that
these relational themes have implications for the way in which
jealousy or possessiveness in relationships is experienced.
Someone who has developed within a family matrix which has
primarily provided a stable sense of felt-security will have
developed a firm sense of themselves as being a separate person
whose needs do not-easily get intertwined with those of
others--they will experience a normal level of jealousy in
relation to their partners, as threats to their relationship
will arouse their needs for attachment. The longer these people
are in a relationship the lower their jealousy will become
(greater trust). Someone who has developed within a family
matrix which has hindered the development of a clear sense of
separate self will express high needs for attachment and will
react more strongly when threats to their relationship with
attachment figures occur (higher jealousy). People who develop
within a family matrix where the push has been towards
individuation 'with less emphasis on meeting attachment needs
will probably score lower on a jealousy scale regardless of the
length or quality of their relationship (attachment needs are
denied).
The dance between the needs for attachment and needs for
individuation within relationships is often affected by our
desires for merger and intimacy and the fears of engulfment or
loss of self this closeness engenders, and our desires for
autonomy and the fears of abandonment (aloneness) this
separateness engenders.
Note: It is important to remember that the above is only a
sketch or outline of the metaphors used by theorists to describe
experience.

I temr

of

of
Origin

My relationship with one or both of my parents was

fulfilling and meaningful.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
I often received praise or recognition for doing
things that were important to me.
My parents treated me and gave me responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my age and maturity.
My ideas and be1 iefs were usually considered important
by my parents.
Whenever I was d o ~ n gsomething, my parents usually let
me do it on my own.
My thoughts and opinions about things were usually as
important as those of anyone else in my family.
Being close and affectionate with my parents was
usually a pleasant experience.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
Though my parents sometimes argued. they saw their
marriage as compatible or good.
My parents usually didn't interfere in the things that
were personal in my life.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
In our family, we usually were able to resolve
differences between family members.
My parents were usually able to come to an agreement
on issues.
I usually had the feeling that my parents were aware
of and valued my opinions.
I felt comfortable bringing my friends home.
In general. my parents saw things as they really were.

Family

Oriqin Q-Sort - Four Factor Solution

Factor I - Differentiation
I tem

Items Most Like 9

---

Family

APPENDIX

Scale Score

All Subjects
Factor Score

Family of O r i g i n

f o r my p a r e n t s t o share t h e i r

I would

s a i d and d i d .

o t h e r ' s needs o r wishes.

My f a t h e r was b f t e n i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e t h i n g s t h a t he

a g r e e o r say n o t h i n g .
One o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n d i s r e g a r d e d t h e

other.
R a t h e r t h a n argue w i t h my mother o r f a t h e r .

p a r e n t s ' marriage from f a l l i n g a p a r t .

My p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t f r o m each

a p p r e c i a t e what I needed o r wanted t o do.

I o f t e n f e l t an o b l i g a t i o n t o do something t o save my

I o f t e n had t h e f e e l f n g t h a t my p a r e n t s d i d n ' t

their conflicts.

t h e i r perceptions.
My p a r e n t s o f t e n e n l i s t e d me i n h e l p i n g them s o l v e

My p a r e n t s o f t e n a l t e r e d o r d i s t o r t e d i s s u e s t o f i t

other.

p e r s o n a l t h o u g h t s , f e e l i n g s and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h each

I t was d i f f i c u l t

and even g i f t e d . she a l s o wanted me t o be dependent

upon h e r .

d i s c u s s i o n s seem m e a n i n g l e s s .
W h i l e my mother e x p e c t e d me t o be mature. competent

t h e y would be a b l e t o manage w i t h o u t me.

My mother o r f a t h e r o f t e n d i s t o r t e d t h i n g s and made

I o f t e n f e l t r e s t r i c t e d by my p a r e n t s .
When I l e f t my p a r e n t s I w o r r i e d about whether o r n o t

My p a r e n t s and/or my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s seemed t o be

i n p e r p e t u a l c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r .

B o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed l o n e l y o r somewhat
aloof i n t h e i r relationships w i t h others.

Items Least L i k e &

---

I n my f a t h e r ' s o p i n i o n . my' mother was secure i n

h e r s e l f and competent.

I was u s u a l l y more concerned about m e e t i n g my own

e x p e c t a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t h o s e o f my p a r e n t s .

My f a t h e r was u s u a l l y a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n o u r f a m i l y .

I often felt that I was rewarded or praised only when

I behaved according to my parents' expectations.
Whenever I was doing somethng o n my own. one or both
of my parents often interfered.
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time
my mother or father c a m e to close to m e .
When I was at home. I was often not confident about
handling things o n my own.
I often felt that one or both of my parents was trying
to win me over to their side.
My father was insecure and longed for recognition in
the family.
No matter what I did to please my parents. o n e or both
of them still felt I owed them more.
I was often the scapegoat in our family.
My parents often didn't seem to trust one another.

Item #
I t e m s Most L i k e &h
---

A l l

Mixed

Family o f O r i g i n

Subjects

my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s seemed t o be

I would a r g u e

i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o have a harmonious

f e e l i n g s and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h each

i f ever.

a p r o b l e m because I u s u a l l y

t h a t my p a r e n t s o f t e n c a r e d more about me t h a n

t h e y d i d about each o t h e r .

Ifelt

t h e i r d i s t a n c e f r o m each o t h e r .

My p a r e n t s o f t e n c o n t r o l l e d t h e i r c o n f l i c t b y k e e p i n g

o t h e r f a m i l y members.

I was u s u a l l y q u i t e aware o f how I was d i f f e r e n t f r o m

My mother o f t e n w o r r i e d about me.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n d i d n ' t seem t o t r u s t one a n o t h e r .

knew what was r i g h t w i t h o u t b e i n g t o l d .

I was r a r e l y .

I u s u a l l y f e l t r e l a t i v e l y independent f r o m my p a r e n t s .

other.

personal thoughts,

I t was d i f f i c u l t f o r my p a r e n t s t o s h a r e t h e i r

f u l f i l l i n g and m e a n i n g f u l .

My r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s was

t h e i r perceptions.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n a l t e r e d o r d i s t o r t e d i s s u e s t o f i t

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a t l e a s t one o f my p a r e n t s .

I t was u s u a l l y

o u r f a m i l y t o grow up t o be 1 i k e o u r f a t h e r .

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t my mother d i d n ' t want t h e boys I n

o t h e r ' s needs o r w i s h e s .

