This document summarizes a research study that explored jealousy within family relationships. The study found that over half of respondents reported experiencing a jealousy incident involving a family member, most commonly a sister. Respondents reported feeling hurt, upset, or angry in response. While discussion was a common coping strategy, increased independence was also reported. Jealousy incidents were associated with marginally lower relationship satisfaction. The study provides preliminary insights into the experience and expression of jealousy within families.
Article Summary Table â Template 2
Full Reference
Research Question(s)
Sample
Method
Data
Findings
Evaluation
Smetana, J. G., & Gettman, D. C. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness with parents and romantic development in African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1347-1351. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1347
1. Less autonomy and more relatedness in early adolescence would lead to later starting of romantic relationships and better quality romantic relationships, including more supportive and less negative romantic relationships during late adolescence.
2. Early adolescents with high levels of relatedness to parents and low to moderate levels of autonomy in family decision making would report later starting of romantic careers and more positive romantic relationships five years later than would other youth.
The study sample involved seventy-six middle-class adolescents (half female, half male) of the African American race of the final wave of the study. These adolescents were in various phases of their lives with some in their junior or senior year of high school, some in the process of enrolling in college, some already enrolled in college, some employed, and some in the military. It is important to note that nearly one hundred percent of these adolescents described themselves as being single. With the middle-class parents who were included, majority of them had some college instruction, over half grossed over seventy thousand dollars a year, and about half were in steady marriages for longer than the time the study was conducted.
This research was a qualitative method because it gave a thorough understanding of the research topic; it used the populationâs point of view; and it focused on the opinions and behaviors of the population.
There were three waves. For the first wave, an interview was given. Wave three involved questionnaires five years after the first wave. No information was specified about wave two.
Data collected focused on autonomy and relatedness on different levels. Measures that were used during research included interviews and questionnaires/surveys. The type of data that was collected within the interview was the evaluation of autonomy and relatedness. There were numerous questionnaires/surveys given to the subjects.
Those that were used included a scale for family decision making for the autonomy aspect of research, the Trust and Communication subscales of the Parent-Peer Attachment Inventory, the Romantic History Survey, and the Network of Relationships Inventory.
The scale that was used for family decision making assessed just that. The Trust and Communication subscales of the Parent-Peer Attachment Inventory measured closeness and connection to parents. The Romantic History Survey determined romantic involvement. The Network of Relationships Inventory calculated positive social support and undesirable interactions.
The authors Smetana and Gettman (2006) clarified their results in a cl.
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State UniversityAmbivalence in GayAlleneMcclendon878
Â
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University
Ambivalence in Gay and Lesbian Family
Relationships
Intergenerational ambivalenceâthe simulta-
neous presence of both positive and negative
dimensions of a parentâchild tieâis a con-
cept widely used in family studies. Scholars
have clarified the measurement of psycho-
logical ambivalence, or an individualâs own
feelings of ambivalence toward others. Yet
research has yet to demonstrate whetherâand,
if so, howâindividuals characterize others as
ambivalent. Moreover, relatively little is known
about ambivalence in gay and lesbian families.
In the present study 60 in-depth interviews
were analyzed to identify what the author calls
perceived ambivalence in the parent, sibling,
extended kin, and âin-lawâ relationships of
gay and lesbian adults. Perceived ambivalence
is revealed through gay and lesbian adultsâ
characterizations of family membersâ simulta-
neous positive and negative overt and covert
beliefs and behavior. In addition, the author
refines the concept of collective ambivalence,
wherein perceived ambivalence typifies an
entire family unit. The findings further revealed
the importance of broader sociological factors,
such as homophobia, in structuring perceived
ambivalence.
Over the past decade, intergenerational ambiva-
lence has emerged as a central concept for
Department of Sociology, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil
Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43202 ([email protected]).
This article was edited by Kevin M. Roy.
Key Words: ambivalence, gay and lesbian families, intergen-
erational relationships, mid- to late life, qualitative research.
understanding relationships between adult chil-
dren and their parents (LĂŒscher & Pillemer,
1998). Intergenerational ambivalence brings
together psychological ambivalenceâthe simul-
taneous experience of opposing feelings or
emotions (Bleuler, 1922)âand sociological
ambivalenceâincompatible and conflicting
expectations and norms of behavior, beliefs, and
attitudes (Connidis, 2015; Merton & Barber,
1963)âto articulate how parents and adult chil-
dren experience âopposing feelings or emotions
that are due in part to countervailing expec-
tationsâ for how each generation should act
(Connidis & McMullin, 2002b, p. 558; LĂŒscher
& Pillemer, 1998). A significant body of work
demonstrates that, much like positive and neg-
ative parentâchild relationships, ambivalent
intergenerational relationships are negatively
related to psychological well-being (Kiecolt,
Blieszner, & Savla, 2011; Suitor, Gilligan, &
Pillemer, 2011), which may in turn lead to stress
spillover and proliferation into other domains
of family life (Pearlin, Aneshensel, & LeBlanc,
1997).
