Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2013, 54, 328–336 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.

12055

Personality and Social Psychology

Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: the role of sex
and sexual orientation
PIETERNEL DIJKSTRA,1 DICK P. H. BARELDS2 and HINKE A. K. GROOTHOF3
1
Private Practice, Schildwolde, The Netherlands
2
University of Groningen, Department of Psychology, The Netherlands
3
Open University, Department of Psychology, The Netherlands

Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H. & Groothof, H. A. K. (2013). Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: the role of sex and sexual orientation.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 54, 328–336.

The goal of the present study was to examine the emotional content and intensity of jealousy in response to different types of infidelity (both online
and offline unfaithful partner behaviors) among Dutch heterosexuals (n = 191) and homosexuals (n = 121). Based on previous research (Dijkstra,
Barelds & Groothof, 2010), participants were presented with ten jealousy-evoking situations following which the intensity of two different emotional
aspects of jealousy was assessed (betrayal/anger and threat). Results showed that scenarios describing a partner having sex with someone else or falling
in love with someone else primarily evoked betrayal/anger-related jealousy, whereas scenarios describing an emotional connection between a partner
and someone else primarily evoked threat-related jealousy. In addition, women experienced more jealousy than men in response to scenarios in which a
partner engaged in potentially extra-dyadic online (but not offline) behaviors. Finally, compared to same-sex heterosexuals, homosexuals, both male and
female, responded with less intense jealousy to scenarios describing a partner having sex with someone else. Implications for the treatment of (internet)
infidelity are discussed.
Key words: Jealousy, offline, online, infidelity, sexual orientation.
Pieternel Dijkstra, Private Practice, Schildwolde, The Netherlands. Email: pieterneldijkstra@ziggo.nl

INTRODUCTION the advantages of infidelity at the same time (Mileham, 2007).

Feelings of jealousy are experienced in response to a threat to,
or the actual loss of, a valued, mostly sexual, relationship with
another person, due to an actual or imagined rival for one’s part-
ner’s attention (e.g., Bringle & Buunk, 1985; DeSteno &
Salovey, 1996; Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998). In contrast to envy (an
emotion that, in lay language, is often used interchangeably with
jealousy), jealousy is evoked in the context of a ‘triangle’ of
people, that is, one-self, one’s partner and one’s rival (e.g.,
Dijkstra, Barelds & Groothof, 2010; Pam & Pearson, 1996).
Consistent with this triangle, three broad lines can be detected in
jealousy research, that is, studies that have related jealousy to
characteristics of the person, studies that have related jealousy to
characteristics of the rival, and studies that have related jealousy
to the type of infidelity the partner engages in. With regard to
the self in the triangle, it has, for instance, consistently been
found that individuals high in neuroticism experience more
intense feelings of jealousy than individuals low in neuroticism
(e.g., Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008; Melamed, 1991). Regarding
rival characteristics, it has, for instance, been found that attrac-
tive rivals evoke more jealousy than unattractive ones, especially
among women (e.g., Buunk & Dijkstra, 2001; Dijkstra &
Buunk, 1998, 2002). The present study focuses on the third line
of jealousy research, that is, the relation between jealousy and
the type of infidelity the partner engages in.
An important reason for the focus of our study is that, mainly
due to the extensive use of the Internet, the number of unfaithful
behaviors individuals can engage in has grown explosively the
last two decades. Usage of the Internet has made it very easy for
people to enjoy both the stability of a committed pair-bond and
Indeed, sex is reported to be one of the most frequently searched
topics on the Internet (e.g., Cooper, Delmonico & Burg, 2000;
Freeman-Longo & Blanchard, 1998; for a recent overview see,
for example, Seattle Organic SEO, 2012), and married individu-
als may use the Internet to meet strangers, flirt, and engage in
sexualized conversations or sexual behaviors, with or without
using a webcam (e.g., Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, O’Mara
& Buchanan, 2000). There are even chat rooms specifically
geared to married people who wish to engage in sexual conver-
sations and activities with someone else (e.g., Yahoo’s Married
And Flirting; MSN’s Married But Flirting chat rooms). Those
who participate in online unfaithful behaviors often rationalize
online sexual acts as being OK, because there is no real physical
contact with someone else. However, Whitty (2003) found that
most people believe that cybersex (describing the sexual act
while typically masturbating), hot chatting (a type of erotic talk
that moves beyond light-hearted flirting), and viewing pornogra-
phy on the Internet are all acts of betrayal and adultery (see also
Schneider, 2003). In addition to sexual acts, also emotional dis-
closure with someone else through the Internet, for example by
means of an email or chats, is often seen as an act of infidelity.
Dijkstra et al. (2010), for instance, found that both a partner’s
sexual and emotional involvement with someone else by means
of the Internet evoked considerable amounts of jealousy.
Usually, a partner’s extra-dyadic involvement and the jealousy
that is caused by it has devastating consequences for the quality
of the primary relationship (Cooper et al., 2000). In the
Netherlands, where the present research took place, extra-dyadic
affairs are mentioned by four out of ten people as the primary
reason for divorce (De Graaf, 2006). Specifically concerning

© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
extra-dyadic Internet activities, it has been reported that, in
recent years, one-third of divorce litigation in the US is due to
online affairs and/or cybersex (cf., Mileham, 2007). In the mean-
time, marital infidelity and the feelings of jealousy that result
from it are relatively difficult to treat. Therapists often feel
unprepared for this kind of work (Whisman, Dixon & Johnson,
1997), and are still struggling with the issue of Internet infidelity
and the dilemmas that arise from it (Hertlein, 2011). Moreover,
treatment models for Internet infidelity and its aftermath are still
in their developing stages (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). One of the
challenges for researchers, for instance, is the appropriate classi-
fication of problematic behavior concerning, among other things,
Internet infidelity (Jones & Hertlein, 2012). Nonetheless,
research on Internet infidelity and the jealousy it may cause, is
relatively scarce. In addition, recent studies have taken a rela-
tively narrow approach, focusing mainly on the question whether
the sex differences in jealousy that have been found offline (i.e.,
the finding that men’s jealousy focuses more on a partner’s sex-
ual infidelity and women’s jealousy on a partner’s emotional
infidelity), can be generalized to online infidelity (e.g., Groothof,
Dijkstra & Barelds, 2009; Guadagno & Sagarin, 2010). An
exception is a recent study by Dijkstra et al. (2010) that studied
jealousy in response to a much wider array of potentially
unfaithful situations. Based on a literature review these authors
identified 42 infidelity-related partner behaviors, both offline and
online, and examined the extent to which these 42 partner
behaviors evoked jealousy. Their study showed, for instance,
that a partner’s explicit infidelity, such as a partner kissing or
having sex with someone else, evoked most jealousy, closely
followed by a partner’s emotional or romantic involvement with
someone else by means of the Internet (for instance, when a
partner was sending romantic mails or chats to someone else).
This latter type of jealousy evoked more intense feelings of jeal-
ousy than a partner watching pornography or behaving suspi-
ciously in real life, for instance by spending a lot of time with a
cross-sex friend or by intimately dancing with someone else.
The present study builds on and extends this study.
The emotional content of jealousy
In their study, Dijkstra et al. (2010) assessed jealousy by means
of the question ‘How jealous would you feel if ….’ followed by
42 potentially jealousy-evoking partner behaviors. However,
according to Sharpsteen (1991; see also Buunk & Dijkstra,
2004; Parrot & Smith, 1993) jealousy is a compound emotion of
which the exact content is a blend of the basic emotions of
anger, sadness and fear. Which of these emotions becomes the
most salient at any given moment is determined by the aspects
of the situation individuals focus upon. More specifically, Buunk
and Dijkstra (2004) found that, when sexual contact between
one’s partner and someone else has not yet occurred, in particu-
lar feelings of anxiety and insecurity concerning a mate’s extra-
dyadic sexual involvement color the jealousy experience, a type
of jealousy that centers around feelings of threat (Buunk &
Dijkstra, 2004) and has been called ‘suspicious’ jealousy
(Parrott, 1991; DeSteno & Salovey, 1994). In contrast, when
extradyadic sex has already occurred, the jealousy experience is
usually strongly colored by feelings of betrayal/anger (Buunk &
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity 329
Dijkstra, 2004), a type of jealousy that has been called ‘fait
accompli’ jealousy (Parrot, 1991). The present study extended
Dijkstra et al.’s (2010) study by not only examining the intensity
of the jealousy response in response to partner behaviors, but
also the emotional content of these responses. To date, little is
known about the emotional content of jealousy, especially in
response to infidelity that takes place through the Internet. This
knowledge, however, might be highly relevant: it may help ther-
apists identify the most prominent emotional consequences of
(suspected) Internet infidelity and help focus treatment on those
emotional issues that matter the most. Our first research question
(RQ1) therefore is: What emotions (i.e., threat or betrayal/anger)
characterize the jealousy response most strongly when individu-
als are confronted with important types of infidelity-related part-
ner behaviors (both offline and online)?
Sex and sexual orientation
Our study also aimed to examine the extent to which an individ-
ual’s sex and sexual orientation affect the emotional content and
intensity of the jealousy individuals experience in response to
important types of infidelity-related partner behaviors (both off-
line and online). Previous studies have shown these variables to
be related to the experience and/or expression of jealousy (e.g.,
Carpenter, 2012; Sagarin, Martin, Coutinho et al., 2012). With
regard to an individual’s sex, for instance, studies have shown
that men more often than women chose sexual infidelity over
emotional infidelity as the most upsetting event (e.g., Bailey,
Gaulin, Agyei & Gladue, 1994; Buss, Larsen, Westen &
Semmelroth, 1992; Dijkstra, Groothof, Poel, Laverman, Schrier
& Buunk, 2001; Sagarin et al., 2012; but also see Carpenter,
2012). Another example is that women have been found to report
stronger feelings of jealousy than men in response to physically
attractive rivals, whereas men report stronger feelings of jealousy
than women in response to socially dominant rivals (e.g., Dijkstra
& Buunk, 1998). The relation between jealousy and an individ-
ual’s sex has mostly been explained from both an evolutionary or
biological point of view and a sociocultural one (but see also, for
example, Levy & Kelly, 2010). According to the first perspective,
for instance, men are more focused on sexual infidelity than
women, because men may suffer from paternity uncertainty (e.g.,
Buss, 2000). According to the sociocultural view, men and
women’s jealousy responses are shaped through the internaliza-
tion of societal norms that dictate men and women how to
behave. For instance, because of the norm that a man’s honor is
crucial, for instance, in many honor cultures it is accepted that
men respond with aggression and sometimes abuse when they are
jealous (e.g., Vandello & Cohen, 2003). Our second research
question (RQ2) therefore is: Do men and women differ in the
intensity and content (i.e., threat and/or betrayal/anger) of their
jealousy responses when confronted with important types of infi-
delity-related partner behaviors (both offline and online)?
In addition to an individual’s sex, several studies found an
individual’s sexual orientation to be related to jealousy. For
instance, it has been found that lesbian women, more than gay
men, chose a mate’s sexual infidelity as the most upsetting
event, whereas gay men more than lesbian women chose a
mate’s emotional infidelity as the most upsetting event (Dijkstra
330 P. Dijkstra et al.
et al., 2001). In addition, especially homosexual men have been
found to respond with relatively low jealousy to a partner’s (sus-
pected) infidelity (e.g., Bailey et al., 1994; Barelds & Dijkstra,
2006; Bringle, 1995; Hawkins, 1990; Sheets & Wolfe, 2001).
This finding has been explained by the fact that gay men often
have relatively promiscuous relationships and permissive atti-
tudes towards extra-dyadic sex (Buunk & Van Driel, 1989;
Dijkstra et al., 2001; Peplau & Spalding, 2000). Although this
has been found for offline infidelity-related partner behaviors,
such as having oral or anal sex, knowledge is still lacking on
homosexuals’ jealousy responses to the infidelity-related behav-
iors that a partner engages in through the Internet. Our third
research question (RQ3) therefore is: Do homosexuals differ
from (same-sex) heterosexuals in the intensity and content (i.e.,
threat and/or betrayal/anger) of their jealousy responses when
confronted with important types of infidelity-related partner
behaviors (both offline and online)?
The present study
The present study examines multidimensional jealousy responses
to ten short scenarios in which the partner engages in different
infidelity-related behaviors. These ten scenarios were derived
from Dijkstra et al. (2010; see Method section for details). Sum-
marizing, the present study examined the following research
questions:
(1) RQ1: What emotions (i.e., threat or betrayal/anger) character-
ize the jealousy response most strongly when individuals are
confronted with important types of infidelity-related partner
behaviors (both offline and online)?
(2) RQ2: Do men and women differ in the intensity and content
(i.e., threat and/or betrayal/anger) of their jealousy responses
when confronted with important types of infidelity-related
partner behaviors (both offline and online)?
(3) RQ3: Do homosexuals differ from (same-sex) heterosexuals
in the intensity and content (i.e., threat and/or betrayal/anger)
of their jealousy responses when confronted with important
types of infidelity-related partner behaviors (both offline and
online)?
METHOD
Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited in various ways. The heterosexual participants
were recruited by the researchers and five psychology students conduct-
ing research for their bachelor thesis. These students were asked to
search for participants in their network, and to make sure that the sample
would be heterogeneous with regard to sex, educational level, and age.
The questionnaire was distributed online. Although some homosexual
participants were also recruited in this process, the bulk of the homosex-
ual participants were recruited by means of postings on social network
sites geared at homosexuals, and mailings to members of homosexual
groups or communities. Also, some homosexual participants distributed
the link to the questionnaire to other homosexual individuals. The final
result of this collection process is shown in Table 1. Participants who
had indicated that they were bisexual were removed from the final sam-
ples (ten female participants and one male participant; these participants
could be classified as both heterosexual and homosexual, and the num-
bers are too small to use bisexuals as a separate group). In addition,
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
Table 1. Composition of the Subsamples
Men Women
Heterosexual Homosexual Heterosexual Homosexual
N 67 49 124 72
Age: 28.1 (11.1) 29.3 (12.7) 28.2 (12.2) 32.4 (15.3)
M (SD)
Educational level
-low 3% 10% 2% 4%
-middle 13% 20% 15% 21%
-high 84% 69% 84% 75%
participants who did not fully finish the questionnaire (all questions had
to be answered in order to proceed to the next screen in the study) were
removed from the final sample, and are not shown in Table 1. The final
sample consists of 312 participants: 191 heterosexual and 121 homosex-
ual participants.
Educational level was divided into low (roughly equivalent to prepara-
tory secondary vocational education), middle (roughly equivalent to
senior general education), and high (college/university level) levels of
education, mainly for comparison purposes between the subsamples dis-
tinguished in Table 1. In general, all subsamples had, on average, a high
level of education, probably as a result of the collection process (in
which mainly highly educated individuals were involved). Also, all subs-
amples were relatively young, with a mean age around 30 years. An
ANOVA showed that the subsamples did not differ significantly with
regard to age [F(3, 311) = 1.80, p = ns]. Moreover, there was no signifi-
cant difference between the groups with regard to educational level
[Kruskal-Wallis Χ2(3) = 6.77, p = ns].
Materials
Jealousy evoking scenarios. In the present study, ten scenarios were
used, based on the Dijkstra et al. (2010) study on jealousy evoking part-
ner behaviors. In that study, 42 jealousy evoking partner behaviors
(including both online and offline behaviors) were identified based on a
review of the literature. Simultaneous components analyses conducted on
the two samples in that study resulted in a four-factor solution underly-
ing these 42 jealousy evoking partner behaviors, that were labeled ‘Sus-
picious Behavior’ (14 behaviors; e.g., ‘During a conversation your
partner touches someone of the opposite sex’), ‘Unfaithful Behavior’ (15
behaviors; e.g., ‘Your partner has sex with someone else’), ‘Pornogra-
phy’ (5 behaviors; e.g., ‘Your partner watches pornographic pictures or
movies on the Internet’), and ‘Technological Investment’ (4 behaviors;
e.g., ‘Your partner shares his/her feelings and secrets with someone of
the opposite sex by chat or email’; Dijkstra et al., 2010).
To decrease the work load for the participants, we decided to use a
selection of the most relevant partner behaviors for the purpose of the
present study. From the 42 jealousy evoking partner behaviors mentioned
above we first selected the two partner behaviors that most clearly
reflected sexual and emotional offline infidelity, that is ‘Your partner has
sex with someone else,’ and ‘Your partner falls in love with someone
else.’ These two partner behaviors are both part of the ‘Unfaithful
Behavior’ factor and are routinely used in jealousy studies, particularly
those examining (evolutionary) differences in the jealousy response of
men and women (e.g., Groothof et al., 2009; for recent meta-analyses
see Carpenter, 2012; Sagarin et al., 2012) and/or heterosexuals and
homosexuals (e.g., Harris, 2002). Two matching online unfaithful behav-
iors were next selected from the list of 42 partner behaviors, that is
‘Your partner falls in love with someone with whom he/she communi-
cates through the Internet,’ and ‘Your partner has sex with someone by
using the webcam’ (the original partner behaviors are both also part of
the ‘Unfaithful Behavior’ factor). The latter of these was adapted from
‘Your partner has cybersex with someone.’ The reason for this adaptation
is that the term cybersex might cause some confusion: not everybody
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013) Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity 331

