Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

www.jsecjournal.com
org - 2008, 2 (3): 133-143.

Brief Report

DOES THE BIG-5 RELATE TO JEALOUSY,

OR INFIDELITY REACTIONS?

T. Joel Wade*
Hannah Walsh
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Bucknell University
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

A version of this paper was presented at the 1st Annual NorthEastern Evolutionary
Psychology Society Conference, SUNY-New Paltz, April 12-14, 2007.

Abstract
Two studies explored whether or not personal experiences of romantic jealousy relate to
individual differences in personality by means of the Big Five model of personality.
Study 1 examined how scores on the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale relate to the Big 5
dimensions of personality. Seventy-one participants were administered the Interpersonal
Adjective Scale Revised: Big Five version (IASR-B5; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), the
Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS; Mathes & Severa, 1981), and a shortened version of
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Study 2
examined how reactions to emotional and sexual infidelity relate to the Big-5 dimensions
of personality. Seventy-seven participants were administered the IASR-B5 and Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale, as well as infidelity scenarios that described either an
emotional or sexual infidelity situation (Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). Exploratory
hypotheses suggesting that Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness to experience might
be predictors of: jealousy (Study 1), and reactions to a partner’s commission of sexual
and emotional infidelity (Study 2) were not confirmed. The Big-5 dimensions of
personality were not related to jealousy scores or reactions to infidelity. The implications
of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: Infidelity, Personality, Big-5, Jealousy

Jealousy is an adaptive emotion, which has evolved due to its provision of

relationship and mating benefits (Buss, 2000). From an evolutionary psychological
perspective, those who are in danger of losing their romantic partner to a rival face the
loss of their partner’s reproductive benefits. Furthermore, attempts at mate poaching are
not only relatively common, but are considered to be fairly effective (Buss & Schmitt,
2001). Jealousy has therefore evolved to serve an obvious purpose – to deter a partner’s

AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct all correspondence to: T. Joel Wade, Chair and Professor of
Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837. E-mail: jwade@bucknell.edu
©2008 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

133
 Jealousy and the Big-5

infidelity – and may act as a universal human mechanism of mate guarding and mate
retention.
Men and women are primed to perceive subtle indicators of potential infidelity,
which in turn trigger jealousy suspicions (Buss, 2000). Research has identified a variety
of specific cues that cause men and women to suspect their partner of either sexual or
emotional infidelity (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). They include a wide range of actions
that vary in their nature and magnitude, such as uncharacteristic displays of anger or
exaggerated displays of affection (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). In eliciting a jealousy
response, these cues cause the partner perceiving them to engage in mate retention
tactics, for example, a male’s display of economic and material resources, or a female’s
enhancement of her physical appearance (Buss, 1988; Shackelford, Goetz, & Buss,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2005). Mate retention tactics in turn signal commitment to the partner straying, provide
positive inducement for him or her to remain in the exclusive relationship, and effectively
act to deter their infidelity (Buss, 2000). By maintaining the parental bond in this way,
the mechanism of jealousy preserves parental investment and ensures optimal care for
offspring. From an evolutionary standpoint, those who lack the mechanism of jealousy
would be at a disadvantage in mate retention and would face an obvious shortcoming in
mating and reproduction (Buss, 2000). However, although most people have felt
jealousy, individuals respond to potential jealousy-evoking situations in different ways.
A situation that may distress and elicit a great amount of jealousy in one person may be
insignificant to another.
Most theories on romantic jealousy and individual differences concern the sex
difference that exists between male and female responses to emotional versus sexual
infidelity. Many studies have supported that men are more upset by a partner’s sexual
infidelity, while women are more upset by emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Weston, &
Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss 1996; Cramer, Abraham,
Johnson, & Manning-Ryan, 2001-2002; Goldenberg et al., 2003; Harris & Christenfeld,
1996, 1998; Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens & Thompson, 2002; Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno,
Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003; Schützwohl, 2004, 2005, 2006; Wiederman & Allgeier,
1993; Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). Evolutionary psychologists attribute this difference
to be the result of the qualitatively different ways that males and females invest in their
offspring. Due to the fact that they face an uncertainty of paternity, men are likely to
experience more jealousy in response to a partner’s sexual infidelity than emotional
infidelity (Buss et al., 1992). This type of infidelity by a female results in reproductive
costs for the male, in that the resources he contributes to his partner and her offspring
may be for progeny that are not his own. Women, on the other hand, are more sensitive
and threatened by a male’s emotional infidelity. While a woman’s maternity is
indisputable, her concern lies with her partner’s commitment to provide resources to her
and her offspring (Buss et al., 1992). Emotional infidelity signals a threat to the male’s
commitment and to the key resources he provides. Evolutionary psychology credits men
and women’s differing jealousy responses to be adaptations developed to guard against
their respective infidelity concerns (Buss et al., 1992). While numerous studies have
attested to a gender difference in what triggers the jealousy response, however, several
researchers have also challenged and contradicted this theory (Bassett, 2005; Geary,
Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995; Sabini & Greene, 2004; Sabini & Silver, 2003;
Shackelford, Le Blanc, & Drass, 2000; Wade & Fowler, 2006). Such inconsistency
suggests that it might be beneficial to consider individual differences in jealousy that go
beyond that of gender. Specifically, since gender differences are not consistently