Despite important advances in the ambiva-
lence construct, significant gaps remain. First,
the focus has been nearly entirely on indi-
vidual feelings of psychological ambivalence
toward others, with little attention to the pres-
ence and operation of sociological ambivalence
(Connidis, 2015). Second, a focus on individu ...
Article Summary Table â Template 2
Full Reference
Research Question(s)
Sample
Method
Data
Findings
Evaluation
Smetana, J. G., & Gettman, D. C. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness with parents and romantic development in African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1347-1351. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1347
1. Less autonomy and more relatedness in early adolescence would lead to later starting of romantic relationships and better quality romantic relationships, including more supportive and less negative romantic relationships during late adolescence.
2. Early adolescents with high levels of relatedness to parents and low to moderate levels of autonomy in family decision making would report later starting of romantic careers and more positive romantic relationships five years later than would other youth.
The study sample involved seventy-six middle-class adolescents (half female, half male) of the African American race of the final wave of the study. These adolescents were in various phases of their lives with some in their junior or senior year of high school, some in the process of enrolling in college, some already enrolled in college, some employed, and some in the military. It is important to note that nearly one hundred percent of these adolescents described themselves as being single. With the middle-class parents who were included, majority of them had some college instruction, over half grossed over seventy thousand dollars a year, and about half were in steady marriages for longer than the time the study was conducted.
This research was a qualitative method because it gave a thorough understanding of the research topic; it used the populationâs point of view; and it focused on the opinions and behaviors of the population.
There were three waves. For the first wave, an interview was given. Wave three involved questionnaires five years after the first wave. No information was specified about wave two.
Data collected focused on autonomy and relatedness on different levels. Measures that were used during research included interviews and questionnaires/surveys. The type of data that was collected within the interview was the evaluation of autonomy and relatedness. There were numerous questionnaires/surveys given to the subjects.
Those that were used included a scale for family decision making for the autonomy aspect of research, the Trust and Communication subscales of the Parent-Peer Attachment Inventory, the Romantic History Survey, and the Network of Relationships Inventory.
The scale that was used for family decision making assessed just that. The Trust and Communication subscales of the Parent-Peer Attachment Inventory measured closeness and connection to parents. The Romantic History Survey determined romantic involvement. The Network of Relationships Inventory calculated positive social support and undesirable interactions.
The authors Smetana and Gettman (2006) clarified their results in a cl.
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State UniversityAmbivalence in GayAlleneMcclendon878
Â
Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University
Ambivalence in Gay and Lesbian Family
Relationships
Intergenerational ambivalenceâthe simulta-
neous presence of both positive and negative
dimensions of a parentâchild tieâis a con-
cept widely used in family studies. Scholars
have clarified the measurement of psycho-
logical ambivalence, or an individualâs own
feelings of ambivalence toward others. Yet
research has yet to demonstrate whetherâand,
if so, howâindividuals characterize others as
ambivalent. Moreover, relatively little is known
about ambivalence in gay and lesbian families.
In the present study 60 in-depth interviews
were analyzed to identify what the author calls
perceived ambivalence in the parent, sibling,
extended kin, and âin-lawâ relationships of
gay and lesbian adults. Perceived ambivalence
is revealed through gay and lesbian adultsâ
characterizations of family membersâ simulta-
neous positive and negative overt and covert
beliefs and behavior. In addition, the author
refines the concept of collective ambivalence,
wherein perceived ambivalence typifies an
entire family unit. The findings further revealed
the importance of broader sociological factors,
such as homophobia, in structuring perceived
ambivalence.
Over the past decade, intergenerational ambiva-
lence has emerged as a central concept for
Department of Sociology, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil
Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43202 ([email protected]).
This article was edited by Kevin M. Roy.