One o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n d i s r e g a r d e d t h e

r a t h e r t h a n agree o r say n o t h i n g .

I f I d i s a g r e e d w i t h my mother o r f a t h e r .

other.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t f r o m each

i n p e r p e t u a l c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r .

My p a r e n t s and/or

and o v e r .

My p a r e n t s had a l o t o f c o n f l i c t s w h i c h came up o v e r

Item

Factor I 1

Four F a c t o r S o l u t i o n
S c a l e Score

F a c t o r Score

& Family

of
Oriain

It wasn't important for me to please my parents.

I was usually not aware of hod my mother felt about
things, unless she told me.
My mother usually relied o n my father, instead of me
for emotional support.
My mother and I didn't usually know what each other
was thinking.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what
they said and did.
Rather than argue with my father or mother. I would
agree or say nothing.
My parents were usually able to c o m e to a n agreement
o n issues.
The members of our family felt comfortable about
having intense emotional involvements with each o t h e r .
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their
marriage a s compatible or good.
Family members generally seemed to communicate clearly
and meaningfully with each other.
My father was usually actively involved in our family.
My father was generally even tempered.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
My parents rarely. if ever. threatened each other with
separation or divorce.
My parents could usually remain nvolved with each
other for long periods of time w thout arguing or
threatening each other.
My parents didn't discount or re ect one another
during their arguments or fights

Items Least Like

---

I often received praise or recognition for doing

things that were important to m e .

My father was insecure and longed for recognition in

the family.
My m,other often needed me for emotional support.

Item

Items Most Like

---

& Family

of
Oriqin

I put a lot of value o n gaining love. approval and

harmonious relationships with members of my family.
I needed the support of my parent(s) and often felt
attached to them.
It was usually important for me to have a harmonious
relationship with at least one of my parents.
Being close and affectionate with my parents was
usually a pleasant experience.
I often felt guilty because my mother gave s o much o f
herself that I could never repay her.
My relationship with one or both of my parents was
fulfilling and meaningful.
~t was important for me to meet dne or both of my
parents' expectations.
It was usually important for me to agree with o n e o r
both of my parents.
My mother often worried about me.
My mother was usually more involved with m e than with
anyone else in the family.
Rather than argue with my mother or father. I would
agree or say nothing.
When I didn't know how I felt about something. I often
relied o n my mother to help me understand what I was
experiencing.
How I saw and did things was largely influenced by
what my parents saw a s approprlate and useful.
My parents disagreements or fights o f t e n made m e feel
hurt and rejected.
I usually had the feeling that my parents were aware
of and valued my needs.
My mother often needed me for emotional support.

I tem

Four Factor Solution - All Subjects

Factor I I 1 , E n m e s h m e n t
Scale Score

Factor Score

Although I sometimes wanted to be closer to or more

affectionate with my mother or father. I often became
anxious and backed o f f .
My mother was no more involved with me than anyone
else in the family.
Neither of my parents seemed to be emotionally
over-involved in my life.
My parents rarely. if ever. e n listed me in helping
them solve their conflicts.
I was usually not aware of how my mother felt about
things. unless she told m e .
I was often the scapegoat in our family.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
My parents usually didn't interfere in the things that
were personal in my life.
I often had the feeling that my parents didn't
'appreciate what I needed or wanted to d o .
My mother and I didn't usually know what each other
was thinking.
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time
my mother or father c a m e to close to m e .
Agreeing with one or b o t h of my parents was not of
prime importance to me.

---

It was important for m e to share the viewpoint of one

or both of my parents.
When I was growing up. I usually had no difficulty
admitting to my parents that I needed their physical
or emotional support.
In our family it seemed that people usually wanted as
well as obtained closeness with other family members.
I often received praise or recognition for doing
things that were important to m e .
My parents often solicited my support or involvement
in their personal and our family problems.
Items Least LIke & Family of Origin

I was usually more concerned about meeting my own

expectations rather than those of my parents.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
It wasn't important for me to please my parents.

Item

Items Most like

---

9 Family

of
Origin

attent ion

I often felt restricted by my parents.

My parents rarely. if ever. threatened each other with
separation or divorce.
I often felt that I was rewarded or praised only when
I behaved according to my parents expectations.
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their
marriage a s compatible or good.
My mother often worried about me.
It often seemed that my parents wanted me to be
somebody or d o something that they felt was important.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
N o matter how hard I tried, my parents often couldn't
s e e my point of view.
Although I sometimes wanted to be closer to or more
affectionate with my mother or father. I often became
anxious and backed o f f .
I often had the feeling that my parents didn't
appreciate what I needed or wanted to do.
The beliefs and values 'in our family were important
because they stressed how things should be done and
the consequences if they weren't done that way.
My parents rarely. if ever, enlisted m e in helping
them solve their problems.
It was important for me to meet one or both of my
parents' expectations.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
I rarely felt that my parents competed over my

I tern

Four Factor Solution - All Subjects

Factor IV - Disengagement
Scale Score

Factor Score

Y D P

L
O

0
L

; ? 2-'

.-

0)

c
m

30 3 5
X K U

0)

E
u 0 .- L E
m u - D

u
C V)
0 ) L C

> ( U a

o u 0 , a
e c e
E 0 ) Q P )
o E
~
o 0)
> a c

a a a
C

V)ma

'

L E C
0 0 ) D

0)

ln

0)

.-

3
0

a
e x
E

. - o n .
- c c r 0 )

o m m
n

0)

e
.-

3 -

c m u
Q C W X
u O L E
u- n
O L L C
a, 0 V)

V ) P )

0)

0 ) -

@ - a @

m r c
a -

0)

gr:.5

L
0)

101

Item

Items Most Like

---

JM

Solution - Males
Differentiation

Family of Origin

My relationship with one or both of my parents was

fulfil ling and meaningfull.
My parents usually showed respect for each other
I often received praise or recognition for doing
things that were important to me.
Whenever I was doing something, my parents usual ly let
m e d o it o n my o w n .
My parents treated me and gave me responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my a g e and maturity.
My thoughts and opinions about things were usually as
important as those o f anyone else in my family.
I usually had the feeling that my parents were aware
of and valued my needs.
My ideas and beliefs were usually considered important
by my parents.
My parents were usually able to come to a n agreement
o n issues.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
My parents usually didn't interfere in the things that
were personal in my life.
I was rarely. if ever. a problem because I knew what
was right without being told.
I w a s usually more concerned about meeting my o w n
expectations rather than those of my parents
My father was usually actively involved in our family.
My parents could usually remain involved with each
other for long periods of time without arguing or
threatening each other.
In our family. we usually were able to resolve
differences between family members.