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

134
 Jealousy and the Big-5

observed there may be other individual difference variables that could more consistently
show differential responses to jealousy.
Attachment style has often been recognized as an influential factor and predictor
of individual differences in the jealousy experience (Guerrero, 1998; Sharpsteen &
Kirkpatrick, 1997; Buunk, 1997; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Jealous persons have also been
found to be sensitizers, with a low threshold for emotional material and threat, and
nonscreeners, with a tendency to attend and respond to irrelevant or unimportant stimuli
(Bringle & Williams, 1979).
But, does personality play a role in jealousy reactions? Personality plays a role
in many areas of life (Larsen & Buss, 2002), in mate selection (Buss & Barnes, 1986;
Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006), and in marital satisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1997) and personality is linked to reproductively relevant characteristics that play role in
mate selection (Buss, 2008). Thus, one would expect personality characteristics to be
linked to jealousy.
Not surprisingly, some research has attempted to identify specific qualities of
people who have a propensity to feel jealous. Jealousy has been debated as being related
to personal qualities such as neuroticism, social anxiety, rigidity, hostility, self-esteem,
and birth order (see White & Mullen, 1989; Buunk, 1982, 1997; Mathes, Roter, &
Joerger, 1982; Bush, Bush, & Jennings, 1988; Jaremko & Lindsey, 1979; Stanislaw,
2004; Melamed, 1991). On the whole, a number of relevant personality traits have been
identified in the study of jealousy; however, they are somewhat scattered among the
research. Few, if any, studies have endeavored to utilize an established model or measure
of personality with this objective in mind. The present study further explores the
relationship between romantic jealousy and personality using the five-factor model of
personality.
Numerous taxonomies of personality traits have been proposed in the past
century; however, the five-factor model – also referred to as the Big Five – has attracted
the most recognition and support from personality psychologists (Larsen & Buss, 2002).
The Big Five model is comprised of five dimensions of personality on which people vary
continuously: I. Extraversion, II. Agreeableness, III. Conscientiousness, IV. Neuroticism,
and V. Openness to experience. Extensive empirical research maintains that not only is
the model an accurate measure of personality, but its dimensions are also stable over
one’s lifespan (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999) and somewhat heritable (Loehlin, McCrae, Costa,
& John, 1998).
Since jealous persons have been found to be sensitizers, with a low threshold for
emotional material and threat, and jealousy has been debated as being related to personal
qualities such as neuroticism, and social anxiety, (see White & Mullen, 1989; Buunk,
1982, 1997; Mathes, Roter, & Joerger, 1982; Bush, Bush, & Jennings, 1988; Jaremko &
Lindsey, 1979; Stanislaw, 2004; Melamed, 1991), one would expect the Neuroticism
dimension of the Big-5 to be a significant predictor of overall jealousy. Also, since
Schmitt and Buss (2001) report that extraverts and those open to experience are more
likely to have received mate poaching attraction attempts, Extraversion and Openness to
experience might also be expected to be predictors of jealousy. Additionally, a similar
pattern of findings would be expected such that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness
to experience would be predictors of reactions to a partner’s commission of sexual and
emotional infidelity. The present exploratory research endeavored to examine these
hypotheses. Specifically, we sought to determine whether or not there is a relationship
between the five dimensions of personality and individual experiences of romantic

