Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.5, 517-521
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.25080
Jealousy Induction Methods, Sex, and the Big-5
Personality Dimensions
Jennifer L. Weinstein, T. Joel Wade
Bucknell University, Department of Psychology, Lewisburg, USA
Received April 30th, 2011; revised June 3rd, 2011; accepted July 14th, 2011.
One-hundred and twenty five participants were administered an online survey to investigate: which type of
cheating, emotional or sexual, is more likely to be used in an attempt to induce jealousy in a partner, which type
of cheating is perceived as most effective for inducing jealousy, and whether or not the Big-5 personality dimen-
sions are related to the choice of jealousy induction technique. Emotional cheating was hypothesized to be se-
lected more often, and given a higher effectiveness rating, than physical cheating for inducing jealousy in a
partner. Additionally, men were hypothesized to rate physical cheating as worse than emotional cheating while
women were expected to rate emotional cheating as more hurtful. The results were partially consistent with the
hypotheses. Emotional cheating was selected as the method to induce jealousy most often and was rated as the
most effective way to induce jealousy. However, physical cheating was rated as more upsetting by both men and
women. Additionally, Big-5 personality dimensions were not related to choice of jealousy induction method or
reactions to physical or emotional cheating. The findings are discussed i n r el a t io n to prior research.
Keywords: Jealousy, Personality, Cheating, Big-5
Introduction
Jealousy is defined as the negative emotional reaction ex-
perienced when a relationship that is vital to a person’s self-
concept is endangered by a real or imagined rival (Harris 2004).
In addition, jealousy is a reflexive emotion that tends to be
more common among people who are in love and more com-
mon in relationships where a great deal of resources and time
has been invested (Fleischmann, Spitzberg, Andersen & Roesch
2005). While nearly every relationship encompasses some form
of jealousy, approximately 20% - 25% of respondents on a
recent national survey reported having at least one sexual affair
over the span of their life (Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas, & Cox,
2008). However, affairs are not only of one type. There are
several different types of infidelity. The present research fo-
cuses on two specific types of infidelity and jealousy: sexual
and emotional.
Sexual jealousy is defined as a complex psychological sys-
tem whose functioning is activated by a perceived threat to
one’s place in a sexual relationship (Daly &Wilson 1992). In
relationships, this is often considered the stereotypical “cheat-
ing” on a significant other, meaning having sexual relations
with another person while involved in an intimate and long-
term relationship with someone else.
Emotional jealousy, on the other hand, refers to when one
feels threatened by a partner’s emotional involvement with a
third party, or someone other than their significant other. Emo-
tional cheating can include thinking about, talking to, spending
quality time with, or talking about inappropriate things with a
member of the opposite sex in a way that is normally reserved
for one’s partner.
Jealousy is a useful emotion for relationships (Buss, 2000;
Wade &Walsh, 2008). From an evolutionary point of view,
those who are deficient in expressing jealousy are at a disad-
vantage in terms of mate retention and reproduction (Buss,
2000; Wade & Walsh, 2008). So, not surprisingly, since jeal-
ousy can be beneficial to relationships, individuals sometimes
set out to induce jealousy in their partners. Fleischmann, et al.,
(2005) report two main reasons for why individuals attempt to
induce jealousy in their partners. The first is as a relational
reward, meaning jealousy is being induced as a technique to
improve the relationship and help boost one’s self-esteem. The
second is as relational revenge, which is used to punish the
partner, and gain control. But, are there sex differences in jeal-
ousy induction?
Prior research findings suggest that men display greater upset
in response to a long-term partner’s sexual infidelity, whereas
women display greater upset in response to a partner’s emo-
tional infidelity (Shackelford, Michalski & Schmitt, 2004). This
sex difference is explained as a product of internal fertilization
in women and male paternity certainty, and female parental
investment concerns. Since fertilization occurs within a woman,
if she is unable to provide sexual fidelity, a man’s paternity
may be threatened (Shackelford, Voracek, Schmitt, Buss,
Weekes-Shackelford & Michalski, 2004). Likewise, from a
woman’s perspective, it is important to have a partner who will
invest long term, not only emotionally, but also in terms of
resources, time and finances (Shackelford et al., 2004). Thus,
when a man i s diver tin g his atte ntio n from hi s fema le pa rtner to
a different woman (emotional cheating) it can be perceived as a
huge threat for his significant other (Shackelford et al., 2004).