might be familiar with this term, whereas the term itself can refer to dif-
ferent specific acts of online sexual infidelity. For example, text commu-
nication describing sexual acts without actually undressing and/or
masturbating might also be considered a form of cybersex, as might sex
between characters in a virtual environment such as Second Life. Because
we wanted to use an online partner behavior corresponding closely to the
act of actually having sex with someone else we specified the content as
described above.
Because, in the present study, we wanted to pay specific attention to
responses to partner behaviors related to the use of modern communica-
tion media, we also included all four items from the ‘Technological
Investment’ factor described by Dijkstra et al. (2010), that is, ‘Your part-
ner shares his/her feelings and secrets with someone of the opposite sex
by chat or email,’ ‘Your partner shares a strong emotional bond with
someone he/she communicates with through the Internet,’ ‘Your partner
sends a romantic email or chat to someone of the opposite sex,’ and
‘Your partner sends SMSes to someone of the opposite sex on a regular
basis.’ The latter item refers to using a telephone, rather than a computer.
For comparison purposes we therefore also added the sexual partner
behavior ‘Your partner has phone sex with someone else’ (from the
‘Unfaithful Behavior’ factor). Finally, we decided to add one more
online behavior listed in the ‘Pornography’ factor, that is, ‘Your partner
watches pornographic pictures or movies on the Internet.’ Although this
online partner behavior clearly has a sexual (online) content, it does not
require the (online) presence of a specific other person, but rather one or
more anonymous individuals, nor does it require an active interaction
with that/those person(s). For homosexuals, scenarios 7, 9 and 10 (see
Table 2) referred to someone of the same sex, rather than someone of
the opposite sex.
Jealousy ratings. For each of the ten scenarios described above partici-
pants were asked how they would feel if they were confronted with the
situation described in the scenario in real life. For each scenario partici-
pants filled out a multiple-adjective rating scale, that included the adjec-
tives suspicious, betrayed, worried, distrustful, jealous, rejected, hurt,
anxious, angry, threatened, and sad. These 11 adjectives were assessed
on 5-point scales (from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘very strongly’), and
were administered directly below each of the ten scenarios. According to
Parrott and Smith (1993), these 11 adjectives distinguish the phenome-
non of jealousy from other negative emotional states, such as envy. Pre-
vious research (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004) has shown that these 11
adjectives may be split into two subscales. The first subscale can be
labeled betrayal-anger, and is composed of the items hurt, sad, rejected,
angry, and betrayed. The second subscale can be labeled threat, and con-
sists of the items anxious, worried, distrustful, suspicious, threatened,
and jealous.
To facilitate comparisons between the mean scores for betrayal/anger
(this subscale is composed of 5 items) and threat (this subscale is com-
posed of 6 items), the summed scores for betrayal-anger were multiplied
by 6/5. Cronbach’s alpha across the ten scenarios ranged from 0.80 to
0.88 for both betrayal/anger and threat. Correlations between these two
subscales were moderate to large, ranging from r = 0.61 (p < 0.001) for
‘Your partner falls in love with someone else’ to r = 0.82 (p < 0.001)
for ‘Your partner watches pornographic pictures or movies on the Inter-
net.’ To further examine the validity of the two scales in the present
study, PCAs were run on the 11 adjectives (for each scenario separately),
extracting two factors, and performing an oblique rotation (Oblimin).
The factor structures generally supported the division of the 11 adjectives
over the two scales (betrayal/anger and threat). Mean correlations across
scenarios between the a priori factors and corresponding PCA factors
were r = 0.96 for betrayal/anger and r = 0.94 for threat (mean correla-
tion between PCA factors was r = 0.59). Correlations between the
betrayal/anger scores for the ten scenarios ranged from r = 0.27
(p < 0.001; ‘Your partner has sex with someone else’ and ‘Your partner
sends SMSes to someone of the opposite sex on a regular basis’) to
r = 0.80 (p < 0.001; ‘Your partner has sex with someone by using the
webcam’ and ‘Your partner has phone sex with someone else’). Correla-
tions between the threat scores for the ten scenarios ranged from
r = 0.37 (p < 0.001; ‘Your partner watches pornographic pictures or
movies on the Internet’ and ‘Your partner sends SMSes to someone of
the opposite sex on a regular basis’) to r = 0.85 (p < 0.001; ‘Your part-
ner has sex with someone by using the webcam’ and ‘Your partner has
phone sex with someone else’).
RESULTS
Emotional response to the scenarios
We first examined what emotions color the jealousy response,
that is, feelings of threat or feelings of anger/betrayal, most