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

135
 Jealousy and the Big-5

jealousy in two studies, using the Interpersonal Adjective Scale Revised: Big Five
Version (IASR-B5) developed by Trapnell and Wiggins (1990). The IASR-B5 is
affirmed to be “well-suited for exploratory research in relatively unchartered domains for
which specific hypotheses regarding individual differences variables are lacking”
(Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990, p. 788). Thus, its use was deemed appropriate in the current
research. In Study 1, we explored whether a relationship existed between scores on the
IASR-B5 and a measurement of romantic jealousy, via the Interpersonal Jealousy Scale
(IJS) constructed by Mathes and Severa (1981). The IJS is a well-established scale in the
existent research on jealousy and serves to measure individual differences in this realm.
In consideration of the debated gender difference that is documented regarding type of
infidelity, Study 2 was designed to determine whether there are individual differences in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

personality associated with the level of upset caused by the sexual versus emotional
infidelity of one’s partner. Participants in Study 2 completed the IASR-B5 and
responded to two hypothetical infidelity scenarios that were either sexual or emotional in
nature.

STUDY 1
Method

Participants

Participants were 35 men and 36 women present on campus during the summer
session of 2006. The age range of participants was 18-58, M = 21.00, SD = 4.87.
Participants were recruited from various places on campus and were not given
compensation for their voluntary participation.

Procedure

In Study 1, participants received a basic survey that included demographic

questions regarding: age, sex, sexual orientation, sexual history, relationship status, and
medication/birth-control use. They were also asked to complete the Interpersonal
Adjective Scale Revised: Big Five Version (IASR-B5; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), the
Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS; Mathes & Severa, 1981), and a shortened version of
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). The IASR-B5
is a self-report measure in which 92 adjectives are rated on a scale from 1 to 8 according
to how well they describe an individual (1 = extremely inaccurate, 8 = extremely
accurate). The 92 adjectives of the IASR-B5 provide markers for each of the five
dimensions of the five-factor model of personality: extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The IJS is a 28-item scale
that asks participants to express their agreement with a statement describing their
response to potential jealousy-provoking situations involving their partner. Participants
respond to each item using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = absolutely false/disagree
completely to 9 = absolutely true/agree completely). The sum of the 28 items serves as
the jealousy score. The final questionnaire is a 10-item short-form version of the well-
known Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, constructed by Strahan and Gerbasi
(1972). This measure was taken to determine if social desirability biases were operating
in participants’ responses.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

136
 Jealousy and the Big-5

Order of the IASR-B5 and IJS was varied in order to counterbalance any possible
order of presentation effects. The Social Desirability measure always came last in the
series of the questionnaires.
Results

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the Big-5 dimensions,
overall jealousy score, and social desirability score. First correlations between the big-5
dimensions, overall jealousy and social desirability were examined, see Table 2. Table 2
shows that most of the Big-5 dimensions are not correlated with the overall jealousy
score. Next, a multiple regression was computed to determine which if any Big-5
dimensions predicted the jealousy score. In addition, to see if social desirability biases
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

were operating a multiple regression including the interaction terms for the social
desirability score and the Big-5 dimensions was computed to see if social desirability
biases were operating. No significant predictors of jealousy emerged and there were no
significant effects for the social desirability scale or the social desirability and Big-5
interaction terms.