With these findings in mind one might expect there to be sex
differences in jealousy induction. However, Fleischmann, et al.,
(2005) report that the basic structure by which jealousy is in-
duced in relationships is essentially the same for both men and
women overall.
Clearly, based on the aforementioned research on sexual and

J. L. WEINSTEIN ET AL.
518
emotional infidelity one can see that sexual and emotional ac-
cess are important for men and women in relationships. In addi-
tion, based on the aforementioned research on jealousy induc-
tion one can see that inducing jealousy can be advantageous for
relationships. However, while the aforementioned research
findings are interesting, research has not ascertained whether
individuals would use either sexual or emotional access related
methods more often to induce jealousy. Specifically, would
physical, i.e., sexual, or emotional methods of cheating be used
most often to induce jealousy.
Sheets, Fredendall and Claypool (1997) report that jealousy
is most often used in romantic relationships to motivate action
to retain exclusive access to one’s sexual partner. This report
suggests that physical cheating would be used much more often,
has a more immediate result, and is a more effective way to
induce jealousy in one’s partner. However, research examining
physical hookups, more specifically research on the chemistry
of kissing, shows that kissing is used as a mate assessment de-
vice, that it induces bonding, and that it increases sexual arousal
and receptivity (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007). In addition,
physical activity with another person, including kissing, causes
sexual excitement, a n d i n c re a s e s the flow of oxytocin which not
only excites the partner, but is also used as a form of bonding
(Hughes et al., 2007). The importance of the chemistry of at-
traction and initial bonding of partners has been well estab-
lished both for long term as well as short term relationships
(Hughes et al., 2007). So, it can be inferred that physical con-
tact, even something as simple as kissing someone other than
your partner, can have important effects and can lead to the
termination of one’s current relationship. With this in mind,
emotional cheating may be used more often as a jealousy in-
duction method. But, this has not been directly tested.
Additionally, research examining which method, physical or
emotional cheating, is considered most effective for inducing
jealousy has not been implemented. Since jealousy can be bene-
ficial to relationships (Buss 2000; Wade & Walsh, 2008), and
so many individuals engage in infidelity (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;
Shackelford & Buss, 1997) it is important to fill this void in the
literature on jealousy. Therefore, the present research was im-
plemented. Specifically, the present research set out to ascertain
whether: physical or emotional actions would be chosen more
often to induce jealousy in a partner, gender differences with
respect to choice of jealousy induction method exist, and
whether or not men and women’s feelings and attitudes about
types of jealousy induction actions differ, and whether discov-
ering evidence of physical or emotional cheating on the part of
a partner is more upsetting.
Since personality plays a role in many areas of life (Larsen &
Buss, 2002) and personality plays a role in mate selection and
relationships (Botwin, Buss & Shackelford, 1997) one might
expect personality dimensions to be related to: the choice of
jealousy induction methods, attitudes about jealousy induction,
and reactions to finding evidence of cheating. However, Wade
and Walsh (2008) did not find a relationship between Big-5
personality dimensions and reactions to infidelity or overall
jealousy. So, personality dimensions may not be related to
jealousy induction methods. But, this has not yet been investi-
gated. Therefore, the present research also investigates this
issue by exploring the relationship between personality dimen-
sions and jealousy induction using a measure of the Big-5 per-
sonality dimensions.
Gostling, Rentfrow and Swann (2003) point out that the
Big-5 is a hierarchical model of personality traits with five
factors representing personality at the broadest level where each
bipolar factor (e.g., extraversion vs. introversion) summarizes
more specific facets (e.g. sociability) which, in turn, subsume a
large number of even more specific traits (e.g., talkative, out-
going). The Big-5 framework suggests that most individual
differences in human personality can be classified into five
broad, empirically derived domains labeled as Openness, Con-
scientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism
(Gosling et al., 2003).