I tem

Factor I

FOQS 1 -Four Factor

-

APPENDIX N

Scale Score

Factor Score

Family

of
Oriqin

I often felt that my mother didn't want the boy(s) in

o u r family to grow up to be like our father.
My mother or father o f t e n distorted things and made
discussions seem meaningless.
It was difficult for my parents to share their
personal thoughts. feelings and experiences with each
other.
I often felt an obligation to d o something to save my
parents' marriage from falling apart.
Rather than argue with my mother or father. I would
agree or say nothing.
While my mother expected me to b e mature, competent
a n d gifted, she also wanted m e to be dependent upon
her.
My parents often enlisted me in helping them solve
their conflicts.
My parents had a lot of conflicts which came up over
and over.
My parents often altered or distorted issues to fit
their perceptions.
My parents often seemed emotionally dlstant from each
other.
N o matter how hard I tried, my parents often couldn't
s e e my point o f view.
O n e o r both of my parents often disregarded the
other's needs or wishes.
I often felt that one or both of my parents was trying
t o win me over to their side.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
Whenever I was doing something o n my own. o n e or both
of my parents often interfered.

Items Least Like &

---

In my father's opinion. my mother was secure in

herself and competent.
My father was generally even tempered.

I was o f t e n n o t c o n f i d e n t about

felt

I owed them more.

I was o f t e n t h e scapegoat

i n our f a m i l y .

M y p a r e n t s o f t e n d i d n ' t seem t o t r u s t one a n o t h e r .

o f them s t i l l

No m a t t e r what I d i d t o p l e a s e my p a r e n t s , one o r b o t h

a p p r e c i a t e what I needed o r wanted t o do.

I o f t e n had t h e f e e l i n g t h a t my p a r e n t s d i d n ' t

I behaved a c c o r d i n g t o my p a r e n t ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s .

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t I was rewarded o r p r a i s e d o n l y when

the family.

M y f a t h e r was i n s e c u r e and l o n g e d f o r r e c o g n i t i o n i n

h a n d l i n g t h i n g s on my own.

When I was a t home.

Item a
Items Most Like
---

& Family

Origin

said and d i d .
My mother or father often distorted things and made
discussions seem meaningless.
My parents often controlled their conflict by keeping
their distance f r o m each other.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
Whenever I was doing something. my parents usually let
me d o it o n my o w n .
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.

My father was insecure and longed for recognition in

the family.
One or both of my parents often disregarded the
other's needs or wishes.
My parents often didn't seem to trust one another.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
My father was often inconsistent in the things that h e

My parents had a lot o f conflicts which c a m e u p over

and over.
My parents and/or my brothers and sisters seemed to b e
in perpetual conflict with each other.
My parents often seemed emotionally distant from each
other.
I often felt that my mother didn't want the boy(s) in
'our family to grow up to be like our father.
My parents often altered or distorted perceptions to
fit their perceptions.

I tern

Four Factor Solution - Males

Disengagement-conflicted
Factor I 1
Scale Score

Factor Score

Family

of
Oriqin

or emotional support.
My father was general ly even tempered.
My parents were usual ly able to come to a n agreement
o n issues.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what
they said and did.
My father was usually actively involved in our family.
My parents could usually remain involved with each
other for long periods of time without arguing or
threatening each other.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
The members of our family felt comfortable about
having intense emotional involvement with each other.
My parents didn't discount or reject one another
during their arguments or fights.
My parents rarely. if ever. threatened each other with
divorce o r separation.
Though my parents sometimes argued. they saw their
marriage as compatible or good.

In general. my parents saw things as they really were.

I was often the scapegoat in our family.
My mother usually relied o n my father. instead of me
for emotional support.
Family members generally seemed to communicate clearly
and meaningfully with each other.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
When I was growing u p . I usually had no difficulty
admitting to my paren ts that I needed their physical

Items Least Like 5

---

2
15

Item

Items Most Like

---

L'

Family of Origin

My mother often worried about me.

I put a lot of value o n gatning love, approval and
harmonious relationships with the members of my
family.
My relationship with one or both of my parents was
fulfilling and meaningful.
It was usually important for me to have a harmonious
relationship with at least one of my parents.
Being close and affectionate with my parents was
usually a pleasant experience.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
I often received praise or recognition for doing
things that were important t o me.
It was difficult for my parents to share their
personal thoughts. feelings and experiences with each
other.
I was often influenced by what other family members
felt or thought.
I often felt guilty because my mother gave so much of
herself that I could never repay her.
I needed the support of my parent(s) and often felt
attached to them.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their
marrtage as compatible or good.
Whenever I was apart from my parents. I felt that one
or both became overly concerned about me.
My parents could usually remain involved with. each
other for long periods without arguing or threatening
each other.

I tem

Four Factor Solution - Males

Factor I11 - Enmeshment
Scale Score

Factor Score

Feeling and doing things differently than usual, were

generally well. received by one or both of my parents.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what
they said and d i d .
As a child I found it relatively easy to have close
personal relations with others.
I was usually more concerned about meeting my o w n
expectations rather than those of my pa'rents.
My mother and I didn't usually know what each other
was thinking.
My parents often treated me as a miniature grown-up.
I was usually not aware o f how my mother felt about
things, unless she told m e .
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time
my mother or father came too c l o s e to me.
The needs or requests o f , m y parents didn't usually
interfere in my 1 fe
In my father's op nion. my mother was secure in
herself and compe ent .
My parents wanted me to become independent and usually
discouraged my re iance o n them.
I often felt that one or both of my parents was trying
to win m e over to their s i d e .
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
It wasn't important for me to please my parents.
I was often the scapegoat in our family.