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Big-5 Dimensions, Overall
Jealousy, and Social Desirability for Study 1.

Item Mean SD
Extraversion 4.46 .54
Agreeableness 4.39 .40
Conscientiousness 4.48 .35
Neuroticism 4.64 .46
Openness 4.54 .34
Jealousy 133.21 27.79
Social Desirability 5.20 1.89
Note: higher numbers mean more: extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, neurotic, open,
jealous, or prone to socially desirable responding.

Table 2. Correlations Between Big-5 Dimensions and Overall Jealousy.

Item Jealousy
Extraversion .11
Agreeableness .13
Conscientiousness .08
Neuroticism .12
Openness -.08

A series of logistic regressions were also computed across birth control usage for
women, medication usage, relationship status, sexual history, sex of participant, and
scenario order. No significant predictors emerged for any of these variables.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

137
 Jealousy and the Big-5

STUDY 2

Method

Participants

Participants were 40 men and 37 women. The age range of participants was 18-
50, M = 20.00, SD = 3.91. As in Study 1, participants were recruited from various places
on campus or through the psychology department participant pool. They were not given
compensation for their voluntary participation. Additionally, there was no participant
overlap between Studies 1 and 2.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Procedure

Participants in Study 2 received the same survey regarding demographic

questions that was given in Study 1, and were also asked to complete the IASR-B5 and
Social Desirability questionnaires. They were also asked to read and respond to two
hypothetical infidelity scenarios from Wiederman and Kendall (1999) that described
either an emotional or sexual infidelity situation. These scenarios were designed to
control for the double-shot hypothesis. Participants were asked to rate their expected
level of upset in response to each scenario on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 = not upset and 7
= very upset, and were reassured that their responses would be kept confidential and
anonymous. The order of the scenarios as well as the order of the scenarios with respect
to the IASR-B5 questionnaire was varied to control for any possible order of presentation
effects. The Social Desirability measure always came last in the series of the
questionnaires.

Results

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the Big-5 dimensions, upset
in response to the scenarios, and social desirability. A series of repeated measures
ANOVAs were computed across birth control usage for women, medication usage,
relationship status, sexual history, sex, and scenario order. No significant effects
occurred for any of these variables. Next, correlations among the Big-5 dimensions and
upset in response to each scenario were examined (see Table 4). Table 4 shows that the
Big-5 dimensions are not correlated with the level of upset experienced in response to
sexual or emotional infidelity. Next, multiple regressions were computed for each of the
infidelity scenarios. Social desirability was also included as a predictor in each
regression model. No significant predictors emerged for either the emotional or sexual
infidelity regression models.
To see if the scenarios differed in the amount of upset experienced, a repeated
measures ANOVA was computed. The ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the
level of upset for the scenarios, F(1, 73) = 13.23, p< .001, observed power = .95, eta2 =
.15. Overall, sexual infidelity was more upsetting than emotional infidelity, M = 6.24, SD
= 1.04, versus M = 5.62, SD = 1.06, for sexual and emotional infidelity, respectively.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

138
 Jealousy and the Big-5

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Big-5 Dimensions, Upset in
response to Sexual and Emotional infidelity, and Social Desirability.

Item Mean SD
Extraversion 4.45 .55
Agreeableness 4.36 .40
Conscientiousness 4.47 .32
Neuroticism 4.56 .49
Openness 4.48 .44
Sexual Infidelity 6.23 1.04
Emotional Infidelity 5.62 1.06
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Social Desirability 4.76 2.28

Note: higher numbers mean more: extroverted, agreeable, conscientious, neurotic, open,
upset, or prone to socially desirable responding.

Table 4. Correlations Between Big-5 Dimensions, and Upset in Response to Sexual

and Emotional Infidelity.