Since cheating may encompass deficits in emotional or sex-
ual access on the part of a partner (Shackelford & Buss, 1997)
and can lead to either forgiveness or mate expulsion depending
on the type of cheating that takes place (Shackelford, Buss, &
Bennett, 2002), the present research also examines the question
of whether a lack of physical(sexual) access or emotional ac-
cess, on the part of a partner, is more likely to lead to relation-
ship termination.
Hypotheses
Based on the research cited above, it was hypothesized that
emotional cheating would be chosen more often than physical
cheating. Additionally, it was hypothesized that emotional
cheating would be perceived as more hurtful by women than by
men. It was also hypothesized that men would rate physical
cheating as worse, and would be more likely to end a relation-
ship due to a lack of physical(sexual) access, rather than due to
a lack of emotional access, while the opposite would occur for
women.
Method
Participants
One-hundred and twenty-one participants (35 male, 86 fe-
male) responded to an internet based questionnaire. Participant
age ranged from 18 to 78, M = 23.86, SD = 9.10.
Procedure
Participants were recruited via an internet listserv and the in-
troductory psychology course at a small northeastern University.
Participants at the University received partial course credit for
taking part in the research. Other participants did not receive
any compensation. Participants completed an online survey.
They were asked to indicate their age, race, sex, whether or not
they have ever been in a sexual relationship, their current rela-
tionship status, their sexual orientation, and if they were cur-
rently using a hormonal type of birth control. Also, participants
were asked to answer nine questions exploring their feelings
concerning emotional versus physical cheating and which type
of cheating would upset them or their partner more. For the
jealousy induction method of choice assessment participants
received the following instructions:
Please think of a committed romantic relationship that you
have had in the past, that you have now, or that you would like
to have. If you and your partner were fighting and you were
trying to make him/her angry and induce jealousy, you would

J. L. WEINSTEIN ET AL. 519
hypothetically: (please circle one)
1) emotionally cheat (think about, talk to, spend quality time
with a specific member of the opposite sex and begin to like
them more than a friend: talk about things that you should only
be talking about with your significant other)
2) physically cheat (hook up with the other person)
Next participants were instructed to “assume there was a
problem in their relationship and to indicate how likely a lack
of emotional versus a lack of sexual access and vice versa
would lead to a decision to end the relationship” using a 7 point
scale (1 = not very likely, to 7 = very likely). Participants were
then asked to pick which of the 2 situations: “your partner is
emotionally accessible, but not sexually accessible” and “your
partner is sexually accessible but not emotionally acces sible”, is
more likely to lead them to end their relationship. Next, par-
ticipants were asked 2 questions regarding how effective they
would consider physically cheating and emotionally cheating to
be for inducing jealousy in their partner using a 7 point scale (1
= not effective, to 7 = very effective). Then participants were
asked to circle the type of cheating that they thought would be
used more often to induce jealousy, physically cheating or
emotionally cheating. Participants were also asked to circle the
type of cheating, physical or emotional that they felt would
upset them more. Next, participants were asked to indi-
cate(circle) which type of cheating, physical or emotional, they
thought would upset their partner more. Participants were then
instructed to: “assume you and your partner have been together
for a significant amount of time” and they were asked to indi-
cate which of the following scenarios would upset them more:
1)You found in your partner’s phone that they had been con-
stantly texting another woman/man(of the opposite sex), and
they were somewhat provocative texts
2)You found evidence that your partner is physically seeing
someone else (ex went to dinner and a movie with another
male/female that you did not know).
Participants were then presented with a short form of the
“Big-5 personality dimensions (Gosling et al., 2003). They
were asked to indicate how accurately the personality traits
described themselves using a 7 point scale (1 = disagree
strongly, to 7 = agree strongly). Lastly, participants were given
a short form of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). The split-half reliability of the So-
cial Desirability Scale was .72 in the present research. Upon
completion of all questions, participants were presented with a
debriefing statement.
Results
Chi-square tests were computed to determine if there were
any significant differences regarding responses to: jealousy
induction method, and whether or not emotional cheating is
more upsetting than physical cheating. No significant effects
were obtained across sex of participant, current relationship
status, or sexual relationship experiences. Also, no significant
effects were obtained across birth control usage status for
women. Participant age was not found to be correlated with any
responses also.