---

My ideas and beliefs were usually considered important

by my parents.
& Family of Origin
Items Least Like h

68

39

Item

Items Most Like

--k
&

Family of Origin

My parents rarely. if ever. threatened each other with

separation or divorce.
Though my parents sometimes argued. they saw their
marriage as compatible or gqod.
My parents rarely. i f ever. enlisted me in helping
them solve their conflicts.
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
I often felt that I was rewarded or praised only when
I behaved according to my parents' expectations.
I rarely felt that my parents competed over my
attention.
I often had the feeling that my parents didn't
appreciate what I needed or wanted to do.
I t often seemed that my parents wanted me to be
somebody or do something that they felt was important.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
No matter how hard I tried. my parents often cou Idn't
see my point of view.
My mother usually relied on my father. instead o
for emotional support.
My parents and/or my brothers or sisters seemed to be
in perpetual conflict with each other.
My parents could usually remain involved with each
other for long periods of time without arguing or
threatenting each other.

I tem

Four Factor Solution - Males

Factor IV - Disengagement
Scale Score

Factor Score

I put a lot of value on gaining love. approval and

harmonious relationships with the members of my
family.
My parents' disagreements or fights often made me feel
hurt and rejected.
I felt that my parents o f t e n cared more about me than
they did about each other.
My father was generally even tempered.
When I was growing up. I usually had no difficulty
admitting to my parents that I needed their physical
or emotional support
My mother often needed me for emotional support.
When I left my parents. I worried about whether or not
they would be able to manage without m e .
I usually experienced meaningful interactions with
other family members.
My parents often solicited my support or involvement
in their personal and our family problems.
In our family it seemed that people usually wanted as
well a s obtained closeness with other family members.
M y parents often enlisted me in helping them solve
their conflicts.
The members o f our family felt comfortable about
having intense emotional Involvement with each other.
When my mother became concerned about something I knew
s h e could handle it o n her own.
I often felt a n obligation to d o something to save my
parents' marriage from falling apart.
My parents often didn't seem to trust one another.

---

Whenever I was doing something o n my own. one or both

of my parents o f t e n interfered.
Items Least Like JM Family of Origin

Item

of
Origin

My relationship with one or both of my parents was

fulfilling and meaningful.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
I often received praise or recognition f o r doing
things that were important to me..
Being close and affectionate with my parents was
usually a pleasant experience.
My ideas and beliefs were usually considered important
by my parents.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their
marriage as compatible or good. .
I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.
My parents treated me and gave me responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my a g e and maturity.
In our family. we usually were able to resolve
differences between family members.
I felt comfortable bringing my friends home.
My parents usually didn't interfere in the things that
were personal in my life.
My thoughts and opinions about things were usually as
important as those of anyone else in my family.
In general. my parents saw things a s they really were.
As a child I found it relatively easy to have close
personal relations with others.
Whenever I was doing something. my parents usually let
m e d o it o n my own.
In my father's opinion. my mother was secure In
herself and competent.
My father was usually actively involved in our family. .

Items Most Like

---

FOQS 1 -Four Factor Solution 1 Females

Factor I - Differentiation

APPENDIX 0

Scale Score

Factor Score

I u s u a l l y experienced meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h

&
Famity o f O r l a i n

i n their relationships with others.

feelings.

and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h each

I would

i n p e r p e t u a l c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r .

My p a r e n t s and/or my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s seemed t o be

and d i d .

M y f a t h e r was o f t e n i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e t h i n g s he s a i d

t o w i n me o v e r t o t h e i r s i d e .

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s was t r y i n g

a g r e e o r say n o t h i n g .

Rather t h a n argue w i t h my mother o r f a t h e r .

I behaved a c c o r d i n g t o my p a r e n t s ' w i s h e s .

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t I was rewarded o r p r a i s e d o n l y when

other.

personal thoughts.

I t was d i f f i c u l t f o r my p a r e n t s t o s h a r e t h e i r

other.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t f r o m each

o t h e r ' s needs o r w i s h e s .

One o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n d i s r e g a r d e d t h e

family.

L o v i n g and b e i n g l o v e d was n o t a m a j o r c o n c e r n i n o u r

p a r e n t s ' marriage from f a l l i n g a p a r t .

I o f t e n f e l t an o b l i g a t i o n t o do something t o save my

aloof

B o t h o f my p a r e n t s o f t e n seemed l o n e l y o r somewhat

t h e y would be a b l e t o manage w i t h o u t me.

When I l e f t my p a r e n t s .

I w o r r i e d about whether o r n o t

disagreements o r f i g h t s o f t e n made me f e e l

h u r t and r e j e c t e d .

My p a r e n t s '

t h e i r perceptions.

My p a r e n t s o f t e n a l t e r e d o r d i s t o r t e d i s s u e s t o f i t

Items Least L i k e
---

on i s s u e s .

My p a r e n t s were u s u a l l y a b l e t o come t o an agreement

and m e a n i n g f u l . l y w i t h each o t h e r .

F a m i l y members g e n e r a l l y seemed t o communicate c l e a r l y

o t h e r f a m i l y members.

Whenever I was doing something o n my own. o n e or both

of my parents often interfered.
When I was at home. I was often not confident about
handling things on my o w n .
I was often the scapegoat in our family.
My father was insecure and longed for recognition in
the family.
N o matter what I did to please my parents, one or both
of them still felt I owed them more.
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time
my mother or father c a m e too c l o s e to me.
My parents often didn't seem to trust one another.

25

Item

Items Most Like

--M
J

Family of Origin

I often received praise or recognition for doing

things that were important to m e .
My mother often worried about m e . *
M y mother often needed me for emotional support.
I needed the support of my parent(s) and often felt
attached to them.
My parents often altered or distorted issues to fit
their perceptions.

My parents had a lot of conf 1 tcts which c a m e u p overand over.

It was usually important for m e to have a harmonious
relationship with at least one of my parents.
My relationship with one or both of my parents was
fulfilling and meaningful.
My parents and/or my brothers and sisters seemed to be
in perpetual conflict with each other.
I was rarely. if ever. a problem because I usually
knew what was right without being told.
I put a lot o f value o n gaining l,ove, approval and
harmonious relationships with the members of my
family.
My parents often seemed emotionally distant from each
other.
It was important for me to meet o n e or both of my
parents' expectations.
Being close and affectionate with my parents was
usually a pleasant experience.
If I disagreed with my mother or father. I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
O n e or both of my parents often disregarded the
other's needs or wishes.