Key Words: ambivalence, gay and lesbian families, intergen-
erational relationships, mid- to late life, qualitative research.
understanding relationships between adult chil-
dren and their parents (LĂŒscher & Pillemer,
1998). Intergenerational ambivalence brings
together psychological ambivalenceâthe simul-
taneous experience of opposing feelings or
emotions (Bleuler, 1922)âand sociological
ambivalenceâincompatible and conflicting
expectations and norms of behavior, beliefs, and
attitudes (Connidis, 2015; Merton & Barber,
1963)âto articulate how parents and adult chil-
dren experience âopposing feelings or emotions
that are due in part to countervailing expec-
tationsâ for how each generation should act
(Connidis & McMullin, 2002b, p. 558; LĂŒscher
& Pillemer, 1998). A significant body of work
demonstrates that, much like positive and neg-
ative parentâchild relationships, ambivalent
intergenerational relationships are negatively
related to psychological well-being (Kiecolt,
Blieszner, & Savla, 2011; Suitor, Gilligan, &
Pillemer, 2011), which may in turn lead to stress
spillover and proliferation into other domains
of family life (Pearlin, Aneshensel, & LeBlanc,
1997).
Despite important advances in the ambiva-
lence construct, significant gaps remain. First,
the focus has been nearly entirely on indi-
vidual feelings of psychological ambivalence
toward others, with little attention to the pres-
ence and operation of sociological ambivalence
(Connidis, 2015). Second, a focus on individu ...
The Effect of Family Communication Patterns on AdoptedAdoles.docxcherry686017
Â
The Effect of Family Communication Patterns on Adopted
Adolescent Adjustment
Martha A. Rueter and
Department of Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108 ([email protected])
Ascan F. Koerner
Department of Communication Studies, 244 Ford Hall, 224 Church St. S.E., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis MN 55455
Abstract
Adoption and family communication both affect adolescent adjustment. We proposed that adoption
status and family communication interact such that adopted adolescents in families with certain
communication patterns are at greater risk for adjustment problems. We tested this hypothesis using
a community-based sample of 384 adoptive and 208 nonadoptive families. Adolescents in these
families were, on average, 16 years of age. The results supported our hypothesis. Adopted adolescents
were at significantly greater risk for adjustment problems compared to nonadopted adolescents in
families that emphasized conformity orientation without conversation orientation and in families that
emphasized neither conformity nor conversation orientation. Adolescents in families emphasizing
conversation orientation were at lower risk for adjustment problems, regardless of adoption status.
Keywords
adjustment; adolescents; adoption; family communication patterns
Recent changes in the modern family have led researchers to pay closer attention to the growing
complexity of family structures, such as step-families, families formed through assisted
reproduction, and adoptive families. Recent reviews attest to particular interest in adoptive
families and in adopted child adjustment (cf. Bimmel, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-
Kranenburg, 2003; Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005; Lee, 2003; OâBrien & Zamostny, 2003;
van IJ-zendoorn, Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005). These reviews compared adopted,
nonadopted, domestically adopted, and internationally adopted youth on several adjustment
dimensions, including internalizing and externalizing problems, attachment to parents, and
academic achievement. Overall, these reviews reported that most adopted children and
adolescents were well adjusted. A small but notable group, however, experienced significant
behavioral or mental health problems. It is this group that may account for mean differences
in adjustment that often are observed in studies comparing adopted to biological children
(Bimmel et al.; Brand & Brinich, 1999).
Differences in adjustment for this small group have generally been attributed to a number of
factors unique to adopted children. For example, relative to nonadoptees, adopted children
have more likely experienced early childhood adversity that can result in developmental delays
Correspondence to: Ascan F. Koerner.
This article was edited by Cheryl Buehler.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 August 1.
Published in final edited form as:
J Marriage Fam. 2008 August ; 70(3 ...
Dyadic Coping and Attachment Dimensions in Young Adult Romantic RelationshipsAJHSSR Journal
Â
ABSTRACT: Dyadic coping conceives coping as a response in which partners support each other
and cope with stress as a couple rather than individuals, but little is known of the factors that lead to
dyadic coping. The present study aims to explore the relationship between dyadic coping and adult
attachment. That is, to examine whether an individualâs attachment style is a predictor of their own
dyadic coping style and their partnerâs dyadic coping style. Online, survey data was collected from 74
childless couples, between the ages of 18 and 31, who had been in their relationships for over 6
months. Overall, analysis showed stronger associations between dyadic coping and attachment for
females, with minimal associations for males. The results of the present study are supportive of the
existing literature, though provide opportunities for further research.