Table 2. Mean Betrayal/Anger and Threat Scores for the Ten Scenarios by Participant Sex and Sexual Orientation

Betrayal/Anger Threat

Men Women Men Women

Heterosexual Homosexual Heterosexual Homosexual Heterosexual Homosexual Heterosexual Homosexual

Scenario M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

1 26.8a1 4.3 24.5b1 6.6 27.5c1 3.3 25.5ab1 6.0 23.0a1 4.4 20.8b14 6.3 23.9a1 5.2 22.0ab16 6.3
2 24.1a2 4.4 21.8b2 5.7 25.6c2 4.9 24.1ac2 5.7 20.0a2 4.9 18.6a26 6.0 22.1b2 5.7 20.7ab2 5.9
3 23.6a2 5.5 21.8a2 6.5 25.7b2 4.4 23.5a24 6.1 20.6a24 5.5 19.5a24 6.0 22.5b24 5.3 20.5a2 6.5
4 12.9a3 5.8 11.8a3 5.3 15.9b38 6.3 14.0c3 6.4 12.4a3 5.1 12.6a3 5.4 15.1b3 5.5 13.8ab3 5.6
5 23.0a2 4.9 23.7a1 5.9 26.0b2 4.5 23.7a24 5.8 21.1a24 4.9 21.2a1 5.9 23.2ab4 5.8 21.6a146 6.1
6 22.0a24 5.2 21.4a2 6.0 24.4b4 4.7 22.9ab47 6.0 21.0ab4 4.9 20.3a145 5.7 22.3b2 5.0 20.9ab246 6.4
7 18.6a5 5.7 18.3a4 6.3 20.6b5 5.4 19.3ab5 6.8 18.9a5 5.3 18.9a25 5.5 20.4a5 5.3 19.0a5 6.4
8 16.8a6 6.0 17.0ab5 6.4 19.0b6 6.3 17.1a6 6.3 18.1a5 5.7 18.0a56 5.5 20.3b5 5.5 18.4a5 6.0
9 21.4a4 5.7 21.0a2 5.3 22.5a7 5.3 22.0a7 6.0 21.3a4 4.8 21.1ab1 5.1 22.5b24 4.6 21.9ab6 5.6
10 13.0a37 5.4 12.1a3 4.9 14.8b8 5.8 12.6a3 6.0 16.3a6 5.5 14.7a7 5.3 17.6b6 5.7 15.2a3 6.5