I tem

Four Factor Solution - Females

Factor I1 - Mixed
Scale Score
Factor Score

Rather than argue with my mother or father. I would

agree or say nothing.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what
they said and did.
Though my parents sometimes argued' they saw the i r
marriage as compatible or good.
The members of our family felt comfortable about
having intense emotional involvement with each other.
In my father's opinion. my mother was secure in
herse 1 f and competent.
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
My mother was no more involved with me than anyone
else in the family.
I felt physically and emotionally smothered every time
my mother or father c a m e too close to me.
My parents were usually able to c o m e to a n agreement
o n issues.
I was usually not 'aware of how my mother felt about
things. unless she told me.
I rarely. if ever. felt that I was a source of my
parents' strength or their reason for carrying on.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
My father was usually actively involved in our family.
Family members generally seemed to communicate clearly
and meaningfully with each other.
My parents rarely. if ever, threatened each other with
separation or divorce.

---

My mother was usually more involved with me than with

anyone else in the family.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.
My parents treated me and gave m e responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my a g e and maturity.
I often felt that my mother didn't, want the boy(s) in
our family to grow up to be like our father.
Items Least Like My Family L?f Oriqin

was thinking.
It wasn't important for m e to please m y parents.

My father was generally even tempered.

My parents didn't discount or reject one another
during their arguments or fights.
My parents could usually remain involved with each
other for long periods of ti m e without arguing or
threatening each other.
My mother and I didn't usual ly know what each other

Item

Items Most Like

---

& Family of Origin

My parents rarely. if ever, threatened each other with

separation or divorce.
My parents usually showed respect for each other.
Though my parents sometimes argued, they saw their
marriage as compatible and good.
My mother often worried about me.
I often felt that I was rewarded or praised only when
I behaved according to my parents' expectations.
It often seemed that my parents wanted m e to b e
somebody or d o something that they felt was important.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
My parents could usually remain involved with each
other for long periods of time without arguing or
threatening each other.
It was important for me to meet one or both of my
parents' expectations.
How I saw and did things was largely influenced by
what my parents saw as appropriate and useful.
The beliefs and values in our family were important
because they stressed how things should b e d o n e and
the consequences if they weren't done that w a y .
I put a lot of value o n gaining love. approval and
harmonious relationships with the members of my
family.
I needed the support of my parent(s) and o f t e w f e l t
attached to them.
I was usually quite aware of how I was different from
other family members.
It was usually important for m e to have a harmonious
relationship with at least one of my parents.

I tem

Four Factor Solution - Females

Factor I11 - Enmeshment
Scale Score

Factor Score

g
c

c
m

J
c
m
m

u
m

m
m

w
m

m
m

m
m

a,
. L
L V ) 3
0 ) 0
3 C

-* : E

m
m a r
3
L
V ) X a ,
J E U
C
c e 0
m o o
K
Y

a,'

58

.-

--

K K
m
U Y
c
m a ,
@ E W E
0 L
K m m a
r
Q K

. -

+J 0

1 0

- D
Y
C L
a 0

K
'0)
0 C

m
E

- 1

a,

m
0

a a *

- C O
( C O C

- o n
3 P

3 0 )
0 K

. C E
e
~
m
O a ,
L
K + ' *
m y Y O a I ?
C
U S
L U
- C
m m L a ,
n a a, L
> a,
>.r a , 3
0
Y

.-

C E
. a m
L Y l C

a,

'

4
a
- 0 0 )
m
m c
c c m a
o- m - . - +

-.

Y
o -Y

' P 2 E

?22Z

- --

c $ E a ,
a
- E
E C -

'

-X *

C
a,

.-

m
3

V)

mas,

L D
a , @ E
a , - @
C
L
E

a,

C P l Y 0 )
O K f K
U C
I-

a
a

Lm O

r
5

V ) P ) + L

C Y C r n

a r

' O
C

--

a z

When I was g r o w i n g up.

i n my l i f e .

i n t e r f e r e In the things that

My p a r e n t s o f t e n d i d n ' t seem t o t r u s t one a n o t h e r .

parents.

I t w a s n ' t u s u a l l y i m p o r t a n t f.or me t o p l e a s e my

and o v e r .

My p a r e n t s had a l o t o f c o n f l i c t s w h i c h came up o v e r

t o w i n me o v e r t o t h e i r s i d e .

I o f t e n f e l t t h a t one o r b o t h o f my p a r e n t s was t r y i n g

were p e r s o n a l

My p a r e n t s u s u a l l y d i d n ' t

o r emotional support.

I needed t h e i r p h y s i c a l

I u s u a l l y had no d i f f i c u l t y

a d m i t t i n g t o my p a r e n t s t h a t

Item

.
Items Most Like
--h
&

Family

of
Oriqin

I usually felt relatively independent from my parents.

If I disagreed with my mother or father I would argue
rather than agree or say nothing.
I often had the feeling that my parents didn't
appreciate what I needed or wanted to do.
I often felt restricted by my parents.
No matter how hard I tried. my parents often couldn't
see my point of view.
Although I sometimes wanted to be closer or more
affectionate with my mother or father, I often became
anxious and backed o f f .
-.
I was usually more concerned about meeting my o w n
expectations rather than those of my parents.
I was often the scapegoat in the family.
My father was often inconsistent in the things that he
said and did.
My parents had a lot of conflicts which c a m e u p over
and over.
I often felt that I was rewarded or praised only when
I behaved according to my parents' expectations.
My parents often altered or distorted issues to fit
their perceptions.
Loving and being loved was not a major concern in our
family.
N o matter what I did to please my parents, o n e or both
of them still felt I owed them more.
The beliefs and values in our family were important
because they stressed how things should b e Uone and
the consequences if they weren't done that way.
Agreeing with o n e or both of my parents was not of
prime importance to m e .

Item

Four Factor Solution - Females

Factor I V - Disengagement
Scale Score

Factor Score

& Family of Oriain

It was important for me to meet one or both of my

parents' expectations.
My parents often treated m e a s a miniature grown-up.
When I was at home. I was often not conftdent about
handling things on my o w n .
When I didn't know how I felt about something. I often
relied o n my mother to help me understand what I was
experiencing.
My parents often solicited my support or involvement
in their persopal and our family problems.
It was often important for m e to share the viewpoint
of one or both o f my parents.
My ideas and beliefs were usually considered important
by my parents.
My parents treated me and gave m e responsibilities
more or less in accordance with my a g e and maturity.
Although my parents may not have approved o f some o f
the things I did. they rarely got very upset.
Family members generally seemed to communicate clearly
and meaningfully with each other.
Usually my parents admitted the contradictions in what
they said and did.
My parents often enlisted m e in helping them solve
their conflicts.
I often felt guilty because my mother gave so much of
herself that I could never repay her.
I felt comfortable bringing my friends home.
When I left my parents. I worried about whether or not
they would be able to manage without me.
I usually had the feeling that my parents were aware
of and valued my needs.
It was usually important for m e to agree with one or
both of my parents.
I needed the support o f my parentts) and often felt
attached to them.