Item Sexual Infidelity Emotional Infidelity

Extraversion .12 -.16
Agreeableness .14 .06
Conscientiousness .09 .03
Neuroticism .16 .08
Openness .15 .16

Discussion

The current research was exploratory, investigating how several correlates of

personality relate to jealousy. The purpose was to expand on previous research
concerning personality traits of individuals prone to jealousy by utilizing a respected
model and measure of personality. The first study examined the relationship between the
five main dimensions of personality, as maintained by the established Big Five model,
and susceptibility to jealousy. Results revealed that susceptibility to jealousy is not
related to any of the Big-5 dimensions of personality. The second study further explored
the relationship between jealousy and personality by considering responses to specific
types of infidelity - emotional and sexual. Individual differences in personality, as
indicated by the IASR-B5, were not related to level of upset in response to sexual or
emotional infidelity. The findings in study 2 did reveal that sexual infidelity was more
upsetting than emotional infidelity overall. Additionally, consistent with prior research,
mean levels of upset in study 2 did not reveal a sex difference in which females reported
more upset by emotional infidelity (Bassett, 2005; Geary et al., 1995; Sabini & Greene,
2004; Sabini & Silver, 2005; Wade & Fowler, 2006). Research suggests this result to be
due to the short-term mating context indicated by the infidelity scenarios (Mathes, 2005;
Wade & Fowler, 2006) and the use of continuous rather than categorical measures
(Harris, 2003).

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

139
 Jealousy and the Big-5

The lack of relationships between personality and jealousy may be due to the
manner in which relationship status was taken into consideration in the present research.
Melamed (1991) found that although the personality traits of self-esteem and neuroticism
had a significant effect on romantic jealousy, the relationship was mediated by
relationship status and length. Mathes and Severa (1981) concurrently state that
“variables concerning relationship seem to be much more important than those
concerning personality” (p. 29). In the present research, only a general relationship status
was taken into account by asking participants to place themselves into one of the
following categories: single, in a relationship, married, or unsure. Consequently, many
participants who were not involved in relationships were then asked to imagine that they
were, while those in relationships of varying length and stability were categorized
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

together. This may have affected responses in the current study. With Melamed’s (1991)
research in mind, it may be beneficial for future studies measuring romantic jealousy to
specifically consider individuals of comparable relationship status and length, prior to
considering their individual differences in jealousy.
Additionally, the samples for the 2 studies were small and the large majority of
participants in the present research were undergraduate students at a private university in
the northeastern United States. Wade and Fowler (2006) found that college students are
most upset by a partner’s commission of sexual infidelity. Incidentally, the jealousy
experience in the current sample may not be representative of the general population.
Consideration of a larger and more diverse subject pool, in age, location, race, and sexual
orientation, would add to the validity and generalization of any results that were found in
this study. Characteristics of the rival, such as attractiveness and status, have also been
found to influence the emotional reactions people experience in response to jealousy-
inducing situations (Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998, 2002; Wade & Fowler, 2006) and are also
worth consideration. Furthermore, it would be interesting for future work in this area to
focus on individuals who have actually experienced such jealousy inducing situations and
take into account their true-life jealousy experience.
While the present research was exploratory and has limitations, taken as a whole,
the current study provides interesting implications for future research on the subject of
personality and romantic jealousy. One such implication is that susceptibility to jealousy
is not related to an individual’s underlying personality dimensions. A further implication
is that reactions to different types of infidelity are also not affected by an individual’s
underlying personality dimensions. Taken together these implications suggest that
jealousy is such an important adaptation that it is not affected by personality traits.
Regardless of personality type, if an individual does not experience jealousy she or he is
in danger of losing their mate. From an evolutionary psychological perspective,
individuals have therefore evolved a jealous reaction to serve an obvious purpose – to
deter a partner’s infidelity – and this reaction is enacted as a universal human mechanism
of mate guarding and mate retention. The use of additional measures of jealousy and the
five factor model of personality may allow one to further elucidate the validity of this
implication regarding the potential relationship between jealousy and personality or lack
there of.