A significant effect was obtained for the question that gave a
brief scenario and asked participants to chose between emo-
tional and physical cheating as a means of inducing jealousy in
their partner, χ²(123) = 96.21, p < .0001. One hundred thirteen
participants chose emotional cheating while 6 participants
chose physical cheating.
A marginally significant effect was obtained for the question
asking which type of jealousy induction method, physical or
emotional cheating, is used more often, χ²(123) = 2.94, p< .087.
Most participants selected emotional cheating as being used
more, 71 versus 52 people for emotional and physical cheating,
respectively.
A significant effect was also obtained for the question re-
garding which type of cheating by a partner would be more
upsetting χ²(123) = 36.50, p < .0001. More participants were
upset by physical cheating than by emotional cheating, 95 ver-
sus 28 for physical and emotional cheating, respectively.
A significant Chi-square was also obtained for the question
asking which type of cheating would upset your partner more,
χ²(123) = 70.32, p < .0001. One hundred and eight participants
chose being physically cheated on while 15 participants chose
being emotionally cheated on. A significant Chi-square was
also obtained for the question that asked which type of in-
criminating evidence would be more upsetting, finding evi-
dence of physical versus emotional cheating, χ²(123) = 6.84,
<.009. Finding evidence suggesting that physical cheating had
taken place was chosen as being more upsetting, 76 versus 47
for finding incriminating physical or emotional cheating evi-
dence, respectively).
A series of Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVAs with
the social desirability scale sumscore included as a covariate
were computed to examine the responses to the effectiveness of
jealousy induction methods, and sexual and emotional accessi-
bility questions. A 2 (sex of participant) x 2(effectiveness ques-
tions) mixed model repeated measures ANOVA revealed a
significant effect for the questions, F(1, 118) = 7.47, p < .007,
eta2 = .06. Emotional cheating was rated as a more effective
way to induce jealousy in a partner than physical cheating (M =
4.59, SD = 1.31 and M = 4.42, SD = 2.17, for emotional and
physical cheating, respectively). Additional mixed model re-
peated measures ANOVAs across sexual relationship experi-
ence, current relationship status, and birth control status for
women did not reveal any significant effects.
A 2 (sex of participant) x 2 (access questions) Mixed Model
Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction
of sex of participant and access questions, F(1, 119) = 19.62, p
< .0001, eta2 = .14. An independent samples T-test was com-
puted to determine which question encompassed the sex differ-
ence. The T-test revealed a sex difference for the question:
“your partner is sexually accessible but not emotionally acces-
sible”, (t(121) = –5.31, p < .0001), M = 3.33 , SD = 1.71, and M
= 4.77, SD = 1.20, for men and women, respectively). Women
rated a lack of emotional access as more likely to lead to a de-
cision to terminate a relationship.
A 2(sexual relationship history) × 2(access questions) Mixed
Model Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant in-
teraction of having been in a sexual relationship in the past and
the access questions, F(1,120) = 7.73, p < .006, eta2 = .06. An
independent samples T-test revealed that people who have had
sexual relationship experience differed significantly from those
who had not, on the question “your partner is emotionally ac-
cessible but not sexually accessibl e” (t(122) = 2.74, p< .007, M
= 3.95, versus M = 2.40, for no sexual relationship experience

J. L. WEINSTEIN ET AL.
520
and sexual relationship experience respectively). Individuals
who had been in a sexual relationship in the past were more
likely to terminate a relationship due to lack of sexual accessi-
bility.
Additional Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVAs
across current relationship status, or birth control usage status
for women revealed no significant effects.
Correlations were computed to see which, if any, of the
Big-5 personality dimensions were related to participants’ re-
sponses. No significant correlations were obtained. Correlations
were also computed to determine whether or not a sumscore for
the Social Desirability scale was related to the responses to the
categorical questions. No significant correlations were obtained
for the Social Desirability sumscore. Lastly, correlations were
also computed for age and responses to the scalar questions.
Age of participant was not correlated with scalar responses.
