2. Are these sex dif ferences found across
cultures?
Researchers have replicated
these sex differences in
Germany, the Netherlands,
and Korea (Buunk et al., 1996)
3.
4. JEALOUSY
1. DeSteno and Salovey (1996) have proposed that men and women dif
fer in their “beliefs” about sexual and emotional involvement.
2. When a man thinks that his partner is becoming sexually involved
with a rival, for example, he might also think that his partner will also be
getting emotionally involved with him—a so-called double shot of
infidelity.
3. Attitudes are of interest to social psychologists because they predict
behavior.a) You approach things you have positive attitude toward.
5. JEALOUSY
The reason men get more upset about sexual rather than emotional
infidelit , DeSteno and Salovey argue, is not because men are really
more jealous about sexual infidelity it’s because men “believe” that a
sexual infidelity will result in the double shot of infidelit , which
includes emotional infidelity .
6. JEALOUSY
Women, DeSteno and Salovey argue, have different beliefs,
although they fail to explain why. Women believe in a reverse
double-shot, that if their partners become emotionally involved
with a rival, they will also become sexually involved.
7. The evolutionary explanation opposes the
double-shot explanation.
Buss and his colleagues (1999) conducted
four empirical studies in three different
cultures to pit the predictions of
evolutionary theory against the
predictions of the double-shot hypothesis.
8. 1. N=1122 - liberal arts college in the southeastern US
The researchers asked them to imagine their partners becoming
interested in someone else and asked
(a) Imagining your partner forming a deep emotional
attachment to another person.(emotional infidelity)
(b) Imagining your partner enjoying passionate
sexual intercourse with another person. (sexual
infidelity)
10. 2. N= 234 women and men
They asked participants to imagine that their worst
nightmare had occurred—that their partners had
become both sexually and emotionally involved
with someone else.
87%/37% - E.I
63%/13% - S.I
11. Wiederman and Kendall concluded that, “contrary
to the double-shot explanation, choice of scenario
was unrelated to attitudes regarding whether the
other gender was capable of satisfying sexual
relations outside of a love relationship”
12. The double-shot theory cannot explain why these
sex differences are universal. Based on the available
evidence, the double-shot theory has failed to be
supported both from the cross-cultural findings and
from the studies that test its predictions in direct
competition with those from the evolutionary
theory.
13. After the belief theory of sex differences in jealousy
was repeatedly disproved, however , its original
authors appear to have abandoned it entirely .
Instead, they’ve changed their position and now
argue not for an alternative theory , but rather for
the idea that sex differences in jealousy are merely
an artifact of experimental conditions (DeSteno
14. These researchers placed participants under
conditions of “high cognitive load” with an extremely
distracting task and then found that under these
conditions, the usual sex differences failed to appear.
15. Indeed, researchers have concluded that “cognitive load” manipulations are
poor methods for testing evolutionary hypotheses about jealousy using the
scenario paradigm.
=
16. In a recent ingenious study , for example, Schutzwohl
and Koch (2004) used an entirely new method that has never
been used in jealousy research.
They had participants listen to a story about their own
romantic relationship in which an infidelity was said to have
occurred
Sexual infidelity Emotional infidelity
17. • He suddenly has difficulty becoming sexually
aroused when you and he want to have sex - 5 cues
• He doesn’ t respond any more when you tell him
that you love him - 5 cues .
• In a surprise recall test a week later .
29%/40% - E.I
42%/24% - S.I
18. These findings support the hypothesis that sex differences in
jealousy are quite real, and cannot be dismissed as an
“experimental artifact” (Schutzwohl & Koch, 2004).