Received May 16, 2007; Revision received February 29, 2008; Accepted August 11, 2008

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

140
 Jealousy and the Big-5

References

Bassett, J. F. (2005). Sex difference in jealousy in response to a partner’s imagined sexual

or emotional infidelity with a same or different race other. North American
Journal of Psychology, 7(1): 71-84.
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate
preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Personality, 65: 107-136.
Bringle, R. G., & Williams, L. J. (1979). Parental-offspring similarity on jealousy and
related personality dimensions. Motivation and Emotion, 3: 265-286.
Bush, C. R., Bush, J. P., & Jennings, J. (1988). Effects of jealousy threats on relationship
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

perceptions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5: 285-

303.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Third
Edition. Boston: Pearson Press.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American
undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9: 291-317.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love and
Sex. New York: The Free Press.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4):
251-255.
Buunk, B. P. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship to self-esteem,
dependency, and reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8: 310-
316.
Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order, and attachment styles as related to various
types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23: 997-1006.
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in
jealousy in evolutionary perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and
the United States. Psychological Science, 7(6): 359-363.
Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2001-2002).
Gender differences in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity:
Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology:
Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20(4): 327-336.
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 the jealousy-evoking effect of
rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6): 829-852.
Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995). Sexual jealousy
as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex difference in adults from
China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16: 355-383.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of
romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5: 273-291.
Goldenberg, J. L., Landau, M. J., Pyszczynski, T., Cox, C. R., Greenberg, J., Solomon,
S., & Dunnam, H. (2003). Gender-typical responses to sexual and emotional
infidelity as a function of mortality salience induced self-esteem striving.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12): 1585-1595.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

141
 Jealousy and the Big-5

Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report

data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid
jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 102-128.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psychological
Science, 7(6): 364-366.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 511-524.
Jaremko, M. E., & Lindsey, R. (1979). Stress-coping abilities of individuals high and low
in jealousy. Psychological Reports, 44: 547-553.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge
About Human Nature. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Little, A.C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived
personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40: 973-984.
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of
common and measure-specific components of the Big Five personality factors.
Journal of Research in Personality, 32: 431-453.
Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual strategies and sexual
jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96(1): 29-35.
Mathes, E. W., Roter, P. M., & Joerger, S. M. (1982). A convergent validity study of six
jealousy scales. Psychological Reports, 50: 1143-1147.
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: Theoretical
considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Assessment, 4:
5-13.
Melamed, T. (1991). Individual differences in romantic jealousy: The moderating effect
of relationship characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21: 455-
461.
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences
in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-
scale, and physiological responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 23: 83-94.
Sabini, J., & Greene, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional
infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11): 1375-1388.
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (2005). Gender and jealousy: Stories of infidelity. Cognition and
Emotion, 19(5): 713-727.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003).
Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy. The moderating influence of
infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 24(1): 17-23.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for
infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
894-917.
Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which type of infidelity makes you more jealous? Decision
strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emotional infidelity.
Evolutionary Psychology, 2: 121-128.
Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 26: 288-299.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

142
 Jealousy and the Big-5

Schützwohl, A. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy: Information search and cognitive

preoccupation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 285-292.
Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23: 1034-1045.
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Mate retention in marriage:
Further evidence of the reliability of the Mate Retention Inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39: 415-425.
Shackelford, T. K., Le Blanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity.
Cognition and Emotion, 14(5): 643-659.
Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3): 627-640.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A
45-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208-232.
Stanislaw, K. (2004). Conditionings of jealousy. Pedagogika: 40-43.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-
Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28: 191-193.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to
include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(4): 781-790.
Wade, T. J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in responses to sexual and emotional
infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness and financial status. Journal of
Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4: 37-50.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy:
Adaptionist or social learning explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2):
115-140.
Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy: Investigation
with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20: 121-128.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, Research, and Clinical
Strategies. New York: Guilford Press.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 2(3). 2008.

143