Note: Scenario 1 = partner has sex with someone else, Scenario 2 = partner has sex with someone else using webcam, Scenario 3 = partner has
phone sex, Scenario 4 = partner watches Internet porn, Scenario 5 = partner falls in love with someone else, Scenario 6 = partner falls in love
through the Internet, Scenario 7 = partner shares feelings and secrets online, Scenario 8 = partner shares strong emotional bond online, Scenario 9 =
partner sends romantic emails, Scenario 10 = partners sends SMSes on a regular basis (for details see method section). Means with different subscript
letters differ significantly within rows (computed separately for Betrayal/Anger and Threat), means with different subscript numbers differ significantly
within columns (ps < .05).

© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

332 P. Dijkstra et al.
strongly when individuals are confronted with important types of
infidelity-related partner behaviors (RQ1). For this purpose,
repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted examin-
ing the differences between the betrayal/anger and threat scores
in response to the scenarios. Significant differences were found
for seven of the ten scenarios. More feelings of betrayal/anger
were reported in response to the scenarios that seemed to
describe explicitly sexually unfaithful partner behaviors, that is,
‘Your partner has sex with someone else’ [F(1, 311) = 218.25,
p < 0.001], ‘Your partner has sex with someone else using the
webcam’ [F(1, 311) = 200.07, p < 0.001], and ‘Your partner
has phone sex’ [F(1, 311) = 152.59, p < 0.001]. Also scenarios
in which the partner falls in love with someone else, both offline
[F(1, 311) = 75.94, p < .001] and online [F(1, 311) = 53.69,
p < 0.001] evoked stronger feelings of betrayal/anger than threat.
In contrast, more feelings of threat than anger/betrayal were
reported in response to two scenarios that seemed to describe
non-sexual acts and that (merely) implied an emotional connec-
tion with someone else, that is, the scenarios in which the part-
ner shares a strong emotional bond with someone else online
[F(1, 311) = 31.61, p < 0.001] and the scenario in which the
partner sends SMSes to someone else on a regular basis
[F(1, 311) = 166.73, p < 0.001]. About equal intense feelings of
anger/betrayal and jealousy were evoked by the scenarios ‘Your
partner watches Internet porn,’ ‘Your partner shares feelings and
secrets online’ and ‘Your partner sends romantic emails to some-
one else’ (Fs ns; mean scores for betrayal/anger and threat are
reported in Table 2, by participant sex and sexual orientation).
Participant sex and sexual orientation
Next, we examined whether there are differences between men
and women (RQ2) respectively between heterosexuals and homo-
sexuals (RQ3) in their response to the ten jealousy evoking part-
ner behaviors. For this purpose, multivariate analyses of variance
were conducted, using the betrayal/anger and threat scores for the
scenarios as dependent variables and participant sex and sexual
orientation as independent variables. Significant multivariate main
effects of participant sex were found for the scenarios in which
the partner watches pornographic pictures on the Internet
[F(2, 307) = 6.53, p < 0.01], falls in love with someone else on
the Internet [F(2, 307) = 5.00, p < .01], or has sex with someone
else using the webcam [F(2, 307) = 5.53, p < 0.01]. A margin-
ally significant effect of participant sex was found for the partner
having phone sex [F(2, 307) = 4.34, p < 0.05]. In all these cases
women reported significantly more betrayal/anger and threat than
men (with the exception of the scenario in which the partner falls
in love with someone else on the Internet, for which only a sig-
nificant difference, p < 0.01, between men and women was
found for betrayal/anger; see also Table 2 and Fig. 1).
Significant multivariate main effects of sexual orientation were
found for the three scenarios in which the partner is actively
involved in sexual activities with someone else: the partner has
sex with some else offline [F(2, 307) = 7.59, p < 0.01] or online
using the webcam [F(2, 307) = 4.71, p < 0.01], or has phone
sex with someone else [F(2, 307) = 4.66, p < 0.01]. Marginally
significant effects of sexual orientation were found for the
partner sending SMSes to someone else on a regular basis
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
[F(2, 307) = 4.00, p < 0.05] or watching pornographic pictures
on the Internet [F(2, 307) = 3.04, p < 0.05]. In all these cases,
heterosexual participants, on average, responded with more feel-
ings of betrayal/anger and threat (see Table 2) than homosexual
participants. There were no significant sex by sexual orientation
interaction effects.
The highest scores for betrayal/anger and threat (see Table 2)
are generally reported by heterosexual women, followed by
homosexual women and heterosexual men, who report about
equal amounts of betrayal/anger and threat. The lowest betrayal/
anger and threat scores are generally found for homosexual men
(see also Figs. 1 and 2). Overall, the scenarios in which the part-
ner is sexually unfaithful or falls in love with someone else (be
it offline or online) evoke most feelings of jealousy (both
betrayal/anger and threat). Table 2 also shows that extradyadic
offline behaviors evoke, on average, slightly stronger feelings of
jealousy than comparable online behaviors (comparison of sce-
narios 1 and 2, and scenarios 5 and 6).
DISCUSSION
Our study set out to examine more closely the emotional content
of the jealousy response that is evoked by offline and online
potentially unfaithful partner behaviors, including examining dif-
ferences between the sexes and individuals with a different sex-
ual orientation. Our first question was what emotions (i.e.,
feelings of threat or feelings of betrayal/anger) characterize the
jealousy response most strongly when individuals are confronted
with important types of infidelity-related online and offline part-
ner behaviors. We found jealousy colored by feelings of
betrayal/anger to be reported most strongly in response to sce-
narios that described explicitly sexually unfaithful partner behav-
iors, either online or offline, and that described a partner falling
in love, also either offline or online. These findings are in line
with previous studies that show ‘fait accompli jealousy,’ that is,
jealousy characterized by feelings of betrayal/anger, to be espe-
cially evoked by a partner’s extradyadic sexual behaviors (e.g.,
Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004). Because anger is a primary response
to transgressions (e.g., Fessler, 2010), this finding suggests that
individuals do not only perceive a partner having sex with some-
one else as a serious transgression that evokes ‘fait accompli,’
but also a partner falling in love with someone else. Previous
studies, in contrast, mostly assumed that a partner falling in love
with someone else is perceived as hurtful because it is likely to
lead to a partner’s extradyadic sexual contact, with the ‘real’
transgression being extradyadic sex (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004).
Because of the relatively strong evocation of anger/betrayal
related jealousy, our findings imply that falling in love with
someone else is likely to be a serious transgression in itself.
In contrast, we found feelings of threat to be most characteris-
tic of two technology-related partner behaviors that implied an
emotional, but not necessarily sexual or romantic, connection
with someone else (i.e., sending SMS-messages to someone else