KEYWORDS: dyadic coping, coping, attachment, romantic relationships, APIM
The Effect of Family Communication Patterns on AdoptedAdoles.docxcherry686017
Â
The Effect of Family Communication Patterns on Adopted
Adolescent Adjustment
Martha A. Rueter and
Department of Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108 ([email protected])
Ascan F. Koerner
Department of Communication Studies, 244 Ford Hall, 224 Church St. S.E., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis MN 55455
Abstract
Adoption and family communication both affect adolescent adjustment. We proposed that adoption
status and family communication interact such that adopted adolescents in families with certain
communication patterns are at greater risk for adjustment problems. We tested this hypothesis using
a community-based sample of 384 adoptive and 208 nonadoptive families. Adolescents in these
families were, on average, 16 years of age. The results supported our hypothesis. Adopted adolescents
were at significantly greater risk for adjustment problems compared to nonadopted adolescents in
families that emphasized conformity orientation without conversation orientation and in families that
emphasized neither conformity nor conversation orientation. Adolescents in families emphasizing
conversation orientation were at lower risk for adjustment problems, regardless of adoption status.
Keywords
adjustment; adolescents; adoption; family communication patterns
Recent changes in the modern family have led researchers to pay closer attention to the growing
complexity of family structures, such as step-families, families formed through assisted
reproduction, and adoptive families. Recent reviews attest to particular interest in adoptive
families and in adopted child adjustment (cf. Bimmel, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-
Kranenburg, 2003; Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005; Lee, 2003; OâBrien & Zamostny, 2003;
van IJ-zendoorn, Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005). These reviews compared adopted,
nonadopted, domestically adopted, and internationally adopted youth on several adjustment
dimensions, including internalizing and externalizing problems, attachment to parents, and
academic achievement. Overall, these reviews reported that most adopted children and
adolescents were well adjusted. A small but notable group, however, experienced significant
behavioral or mental health problems. It is this group that may account for mean differences
in adjustment that often are observed in studies comparing adopted to biological children
(Bimmel et al.; Brand & Brinich, 1999).
Differences in adjustment for this small group have generally been attributed to a number of
factors unique to adopted children. For example, relative to nonadoptees, adopted children
have more likely experienced early childhood adversity that can result in developmental delays
Correspondence to: Ascan F. Koerner.
This article was edited by Cheryl Buehler.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 August 1.
Published in final edited form as:
J Marriage Fam. 2008 August ; 70(3 ...
Dyadic Coping and Attachment Dimensions in Young Adult Romantic RelationshipsAJHSSR Journal
Â
ABSTRACT: Dyadic coping conceives coping as a response in which partners support each other
and cope with stress as a couple rather than individuals, but little is known of the factors that lead to
dyadic coping. The present study aims to explore the relationship between dyadic coping and adult
attachment. That is, to examine whether an individualâs attachment style is a predictor of their own
dyadic coping style and their partnerâs dyadic coping style. Online, survey data was collected from 74
childless couples, between the ages of 18 and 31, who had been in their relationships for over 6
months. Overall, analysis showed stronger associations between dyadic coping and attachment for
females, with minimal associations for males. The results of the present study are supportive of the
existing literature, though provide opportunities for further research.
KEYWORDS: dyadic coping, coping, attachment, romantic relationships, APIM
Similar to An Exploratory Investigation Of Jealousy In The Family (20)
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
Â
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Â
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECDâs Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Â
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
Â
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using âinvisibleâ attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
An Exploratory Investigation Of Jealousy In The Family
1. Butler University
Digital Commons @ Butler University
Scholarship and Professional Work of the Provost Office of the Provost
1-1-2001
An exploratory investigation of jealousy in the
family
Krystyna S. Aune
Jamie Comstock
Butler University, jcomstoc@butler.edu
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of the Provost at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work of the Provost by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more
information, please contact bmatthie@butler.edu.
Recommended Citation
Aune, K.S. & Comstock, J. (2001). An exploratory investigation of jealousy in the family. Journal of Family Communication, 2(1),
29-39.
3. 2
An Exploratory Investigation of Jealousy in the Family
Krystyna S. Aune
Speech Department
University of Hawaiâi at Manoa
Jamie Comstock
School for Professional Studies
Saint Louis University
Jealousy is a complicated, generally unpleasant emotional reaction to a perceived
threat to an existing relationship (Parrott & Smith, 1993). Fear of loss or deterioration
of an important relationship, worry, and anger characterize jealousy. Research
on jealousy has typically focused on adult romantic or sexual relationships (e.g.,
Buunk, 1982). Recently, researchers have begun to investigate jealousy in other
relationship contexts. For example, Aune and Comstock (1991, 1999) have examined
jealousy in the contexts of same-sex friendship, cross-sex friendship, and
coworker relationships.