Items Least Like

---

>

Y c ,

-c
w

m
3 U
w m m
C

.
Z

>

K
+

REFERENCES

Abelin, E. L. (1971). The role of the father in the

separation-individuation phase. In J. B. ~cDevitt& C. F.
Settlage (Eds.), Separation-individuation: Essays in honor
of Marqaret S. Mahler (pp. 229-252). N. Y.: International
Universities Press.
Ainsworth, M. (1969). Object relations, dependency and
attachment. Child Development, 40, 969-1025.
Ainsworth, M. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C.
M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (~ds.), The place of
attachment in human behavior (pp. 3-30). N.Y.: Baslc
Books.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Dia nostic and
statistical manual for mental disorders
-I--3rd. e n .
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Arnold, M. (1960). Emotion & personality (vol 1).
Columbia University Press.

N.Y.:

Aronson, E., & Pines, A. (1980). Explorinq sexual jealousy.

Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa
Cruz.
Bank, S., & Kahn, M. (1982). The sibling bond. N.Y.:
Books.

Basic

Bernard, J. (1971). Jealousy in marriage. Medical Aspects

Human Sexuality, 5, 200-215.

of

Bernard, J. (1977). Jealousy and marriage. In G. Clanton & L.

Smith (Eds.), Jealousy (pp. 141-151). Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Blanck, R., & Blanck, G. (1986). Beyond ego psychology:
Developmental object relations theory. N.Y.: Columbia
University Press.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Ulrich, D. N. (1980). Contextual family
therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (~ds.1,Handbook
of
- family therapy (pp. 159-186). N.Y.: ~runerj~azel.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy
Jason Aronson.

in

clinical practice. N.Y.:

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1):

N.Y.: Basic Books.

Attachment.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss (Vol. 2): Separation.

N.Y.: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss (vol. 3): Sadness and
depression. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Bowman, H. (1965). Marriage
Hill.

for moderns

(5th ed.). N.Y.: McGraw

Bringle, R. (1981). Conceptualizing jealousy as a disposition.

Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 274-290.
Bringle, R., Evenbeck, S., & Schmedel, K. (1977). The role of
'ealousy
marriaqe. Paper presented at the meeting of
<he American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Bringle, R., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. (1977).
Correlates of jealousy. Paper presented at the meeting of
the idw western Psychological Association, Chicago.
Bringle, R., Roach, S., Andler, C:, & Evenbeck, S. (1979).
Measuring the intensity of jealous reactions. Unpublished
manuscript.
Bringle, R., & Williams, L. (1979). Parental-offspring
similarity in jealousy and related personality dimensions.
Motivation
Emotion, 3, 265-286.
Bryson,'J. (1977). Situational determinants of the expression of
jealousy. Paper presented at the meeting of the ~mericanPsychological Association, San Francisco.
Buunk, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages.
Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 357-372.
Buunk, B. (1982a). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship
to self-esteem, dependency and reciprocity. Personality
and
- Social psychology Bulletin, 8 , 310-316.
Buunk, B. (1982b). Strategies of jealousy: Styles of coping with
extramarital involvement of the spouse. Family Relations,
31 13-18.
-1
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1967). Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In D.
Jackson & S. Messick (Eds.), Problems -in human assessment
(pp. 124-132). N.Y.: ~ ~ ~ r a w - ~ i l l .

Chappell, N. L. (1978). The social process of learning sex

roles: A sociological viewpoint. In H. M. Lips & N. L.
Colwill (Eds.), The psychology of sex differences (pp.
103-124). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A . (1984). Ori ins and evolution of
behavior disorders. N.Y.: -7Bruner Mazel.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering:
Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Clanton, G. (1981). Frontiers of jealousy research. Alternative
Lifestyles, 4, 259-273.
Clanton, G., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1977). Jealousy. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Clarke, E. (1982). The development of g sexual jealousy
inventory. Unpublished Master's thesis, SFU, Burnaby, B.C.
Colwill, N. L., & Holborn, S. W. (1978). Sex and sexuality. In
H. M. Lips & N. L. Colwill (Eds.), The psycholoqy of sex
differences (pp. 267-299). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Colwill, N. L., & Lips, H. M. (1978). ~asculinity,femininity,
and androgyny: What have you done for us lately? In H. M.
Lips & N. L. Colwill (Eds.), The psychology of sex
differences (pp. 125-144). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Constantine, L., & Constantine, J. (1974). Sexual aspects of
multilateral relations. In J. Smith & L. Smith (Eds.),
Beyond monogamy (pp. 268-290). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Cronbach, D., & Meehl, P. (1967). Construct validity in
psychological tests. In D. Jackson & S. Messick (Eds.1,
in human assessment (pp.57-77). N.Y.:
Problems McGraw-Hill.
Crowne, D.,
Wiley

&
&

Marlowe, D. (1964).
Sons.

The approval

motive. N.Y.: J.

Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. (1982). Male sexual

3, 11-27.
jealousy. Etholoqy & Sociobioloqy, Davis, K. (1936). Jealousy and sexual property. Social Forces,

DeLozier, P. (1982). Attachment theory and child abuse. In C. M.

Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde ( ~ d s ) ,The place of attachment
in human behavior (pp. 95-117). N.Y.: Basic Books.
-Dicks, H.V. (1967). Marital tensions: Clinical studies toward a
psychological theory of interactions. N.Y.: Basic Books.

inners stein, D. (1976). The mermaid and the minotaur: Sexual

arranqements and the human malalse. N.Y.: Harper & ROW.
7

Docherty, J., & Ellis, J. (1976). A new concept and finding in

morbid jealousy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 33,
679-683.
Dutton, D. G:, & Browning, J. J. (1984). Concern for power, fear
of intimacy and aversive stimuli for wife assault. Paper
presented at the Second National Conference for Research
in Family Viloence, University of New Hampshire.
Ellis, A. (1954).

The American

sexual traqedy. N.Y.: Twayne.