and sharing a strong emotional bond with someone else online).
The reaction to these behaviors parallels what previous studies
have called ‘suspicious’ jealousy, that is, a response that is usu-
ally evoked by partner behaviors that imply an emotional con-
nection with someone else but not per se a sexual or romantic
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
attachment. Although previous studies have shown ‘suspicious’
and ‘fait accompli’ jealousy to be evoked by relevant offline
behaviors, the present study shows that these types of jealousy
are also evoked by relevant partner behaviors that concern the
use of the Internet and/or a mobile phone. A possible explana-
tion is that our brain registers virtual events as ‘real’ ones and
responds accordingly (e.g., Mathiak & Weber, 2006). Thus, from
a cognitive point of view, individuals may become involved in
online extradyadic behaviors as if they were real-life ones. This
may also be true for the betrayed partner: when the infidelity is
uncovered, the partner may respond as if the online partner
behaviors were real life ones. Support for this explanation has,
for instance, been found by studies on violent videogames. In
response to violent video games, the brain responds as if the
threat and violence are real, stimulating the body to produce
more testosterone and cortisol (e.g., Mazur, Susman &
Edelbrock, 1997). In line with this explanation previous studies
(e.g., Groothof et al., 2009; Guadagno & Sagarin, 2010) have
shown that men and women tend to respond similarly to a part-
ner’s online and offline sexual and emotional infidelity.
However, although offline extradyadic behaviors and similar
online behaviors may evoke jealousy in similar emotional
patterns, this does not necessarily mean that they also evoke the
same intensity of emotions. Indeed, our study showed that off-
line extradyadic behaviors evoked slightly more jealousy than
comparable online behaviors, a finding that is consistent with
most findings reported by Guadagno and Sagarin (2010). These
authors explain this difference from an evolutionary psychologi-
cal perspective: in contrast to extradyadic offline behaviors,
extradyadic online behaviors cannot lead to pregnancy. Another
explanation is that, although the brain may register virtual events
as real ones, it may do so less intensely.
Our study also showed that women responded with both more
anger/betrayal related jealousy and threat-related jealousy than
men to several of a partner’s extradyadic online, but not offline
behaviors (also see Carpenter, 2012). Our results suggest that
women are relatively sensitive to a partner’s extradyadic online
behaviors. A possible explanation is that women generally have
worse computer skills than men (e.g., Pinkard, 2005), and, as a
consequence, may feel they have less control over their partner’s
activities on the Internet. For instance, in 2006, 62% of Dutch
women reported having no or only little computer skills, com-
pared to 48% of Dutch men (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006).
Our study also showed extradyadic sex, whether online or off-
line, to evoke both more anger/betrayal related jealousy and
threat-related jealousy among heterosexuals than among homo-
sexuals of the same sex. In general, homosexual men were less
jealous than heterosexual men, probably for the reasons already
mentioned in the introduction section: gay men often have rela-
tively promiscuous relationships and permissive attitudes towards
extra-dyadic sex (Buunk & Van Driel, 1989; Dijkstra et al.,
2001; Peplau & Spalding, 2000). The finding that also lesbian
women reported less jealousy than heterosexual women comes
as more of a surprise. In general, women report experiencing
emotions more intensely than men as well as displaying them
more frequently and in a more extreme fashion (e.g., Robinson,
Johnson & Shields, 2001). As a result, one might expect partners
to experience more frequent and intense emotions, among which
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity 333
jealousy, in relationships that consist of two women rather than
one man and one woman. A possible explanation for the finding
that lesbian women experience less jealousy than heterosexual
women is that among lesbians jealousy is not related to relation-
ship quality, whereas among heterosexuals it is (Barelds &
Dijkstra, 2006). As such, jealousy may play a different role in
lesbian relationships, and perhaps be less crucial to the survival
and quality of the relationship.
Implications
As noted in the introduction section, one of the challenges of
researchers in the domain of Internet infidelity is the appropriate
classification of potentially problematic behaviors (Jones &
Hertlein, 2012). The present study takes up this challenge, and
shows what offline and online partner behaviors evoke most jeal-
ousy and, in addition, what, in response to different partner behav-
iors, the emotional content of the jealousy experience is: betrayal/
anger and/or threat. This knowledge may provide clinicians more
insight in the emotions and their triggers that surround the infidel-
ity-related situations couples in relationship therapy or counseling
may cope with. In addition, with regard to extra-dyadic sex,
couples often lack explicit rules or agreement about these rules
(Dijkstra, 2011; Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). An effective inter-
vention can then be to set (new) rules about the boundaries of the
relationship and/or to negotiate about these rules and boundaries
(Snyder, Baucom & Coop Gordon, 2007). The partner behaviors
examined by this study may be used as a preliminary checklist that
may help identify those situations and/or partner behaviors about
which couples need to set some kind of rules.
In addition, depending on the specific potentially unfaithful
partner behavior, our findings suggest two avenues to interven-
tions that may help clients cope with issues surrounding a part-
ner’s (potential) infidelity. If a partner has engaged in behaviors
that our study shows to evoke relatively strong feelings of anger/
betrayal-related jealousy, such as cybersex, the therapist may, for
instance, help the betrayed individual by using interventions
aimed at anger management. In contrast, if a partner has engaged
in behaviors that our study shows to evoke relatively strong feel-
ings of threat-related jealousy, the therapist’s first aim may be to
help the individual regain a sense of security. This may be espe-
cially important in the treatment of women whose partner has
engaged in online extra-dyadic behaviors. A sense of security
may then be partially restored by helping women become more
skilled when it comes to using the computer. Improving their
computer skills may help women get a more realistic picture of
the possibilities but also restrictions of Internet as a means for
infidelity and help manage and limit worries and rumination.
Our study also implies that treatment in the case of (Internet)
infidelity, may need to include different interventions in the case
of homosexual clients. Although homosexuals – both men and
women – seem to experience less jealousy in response to a part-
ner’s infidelity than heterosexuals, this does not mean that the
relationship is less damaged by it. It may be that, in these cou-
ples, infidelity may create or strengthen the norm that ‘infidelity
is okay,’ and, in so doing, increase the risk that couples fall in
love with someone else and end the relationship. In the end this
may not be what both partners want.
334 P. Dijkstra et al. Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