According to Comstock and Aune (1995), role definitions and relational rules
may underlie the differences in the experience and expression of jealousy reported
across different relationship contexts. As in romantic relationships, relationships
within the family can incite intense and diverse emotional reactions.
This study seeks to extend our relatively limited knowledge of emotions in the
family by exploring the particularly aversive and socially constrained emotion of
jealousy. At the outset, we explore the literatures on emotions and jealousy in
the family more fully.
EMOTIONS IN THE FAMILY
Averillâs (1992) social constructivist theory situates the experience and expression
of emotions within a variety of social roles. Emotional episodes are constructed
and enacted through individualsâ awareness of social rules and norms. Social
norms and expectations provide the organizing principles of social systems, and
families are the primary social system of society.
The family context is a system of interdependent relationships, where family
members engage in fairly routine patterns of interaction (Larson & Almeida,
1999). As such, family members influence and are influenced by one another on a
daily basis. Research by Gottman and Carrere (1994) found that everyday interactions,
such as expressing and responding to complaints, affect the likelihood of divorce.
They found that withdrawal and defensiveness on the part of husbands, and
4. 3
contempt and disgust on the part of wives, were detrimental to long-term marital
stability.
Beyond maintaining the marital dyad, one of the most fundamental tasks of the
family system is to socialize children. The socialization process largely revolves
around learning rules of appropriate emotional behavior. Learning about the
causes and consequences emotions is essential for smooth family functioning as
well as childrenâs social success outside of the home (Dunn & Brown, 1994).
Talk about feelings and emotions is important to childrenâs understanding of
emotions and their relationships with peers (Dunn & Brown, 1994). However,
there is concomitant dilemma of emotional transmission where one family membersâ
events, emotions, or behaviors predict those of another family member. Emotional
transmission of negative emotions, particularly tension, from one setting to
another is referred to as spillover (Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler, 1999). So,
although emotional expressiveness is an important and perhaps, inevitable process
within the family, there is the competing concern that negative emotions may produce
detrimental effects. This dilemma is well illustrated by dialectical theory.
Baxterâs (1988) dialectical approach describes three oppositions or tensions
inherent in relationships: autonomyâconnection (the dialectic of integration),
noveltyâpredictability (the dialectic of change), and the opennessâclosedness dialectic.
Autonomy-connection is the most central or superordinate dialectic
(Baxter, 1988). Within families, the individual dyads must develop appropriate
levels of intimacy and autonomy (e.g., husbandâwife, fatherâchild, siblingâsibling).
More importantly, these levels of intimacy and autonomy must be continuously
adapted as needs and life stages change. If expectations regarding desired
levels of intimacy are unexpressed and/or violated within the family, negative
emotions such as jealousy may result.
JEALOUSY IN THE FAMILY
The stage during which adolescents leave home, usually after finishing high
school and entering college, is described as the launching family (Yerby,
Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1995). As children enter adulthood, the autonomyâ
connection dialectic is most pronounced. The adolescentâs life task is to establish
an independent life and the parents must redefine their personal goals
when the child leaves (Yerby et al., 1995). This period of time is often fraught
with conflict in many families. Because of the intimacy, ties of loyalty, and sense
of history and future present in most families, communication between family
members may be even more intense and volatile than in other relationship contexts.
During the launching stage, young adults may experience threats to relationship
intimacy. Criticism, negativity, and hurt feelings may occur during this
5. 4
period of family transition.
The relationship between siblings is also affected by the launching stage and the
increasing independence of the children. Younger siblings may feel left behind
(psychologically as well as physically) and neglected. On the other hand, siblings
may feel a new sense of closeness due to lessened competition for family resources.
The resident younger sibling may receive more attention from parents,
however this may fuel feelings of alienation and jealousy on the part of the
launched elder sibling (Pearson, 1989).
These feelings of jealousy and alienation are often intense and agonizing, not
only because of the fear of loss of a valued relationship, but also because of the
threat to oneâs self-esteem. Buunk and Bringle (1987) point out the paradoxical nature
of jealousyâalthough jealousy is activated to protect oneâs precious relationship
and self-esteem, both may be damaged as a result. As a result, many people
are ashamed of jealousy and try to deny or disguise it (Clanton & Smith, 1977).
The shame and discomfort of jealousy predicaments as well as the degree to
which one engages in impression management may be intensified when social support
is lacking. Whereas jealousy may be validated, condoned, and even induced
strategically in romantic or sexual relationships (Sheets, Fredendall, & Claypool,
1997), jealousy may be considered inappropriate in family relationships with the
exception of the husbandâwife relationship. The detrimental effects of jealousy may be
compounded if there is no appropriate way for family members to express
their negative affect.