Evans, W. (1975). The eye of envy and jealousy. Psychoanalytic

Review, 62, 481-492.
An object relations theory
Fairbairn, W. R. (1954). personality. N.Y.: Basic Books.

of

Fenichel, 0. (1953). A contribution to the psychology of

jealousy. In 0 . Fenichel collected papers: First series
(pp. 349-362).~.~.:
W. W. Norton.
Ferguson, G. (1976). Statistical analysis in psycholoqy
education.(4th ed.). N.Y.: McGraw Hill.
For better
Fleming, J., & Washburn, C. (1977). Charles Scribners Sons.

or

worse. N.Y.:

of sexual behaviour.
Ford, C. S., & Beach F. A. (1951) Patterns N.Y.: Harper.
Framo, J. L. (1970). Symptoms from a family transactional
viewpoint. International Psychiatry Clinics, 7, 125-171.
Framo, J. L. (1982). Explorations
N.Y.: Springer.

marital and family therapy.

Francis, J. (1977). Toward the management of heterosexual

jealousy. Journal of Marriage and Family Counselling, 3 ,
61-69.

Freud, S. (1953). The passing of the Oedipus-complex. In E.

Jones (~d.), and J. Riviere (~rans.), Sigmund Freud:
Collected Papers. (~ol.lll/pp.269-278). on don: Hogarth
Press. (Original work published 1924)
Freud, S. (1955). Some neurotic mechamisms in jealousy and
paranoia and homosexuality. In J. Strachey ( ~ d . 1 ,and J.
Riviere (Trans.), The com lete psychological works of S.
Freud ( ~ o l .18). (pp. 223-232
7 London: ~ogarthPress.
(0riginal work published 1922)

Freud, S. (1965). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis.

Femininity, (pp. 112-135). J. Strachey ( ~ d .and Trans.)
N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Co. (Original work published 1933)
Gillespie, D. L. (1971). Who has the power? The marital
struggle. Journal of Marriaqe and the Family, 33, 445-458.
Gilmartin, B. (1977). Jealousy among swingers. In G, Clanton &
L. Smith (Eds.), Jealousy (pp. 152-158). Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J., & Mitchell, S. (1983). Object relations
psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.

in

and human interaction.

Guntrip, H. (1961). Personality structure -N.Y.: International Universities Press.
Hansburg, H. G. (1980a) Adolescent separation anxiety (Vol. 1).
N.Y.: Robert E. ~riegerPublishing.
Hansburg, H. G. (1980b). Adolescent separation anxiety Vol. 2.:
Separation disorders. N.Y.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.
Hansen, G. L. (1982). Reactions to hypothetical jealousy
producing events. Family Relations, 3 l , 513-518.
Hansen, G. L. (1983). Marital satisfaction and jealousy among
men. Psychological Reports, 52, 363-366.
Hansen, G, L. (1985). Dating jealousy among college students.
Sex Roles, l 2 , 713-721.
Henderson, J. (1982). The role of the father in
separation-individuation. Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 46, 231-254.
Hilberman, E., & Munson, K. (1978) Sixty battered women.
Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 460-470.

Hupka, R. B. (1981) Cultural determinants of jealousy.

Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 310 - 356.
Jaremko, M., & Lindzey, R. (1979). Stress-coping abilities of
indivuduals high and low in jealousy. Psychological
Reports, 44, 547-553.
Jones, E. (1930). Jealousy. Psyche, 11, 41-55.
and clinical
Kernberg, 0. (1976). Object relations theory psychoanalysis. N.Y.: Jason Aronson.
and qratitude. N.Y.:
Klein, M. (1957). Envy -

Basic Books.

of the-self. N.Y.:
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis Universities Press.

~nternational

How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of

Kohut, H. (1984) Chicago Press.
The concepts of differentiation,
Kuchenmuller, M. (1984). enmeshment, and the relationship between them:
family
theory validation study usin9 Q-Methodoloqy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of BI
Vancouver.
Kroger, J. (1985). Separation-individuation and ego identity
status in New Zealand university students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 14, 133-147.
Kroger, J. (1986). Factor structure of the Hansburg Separation
42, 605-611.
Anxiety Test. Journal of Clinical Psycholoqy, Kwawer, J. S. (1982). Object relations theory and imtimacy. In
M. Fisher & G. Stricker (Eds.), Intimacy (pp. 53-64).
N.Y.: Plenum Press.
Langfeldt, G. (1961). The erotic jealousy syndrome. Acta
~eurologicaScandinavica, 36, (Suppl.
Lazarus, R., Averill, J., & Opton, E. (1970). Toward a cognitive
theory of emotion. In M. Arnold (~d.1,Feelinqs g@
emotions (pp. 207-232). N.Y.: Academic Press.
Leventhal, H. (1980). Toward a comprehensive theory of emotion.
In L. Berkowitz (~d.),Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 13) (pp. 139-20n. N.Y.: Academic Press.

Levitz-Jones, E. M I & Orlofsky, J. L. (1985).

Separation-individuation and intimacy capacity in college
49
women. Journal of Personality @ Social P~ych010gy~-,
156-169.
Lips, H. M. (1981). Women, men and the psycholoqy
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentlce Hall.
7

of power.

Lips, H. M. (1978). Sexual differentiation and gender identity.

of
In H. M. Lips & N. L. Colwill (~ds.),The psycholoqy sex differences (pp. 51-80). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Mahler, M. ( 1 968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of
individuation. N.Y.: International Universities Press.
I

Mahler, M. (1972). On the first three subphases of the

separation-individuation process. International Journal
Psychoanalysis, 53, 333-338.

of

Mahler, M., & McDevitt, J. (1980). The separation-individuation

process and identity formation. In S. I. Greenspan & G. H.
Pollock (~ds.), The course of life: Psychoanalytic
contributions toward
development
(Vol. 1) (pp. 395-406
NIMH.
Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological
birth of the-human infant. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Mathes, E. W., Phillips, J. T., Skowran, J.! & Dick 111, W. E.
(1982). Behavioral correlates of the Interpersonal
jealousy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
42 1227-1231.
-1
Mathes, E. W., Roter, P. M., & Joeger, S. M. (1982). A
convergent validity study of six jealousy scales.
Psycholoqical Reports, 50, 1143-1147.
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and
liking: Theoretical considerations and preliminary scale
development. Psycholoqical Reports, 9, 23-31.
Mead, M. (1968). Jealousy: Primitive and civilized. In I?.
Lindenfeld (~d.),Radical perspectives on social problems
(pp. 92-103). N.Y.: MacMillan.
Miller, P. H. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Millham, J., & Kellog, R. (1980). Need for social approval:

Impression management or self-deception? Journal of
Research in Personality, l 4 , 445-457.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mooney, H. (1965): Pathological jealousy and psychochemotherapy.
British Journal of psychiatry, 111, 1023-1042.
Mowat, R. R. (1966). Morbid jealousy and murder: A psychiatric
study
morbidly jealous murderers
~roaamoor.London:
Tavistock.
Murdock, G. (1949). Social structure. N.Y.: ~acMillan.
Myers, J. L. (1979). Fundamentals of experimental design (3rd
ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social
of Social
desirability bias: A review. European Journal Psycholoqy, 15, 263-280.
Neubauer, P. B. (1982). Rivalry, envy, and jealousy. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 37, 121-142.
Olson, D. H. & Rabunsky, C. (1972). Validity of four measures of
34,
family power. Journal of Marriaqe and the Family, 224-234.
Ramey, J. W. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent
consequences of sexually open marriage. Family
Coordinator, 24, 515-530.
Of love
- and
- lust. N.Y.:
Reik, T. (1957). -

Grove Press.

Riviere, J. (1932). Jealousy as a mechanism of defence.

International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 13, 414-424.
Rounsaville, B. J. (1978). Theories in marital violence:
Evidence from a study of battered women. Victimolosy: An
International Journal, 3, 11-31.
Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972-1978: New
findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Development
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). The dimensions of power
distribution in the family. In H. Grunebaum & J. Christ
(Eds.), Contem orar marriage: Structure, dynamics and
therapy
Boston: ~ i t t l e ,Brown & Co.

M).

Scanzoni, L. D,, & Scanzoni, J. (1981). Men women and chanqe: A

socioloqy of marriage and the f a m i l v ( 2 n d ) x . y . :
McGraw ~ i l l .
Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and
physiological determinants of emotional states. In L.
Berkowitz (~d.),Advances in ex erimental social
psycholoqy ( ~ o l .1 ) (pp. 49-80
N.Y.. ~cademicPress.

Schechter, D. E. (1968). The Oedipus complex: Considerations of

ego development and parental interaction. Contemporary
Psychoanalysis, 4, 111-137.
Schmideberg, M. (1953); Some aspects of jealousy and feeling
40, 1-16.
hurt. Psychoanalytic Review, Scott, P. D. (1974). Battered wives. ~ r i t i s hJournal of
Psychiatry, 125, 433-441.
Segal, H. (1964). Introduction
N.Y.: Basic Books.

to

the work

of Melanie

Klein.

Segal, H. (1979). Klein. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.

Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J. & Young, L. (1978). Physical
attractiveness of the "other person" and jealousy.
Personality and Social Psycholoqy Bulletin, 4, 612-615.
Shepherd, M. (1961). Morbid jealousy: Some clinical and social
aspects of a psychiatric symptom. Journal of Mental
Science, 107, 687-753.
The intimate environment: Explorin
Skolnick, A . (1978). marriaqe and the family (2nd ed.). Boston: Little:
Co.

Brown

&

Skolnick, A. (1986). Early attachment and personal relationships

across the life course. In P. Baltes, D. Featherman, & R.
Lerner (~ds.), Life-span development and behavior ( ~ o l .7)
(pp. 173-206). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Speilman, P. (1971). Envy and jealousy: An attempt at
clarification. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 40, 59-82.
Spence, J., Helmreich, R. ~asculinityand femininity. Austin,
Texas: University of Texas Press.
Spieler, S. (1984). Preoedipal girls need fathers.
Psychoanalytic Review, 71,63-80.

Stephens, W. (1963). The family in cross-cultural perspective.

N.Y.: Holt, Rhinehart & winston.
Stewart, R., & Beatty, M. (1985). Jealousy and self-esteem.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 153-154.
Stinnet, N., & Birdsong, C. (1978). The family and alternate
lifestyles. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Symonds, D. (1979).
Oxford Press.

The evolution of human

sexuality. N.Y.:

Teismann, M., & Mosher, D. (1978). Jealous conflict in dating

couples. Psychological Reports, 42, 1211-1216.
Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1986). Infant-mother attachment:
New directions for theory and research. In P. Baltes, D.
Featherman, & R. Lerner (~ds.), Life-span development and
behavior (Vol. 7) (pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tipton, R., Benedictson, C., Mahoney, J., & Hartnett, J. (1977).
The development of a scale for the assessment of jealousy.
Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Commonwealth miversity.
7

Tipton, R., Benedictson, C., Mahoney, J., & Hartnett, J. (1978).

Development of a scale for the assessment of jealousy.
Psycholoqical Reports, 42, 1217-1218.
Todd, J., & Dewhurst, K. (1955). The Othello syndrome. Journal
of Nervous
Mental Disorders, 122, 367-374.
Van der Berghe, P. (1980). Human family systems:
view. N.Y.: Elsover.

An

evolutionary

Vauhkonen, K. (1968). On the pathogenesis of morbid jealousy.

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 44, (~uppl.2021, 1-247.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. N. Y.:
Braziller.
Weiss, P. (1977). The system of nature and the nature of
systems: Empirical holism and practical reductionism
harmonized. In K. E. Schaefer, H. Hensel, & R. Brody
(Eds.), Toward a man-centered medical science (pp. 17-63).
Mt. Kisko, N.Y.: Futura Publishing.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes
J. Stevenson-Hinde (~ds.),The place of attachment in
human behavior (pp. 171I
~)
.
NY
.
: Basic Books.

&

White, G. L. (1980a). A -model

of romantic jealousy. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Maryland.
White, G. L. (1980b). Inducing jealousy: A power perspective.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 222-227.
White, G. L. (1981a). Jealousy and the partner's perceived
motives for -attraction to a rival. Social Psycholoqy
Quarterly, 44, 24-30.
White, G. L. (1981b). Relative involvement, inadequacy, and
jealousy: A test of a causal model. Alternative
Lifestyles, 4, 291-309.
white, G. L. (1981~).Some correlates of romantic jealousy.
Journal of Personality, 49, 129-147.
Whitehurst, R. N. (1971). Violence potential in extra-marital
sexual responses. Journal of Marriaqe and the Family, 33,
683-691.
Wilson, E. 0. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Winnicott, D. (1965). The family and individual development.
London: Tavistock.
Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. American Psycholoqist, 35, 151-175.