30
28 (3)
(1)
26 (4)
(2)
24
22
(1) Heterosexual men
20
18 (2) Homosexual men

16 (3) Heterosexual women

14 (4) Homosexual women

12
10

Fig. 1. Mean Betrayal/Anger scores for heterosexual and homosexual men and women for the ten scenarios (Scenario 1 = partner has sex with some-
one else, Scenario 2 = partner has sex with someone else using webcam, Scenario 3 = partner has phone sex, Scenario 4 = partner watches Internet
porn, Scenario 5 = partner falls in love with someone else, Scenario 6 = partner falls in love through the Internet, Scenario 7 = partner shares feel-
ings and secrets online, Scenario 8 = partner shares strong emotional bond online, Scenario 9 = partner sends romantic emails, Scenario 10 = part-
ners sends SMSes on a regular basis).

26

24 (3)
(1)
22 (4)
(2)
20
(1) Heterosexual men
18
(2) Homosexual men
16
(3) Heterosexual women
14 (4) Homosexual women
12

10

Fig. 2. Mean Threat scores for heterosexual and homosexual men and women for the ten scenarios (Scenario 1 = partner has sex with someone else,
Scenario 2 = partner has sex with someone else using webcam, Scenario 3 = partner has phone sex, Scenario 4 = partner watches Internet porn, Sce-
nario 5 = partner falls in love with someone else, Scenario 6 = partner falls in love through the Internet, Scenario 7 = partner shares feelings and
secrets online, Scenario 8 = partner shares strong emotional bond online, Scenario 9 = partner sends romantic emails, Scenario 10 = partners sends
SMSes on a regular basis).

Limitations homosexual participants in general can be quite difficult. There-

The major limitations of the present study concern the represen-
tativeness of the subsamples, and the materials used. The subs-
amples were collected through the network of participating
students and the researchers, social network sites and targeted
mailings to homosexual participants. This will most likely have
resulted in non-representative samples of both heterosexual and
homosexual men and women. This is, for instance, reflected in
the high percentage of highly educated participants in all subs-
amples. On the other hand, recruiting a representative sample
of homosexuals appears to be an almost infeasible endeavor,
since we know little about the exact composition of the homo-
sexual population in the Netherlands, and because recruiting
fore, although we did succeed in collecting data from subsam-
ples that did not differ with regard to age and educational level,
it remains unclear to what extent the present study’s findings
can be generalized to other populations. In addition, we did not
ask for participant’s relationship status. It could be that people
who are in a relationship respond differently to the scenarios
than people who are single. Future studies might further
examine this issue.
In the present study, we used subscales for Betrayal/Anger
and Threat that are based on previous work (e.g., Buunk &
Dijkstra, 2004). There were moderate to strong relations between
these two subscales in the present study, and the validity of

© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
these subscales needs further examination. The ten scenarios that
we used were displayed in random order. It is possible, however,
that there was still some emotional spill-over between scenarios.
We did not examine this issue.
CONCLUSIONS
As noted before, despite its importance for, among other things,
the treatment of couples in the case of Internet infidelity, the
topic of Internet infidelity remains relatively understudied. The
present study contributes to the literature by examining the most
important offline and online partner behaviors that are likely to
elicit jealousy and the emotional content of these jealousy
responses among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Espe-
cially little is known about jealousy among homosexuals, in par-
ticular in response to Internet infidelity. Of course our study also
suffers from limitations. For instance, asking participants how
they would respond in the hypothetical situation that their part-
ner would be unfaithful may not generate responses that reliably
reflect how individuals would behave if infidelity would actually
occur to them. Nonetheless, these responses may provide an
index of how subjects tend to react to a comparable situation in
‘real’ life (Shettel-Neuber, Bryson & Young, 1978). Other meth-
ods carry with them a great deal of risk: attempts to create jeal-
ousy in existing relationships carry with them a great ethical risk
that may be difficult to justify, whereas attempts to observe natu-
rally occurring incidents of jealousy suffer from a lack of ade-
quate experimental control. Nonetheless, we hope our study
contributes to this goal and invites future studies to further elab-
orate on the jealousy-evoking effect of partner behaviors, espe-
cially those regarding a partner’s involvement with media and
Internet rivals.
REFERENCES
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y. & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of
gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of
human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.
Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2006). Reactive, anxious and possessive
forms of jealousy and their relation to relationship quality among
heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 51,
183–198.
Bringle, R. G. (1995). Sexual jealousy in the relationships of homosexual
and heterosexual men: 1980 and 1992. Personal Relationships, 2,
313–325.
Bringle, R. G. & Buunk, B. P. (1985). Jealousy and social behaviour: A
review of person, relationship and situational determinants. In P.
Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 241–
264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as neces-
sary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D. & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.
Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Buunk, B. P. & Dijkstra, P. (2001). Evidence from a homosexual sample
for a sex-specific rival-oriented mechanism: Jealousy as a function of
a rival’s physical attractiveness and dominance. Personal Relation-
ships, 8, 391–406.
Buunk, B. P. & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival character-
istics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infi-
delity. Personal Relationships, 11, 395–408.
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity 335
Buunk, B. P. & Van Driel, B. (1989). Variant lifestyles and relation-
ships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to
sexual versus emotional infidelity: Men and women are more similar
than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 25–37.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2006). De digitale economie [The digital
economy]. Voorburg: CBS.
De Graaf, A. (2006). Aantal echtscheidingen neemt weer toe [Number of
divorces is rising again]. Webmagazine Central Bureau of Statistics.
Retrieved 20 April, 2013 from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/
bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2006/2006-1862-wm.htm.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D. L. & Burg, R. (2000). Cybersex users, abus-
ers, and compulsives: New findings and implications. Sexual Addic-
tions and Compulsivity, 7, 5–29.
DeSteno, D. A. & Salovey, P. (1994). Jealousy in close relationships:
Multiple perspectives on the green-ey’d monster. In A. L. Weber &
J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 217–
242). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
DeSteno, D. A. & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differ-
ences in jealousy? Questioning the fitness of the model. Psychologi-
cal Science, 7, 367–372.
Dijkstra, P. (2011). Omgaan met ziekelijke jaloezie [Dealing with patho-
logical jealousy]. Houten: BSL.
Dijkstra, P. & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). Self and partner personality and
responses to relationship threats. Journal of Research in Personality,
42, 1500–1511.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H. & Groothof, H. K. (2010). An inventory
and update of jealousy-evoking partner behaviours in modern society.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 17, 329–345.
Dijkstra, P. & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival
characteristics: An evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–1166.
Dijkstra, P. & Buunk, B. P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy-evoking
effects of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 32, 829–852.
Dijkstra, P., Groothof, H. A. K., Poel, G. A., Laverman, T. T. G., Schrier,
M. & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in the events that elicit
jealousy among homosexuals. Personal Relationships, 8, 41–54.
Fessler, D. M. T. (2010). Madmen: An evolutionary perspective on anger
and men’s violent responses to transgression. In M. Potegal,
G. Stemmler & C. Spielberger (Eds.), International handbook of
anger: Constituent and concomitant biological, psychological, and
social processes (pp. 361–381). New York: Springer Science + Busi-
ness Media.
Freeman-Longo, R. E. & Blanchard, G. T. (1998). Sexual abuse in
America: Epidemic of the 21st century. Brandon, VT: Safer Society
Press.
Hawkins, R. O. (1990). The relationship between culture, personality,
and sexual jealousy in men in heterosexual and homosexual relation-
ships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 67–84.
Guadagno, R. E. & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy:
An evolutionary perspective on online infidelity. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 40, 2636–2655.
Groothof, H. A. K., Dijkstra, P. & Barelds, D. P. H. (2009). Sex differ-
ences in jealousy: The case of internet infidelity. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 26, 1119–1129.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and
homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7–12.
Hertlein, K. M. (2011). Therapeutic dilemmas in treating Internet infidel-
ity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 162–173.
Hertlein, K. M. & Piercy, F. P. (2006). Internet infidelity: A critical
review of the literature. The Family Journal, 14, 366–371.
Hertlein, K. M. & Stevenson, A. (2010). he seven “As” contributing to
Internet-related intimacy problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychol-
ogy, 4, 1–7.
Jones, K. E. & Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Four key dimensions for distin-
guishing internet infidelity from internet and sex addiction: Concepts
and clinical application. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40,
115–125.
336 P. Dijkstra et al.
Levy, K. N. & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A contri-
bution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21, 168–173.
Mathiak, K. & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural
behaviour: fMRI during violent video games. Human Brain Mapping,
27, 948–956.
Mazur, A., Susman, E. J. & Edelbrock, S. (1997). Sex differences in tes-
tosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 18, 317–326.
Melamed, T. (1991). Individual differences in romantic jealous: The
moderating effect of relationship characteristics. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 21, 455–461.
Mileham, B. L. A. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: An
ethnographic exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 11–31.
Pam, A. & Pearson, J. (1996). When marriage ends in a love triangle:
Jealousy, family polarization, effects on children. Journal of Divorce
and Remarriage, 25, 175–199.
Parrot, W. G. (1991). The emotional experience of envy and jealousy. In
P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–30).
New York: Guilford Press.
Parrott, W. G. & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of
envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
906–920.
Peplau, L. & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians,
gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.),
Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111–123). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pinkard, N. (2005). How the perceived masculinity and/or femininity of
software applications influences students’ software preferences.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 57–78.
Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T. & Shields, S. A. (2001). The gender
heuristic and the database: Factors affecting the perception of gender-
related differences in the experience and display of emotions. In W.
Parrott (Ed.), Emotions in social psychology: Essential readings (pp.
157–169). New York: Psychology Press.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L.,
Skowronski, J. J. & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33,
595–614.
Schneider, J. P. (2003). The impact of compulsive cybersex
behaviours on the family. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18,
329–354.
Seattle Organic SEO (2012). Top Google searches in 2012: The most
Popular keywords study v3. Retrieved from http://seattleorganicseo.
com/sosblog/top-google-searches-in-2012-the-most-popular-keywords-
study-version-3/
Sharpsteen, D. J. (1991). The organization of jealousy knowledge:
Romantic jealousy as a blended emotion. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 31–51). New York: Guilford
Press.
Sheets, V. L. & Wolfe, M. D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals,
lesbians, and gays. Sex Roles, 44, 255–276.
Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J.B. & Young, L. E. (1978). Physical attrac-
tiveness of the ‘other person’ and jealousy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4, 612–615.
Snyder, D. K., Baucom, D. H. & Coop Gorden, K. (2007). Getting past
the affair: A program to help you cope, heal, and move on – together
or apart. New York: Guilford Press.
Vandello, J. A. & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity:
Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010.
Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E. & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ per-
spectives of couple problems and treatment issues in couple therapy.
Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361–366.
Whitty, M. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s and women’s
attitudes toward online and offline infidelity. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 6, 569–579.
Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J. & Buchanan,
J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships
with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addition and
Compulsivity, 7, 59–74.
Received 4 October 2012, accepted 18 February 2013