Taken together, the research reviewed thus far suggests: (a) the experience, expression,
and perceived appropriateness of jealousy vary across relational contexts;
(b) family relationships typically involve such characteristics as interdependence
and attachment, and they certainly have a great deal of relational history; (c)
negatively valenced emotions may be quite common within a family; (d) the negotiation
of the autonomyâconnection dialectic may be especially salient among college
students; and (e) jealousy may not be considered appropriate among family
members. Prior research, however, has not yet directly explored the experience and
expression of jealousy within the family context.
Thus, this study extends research on jealousy and emotions in families by exploring
feeling and display rules surrounding a perceived threat to an existing relationship
with a family member. Given the paucity of research in this arena and the
exploratory and descriptive nature of this study, a series of research questions
asked: (a) How typical are perceived threats to family relationships? (b) What are
the reported reasons given for the incident? (c) What type of family relationship is
related to jealousy incidents? (d) Is jealousy experience and expression related
6. 5
to relationship satisfaction? (e) What are typical responses to jealousy threats
among family members? and finally, (f) What is the effect of jealousy incidents in
the family?
METHOD
Respondents
To explore the nature, experience, expression, perceived appropriateness, and effects
of jealousy, a self-report instrument was distributed to undergraduate students.
Participants included 100 people (34 men and 66 women) enrolled in
Speech Communication undergraduate courses at a midsized university in the
western United States. Ages ranged from 18 to 60, with a mean of 23.19, SD =
5.14. The pool of respondents was ethnically diverse, including Chinese-Americans
(N = 28), Japanese-Americans (N = 36), Filipino-Americans (N = 10),
Euro-Americans (N = 9), Hawaiians (N = 8), and Korean-Americans (N = 5),
among others.
Questionnaire
Respondents were asked to think about their relationship with a family member
with whom they are close and whether they had âever experienced an unpleasant
reaction (like feeling threatened, unhappy, or upset, for example) when one of your
family members became involved with someone else or something else that did not
include you. It could have been a brief incident (e.g., your brother âdumping youâ
because he had a date), or ongoing occurrence (e.g., your sister is so involved with
her career that she doesnât spend any time with you anymore) that created your reaction.â
They were then asked to write a short description of the situation. If respondents
could not think of a jealousy incident, they were asked to complete the last two sections
of the instrument that assessed satisfaction of the relationship with the family member
and demographic information.
Categorical items were created to assess five relevant variables. First, respondents
were asked to check the category that best described the type of jealousy experienced.
Categories, derived from prior research (Comstock & Aune, 1995), included
âfamily memberâs need for independenceâ, âfamily member left me out of
an important experience or activityâ, âinsecurityânot wanting the relationship
with the family member to deteriorateâ, ânot liking the relationship my family
member had with another personâ, and âmy family member did not have enough
time to spend with me.â
Relationship status with the family member included nine categories, ranging
from sibling (sister, brother), parent (mother, father), aunt, uncle, grandparent,
8. 7
Relationship satisfaction
To explore whether jealousy instances were related to relationship satisfaction, a t test
was computed between the two groups. Respondents who reported a jealousy incident
had marginally lower relationship satisfaction scores (M = 5.69, SD = 1.04) than
respondents who did not report a jealousy incident (M = 6.05, SD = .81), t(98) = â1.96, p
= .05.
Type of Jealousy
The reason behind the jealousy incident was most often cited as âmy family member
did not have enough time to spend with meâ (N = 14, 26.9%). The relationship
between the family member and another person elicited 13 responses (25%). Insecurity
about the relationship with the family member was the reason cited by 10 respondents
(19.2%). Nine respondents reported feeling left out of an important experience
or activity (17.3%). Six participants reported that the family member
wanted more independence (10.5%).
Emotional Response
The initial emotional response reported most frequently was hurt/upset (N = 27,
51.9%), followed by anger (N = 8, 15.4%). Shock/surprise was reported by five
individuals (9.6%). Jealousy was the initial response reported by three people
(5.8%). Envy was reported by three respondents (5.8%). Betrayal was reported as
the initial response for two respondents (3.8%). Depression/sadness, exclusion,
inadequacy, and empathy were each reported one respondent (1.9% each).
The secondary emotional response was most frequently anger (N = 12, 23.1%),
followed by jealousy (N = 7, 13.5%). Hurt/upset, excluded/rejected, and no secondary
response were each reported by five respondents (9.6% each). Four respondents
reported depression/sadness (7.7%). Happiness and inadequacy were each
reported by three individuals (5.8% each). Envy and fear were each reported by
two respondents (3.8% each). Betrayal, shock/surprise, possessiveness, and empathy
were each reported by one respondent (1.9% each).
Coping Response
The initial coping response of most participants was discussion with the family
member (N=20, 38.5%). Acceptance was reported by 11 respondents (21.2%).
Discussion with another person was reported by five respondents (9.6%). Five
respondents also reported sarcasm as their initial response (9.6%). Avoiding the issue
was the initial response reported by four participants (7.7%). Other responses
reported included: joking (1.9%), seeking information about the threat (1.9%), and
increasing independence (1.9%).
9. 8
The secondary coping response reported by most participants was increasing
independence (N = 11, 21.2%). No secondary response was indicated by 8 participants
(15.4%). Discussion with another person was also reported by 8 participants
(15.4%). Avoiding the issue, joking, avoiding the family member, and crying in
front of the family member were each reported by 4 individuals (7.7% each). Discussion
with the family member, âbad-mouthingâ the threat, and âotherâ were
each reported by two respondents (3.8% each). Denying feelings to the family
member, confronting the threat, and crying alone were each reported by one respondent
(1.9% each).
Degree of Threat, Emotion Experience, Emotion
Expression, and Perceived Appropriateness
The mean degree of threat experienced by respondents was rather low, M = 3.45,
SD = 1.93. Mean degree of emotion experience was 4.98, SD = 1.31. Mean degree
of emotion expression was 3.91, SD = 1.79. The mean for perceived appropriateness
of the emotion experience was higher (M = 4.80, SD = 1.49) than for perceived
appropriateness of the emotion expression (M = 4.29, SD = 1.77).
Experience Versus Expression of Emotion and Effect of Jealousy
A paired sample t test revealed that the degree of emotion experience was significantly
higher than the degree of emotion expression t(51) = â4.78, p < .001. Comparably,
the perceived appropriateness of the emotion experience was significantly
higher than the perceived appropriateness of the emotion expression, t(51) = â3.00, p <
.004. The reported effect of the jealousy incident was not particularly negative
(M = 2.94, SD = 2.01) or positive (M = 3.63, SD = 1.95).
Associations Between Variables
Given the exploratory nature of this study, Pearson product-moment correlations
were computed to explore the relationships between perceived threat, relationship
satisfaction, intensity of emotion experience, degree of emotion expression, perceived
appropriateness of emotion experience, perceived appropriateness of emotion
expression, positivity of jealousy incident, and negativity of jealousy incident.
Perceived threat to the relationship was significantly correlated with the degree
of emotion experience, r(52) = .43, p < .001, degree of emotion expression, r(52) =
.32, p < .03, perceived appropriateness of emotion experience, r(52) = .52, p <
.001, perceived appropriateness of emotion expression, r(52) = .39, p < .007, and
the perceived negativity of the incident, r(52) = .63, p < .001. Perceived threat to
the relationship was also inversely correlated with the degree of relationship satisfaction,
10. 9
r(52) = â.38, p < .01. Relationship satisfaction was negatively correlated
with the perceived appropriateness of the expression of emotion, r(52) = â.29, p <
.05 and the perceived negativity of the incident, r(52) = â.51, p < .001. Degree of
emotion experience was significantly correlated with the perceived degree of emotion
expression, r(52) = .53, p < .001, perceived appropriateness of emotion experience,
r(52) = .28, p < .05, perceived appropriateness of emotion expression, r(52)
= .44, p < .002, and perceived negativity of the incident, r(52) = .48, p < .001. Degree
of emotion experience was negatively associated with the positivity of the
jealousy incident, r(52) = â.35, p < .02. Degree of emotion expression was significantly
correlated with the perceived appropriateness of the expression of emotion,
r(52) = .53, p < .001. The degree to which respondents perceived the incident to be
negative was significantly associated with the perceived appropriateness of the
experience, r(52) = .35, p < .02, perceived appropriateness of the expression, r(52) =
.45, p < .01, and the degree of experience of jealousy, r(52) = .48, p < .001.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of the experience and expression
of jealousy in the family context. A self-report instrument assessed a recent
jealousy incident experienced by individuals. The results showed that just over
half of the respondents experienced a threat to their relationship with a family
member. Not surprisingly, most instances revolved around immediate family
members, especially with sisters, mothers, and brothers.
Respondents revealed that loss of time spent with the family member was the
primary reason for the jealousy incident. The family memberâs relationship with
another person also fueled many respondentsâ reports of jealousy. Respondents reported
using mostly rational coping strategies, with talking with the family member
as the primary response. Acceptance of the situation, discussion with others,
and increasing independence were also prominent responses.
Participants reported minimal threat to the relationship with the family member.
This is not surprising given the bond, longevity, and loyalty integral to most familial
relationships. However respondents did report having rather intense emotional
responses to the incident. Feelings of hurt, anger, and shock were common. It appears
as though family or relationship rules were perceived to have been broken
leading to the reported negative affect, but the strong ties prevalent among family
members may have resulted in forgiveness or acceptance of the infraction.
The intensity of the experience of jealousy was greater than the intensity of
the expression. Relatedly, the minimal effect of the incident on the family relationship
may have been the result of the low perceptions of actual threat to the relationship and/or
the minimal degree of reported expression of the emotions by the respondents.
11. 10
The correlation data revealed that satisfaction with the relationship with the
family member was inversely associated with perceived threat to the relationship,
perceived appropriateness of the expression, and the negativity of the incident. The
more affect the incident elicited, the more negative and the less positive the incident
was perceived to be. Emotion expression and its perceived appropriateness
also related to the perceived negativity of the incident. These results may indicate
that emotional responses to a jealousy incident may not be good for family relationships.
The expression of felt emotions also does not appear to be the preferred
response reported by respondents. According to these data, expressing the elicited
feelings such as hurt or anger over threats to relationship intimacy may not be
advantageous. Rather, respondents reported using predominantly rational coping
strategies such as discussing the situation with the family member or another person
or accepting the situation. In comparison with romantic relationships, rules in
family relationships may prescribe more autonomy and less interdependence during
this launching period of time. Expressing negative affect over perceived threats
in a family relationship may be against the rules.
Future research could incorporate responses by both family members to compare
perceptions of the incident, behavioral responses, and overall effects of the incident.
Future research should also explore the relationship between type of emotional
responses, coping behaviors and short- and long-term outcomes for the
individual as well as the family relationship. Such research will help illuminate effects
of communicative responses to predicaments on family functioning.
In sum, this study offers initial insights and evidence of the experience, expression,
and effects of jealousy in the family. Jealousy involves a blend of negative emotions, and
social constraints preclude the full expression of the experience, even among family
members. Real consequences of the expression or suppression of jealousy, in terms of the
individualâs and the familyâs well-being remain to be investigated.
Furthering our understanding of family relationships and their negotiation of the dialectic
of autonomy and connection is fundamental. Family relationships are profoundly
important and undoubtedly, managing emotions and interpersonal predicaments
appropriately and effectively are key to healthy functioning for the individual, the family,
and society as a whole.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this article was presented to the Family Communication Division
for the 1999 National Communication Association conference, Chicago.
12. 11
REFERENCES
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of
tensions between marital dyads and parentâchild dyads. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 61, 49â61.
Aune, K., & Comstock, J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: Comparison
between friends and romantics. Psychological Reports, 69, 315â319.
Aune, K. S., & Comstock, J. (1999, May). The experience, expression, and perceived
appropriateness of jealousy at work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, San Francisco.
Averill, J. R. (1992). The structural bases of emotional behavior: A metatheoretical
analysis. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion (pp. 1â24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies. In S. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions
(pp. 257â273). New York: Wiley.
Buunk, B. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship to self-esteem,
dependency, and reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 310â
316.
Buunk, B., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S.
Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: development, dynamics, and deterioration
(pp. 123â147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Clanton, G., & Smith, L. G. (1977). Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Comstock, J. & Aune, K. S. (1995). Is jealousy prescribed or against the rules:
Comparisons among same-sex friends, cross-sex friends, and romantic partners.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, Albuquerque.
Dunn, J., & Brown, J. (1994). Affect expression in the family, childrenâs understanding
of emotions, and their interactions with others. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 120â
137.
Gottman, J. M.&Carrere, S. (1994).Why canât men and women get along? In D. J.
Canary&L. Stafford (Eds.),Communication and relational maintenance(pp.203â
229). SanDiego, CA: AcademicPress.
Hendrick, S. (1988).A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 93â98.
Larson, R.W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of
families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 61, 5â20.
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159â179.
Parrott,W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906â920.
Pearson, J. (1989). Communication in the family: Seeking satisfaction in changing times.
NY: Harper& Row.
13. 12
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L. & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner
reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of
jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior,18, 387â402.
Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. P. (1995). Understanding family
communication (2nd
ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.