Discussion
The current research set out to determine: whether or not in-
dividuals are more likely to use physical or emotional actions to
induce jealousy in a partner, whether physical or emotional
cheating is perceived as a more effective means of jealousy
induction, whether or not there are sex differences in choice of
jealousy induction method, attitudes towards inducing jealousy
via emotional or physical methods, and whether or not the
Big-5 personality dimensions are related to choice of jealousy
induction method. It was hypothesized that emotional cheating
would be chosen more often as the preferred method of jeal-
ousy induction and would be rated as a more effective means of
jealousy induction. Additionally, it was hypothesized that emo-
tional cheating would be perceived as more hurtful by women
than by men. Lastly, it was also hypothesized that men would
rate physical cheating as worse, and would be more likely to
end a relationship due to a lack of physical(sexual access),
rather than due to a lack of emotional access, while the opposite
would occur for women.
The results obtained support the hypothesis that emotional
cheating is used more often than physical cheating (113 par-
ticipants chose emotional and 6 participants chose physical
when asked which they would use to induce jealousy), since
physical cheating often indicates the termination of relation-
ships. In addition, emotional cheating was rated as a more ef-
fective means of inducing jealousy. Physical cheating was
found to be more upsetting to participants than emotional
cheating since this action suggests that the partner has made the
choice to act upon their feelings, not just think about it. Why
might this happen?
As stated in the introduction, research examining physical
hookups, more specifically on the chemistry of kissing shows
that kissing is used as a mate assessment device, that it induces
bonding, and that it increases sexual arousal and receptivity
(Hughes et al, 2007). In addition, physical activity with another
person, including kissing, causes sexual excitement, and in-
creases the flow of oxytocin which not only excites the partner,
but is also used as a form of bonding (Hughes et al, 2007).
Since the importance of the chemistry of attraction and initial
bonding of partners has been well established in both long term,
as well as short term, relationships (Hughes et al., 2007), one
can infer that physical contact, even something as simple as
kissing someone other than your partner, can have important
effects and can lead to the termination of one’s current rela-
tionship. This is in accordance with the data obtained as 95
participants said physical cheating would upset them more (28
participants chose emotional cheating), and that physical
cheating would upset their partner more, as well (108 partici-
pants chose physical cheating and 15 chose emotional cheating
when asked which would upset their partner more).
The previous explanation does not, however, support the idea
that emotional cheating would be rated as more hurtful by
women than by men, or that men would be more likely than
women to break up due to a lack of physical(sexual) access.
This pattern of findings may be because both sexes are more
interested in long term mating (at least at some point in their
life). Garcia and Reiber’s (2008) research with college students
supports this. Garcia and Reiber (2008) point out that even
though college men and women engage in hooking-up, a form
of short term mating, they desire long term relationships. So,
while navigating sexuality can be a complicated process, at
some point, it is instinctive to look for a long-term mate.
Therefore, both sexes want the emotional and physical aspect to
be present, and would both be equally upset by both types of
infidelity, which concurs with Fleischmann, et al.’s, (2005)
findings. This also can be explained by sexual strategies theory
which points out that when men pursue a long-term mate, they
will activate psychological mechanisms that solve the problem
of paternity confidence (e.g. sexual jealousy and specific mate
preferences) and that women use short term mating techniques
to evaluate the prospect of a man being a long term mate (Buss
& Schmitt, 1993). Essentially, men and women are both look-
ing for the emotional and physical aspect to be present, so they
can ensure a fulfilling long term relationship in every aspect.
There was, however, a sex difference obtained when partici-
pants were asked how likely they were to break up if their
partner was sexually accessible, but not emotionally accessible.
Women were more likely to break up due to this deficit com-
pared to men. This can be explained by women’s mating pref-
erences and parental investment. Women want the emotional
access in terms of commitment on the part of a partner, which
can lead to a long term relationship. Women have a greater
parental investment since they bear and are often the primary
caregivers for children that are produced. Thus, women need
and want stability in terms of resources and emotions on the
part of a partner, more so than do men do. This is consistent
with the research showing that women are more likely to for-
give physical infidelity, but not emotional infidelity
(Shackelford et al., 2002). While women are sensitive to physi-
cal infidelity, “accumulating evidence suggests that women
become more upset in response to a partner’s emotional infidel-
ity, which signals the long-term diversion of a partner’s com-
mitment and investment” (Shackelford et al., 2002). A
woman’s main concern with her partner’s commitment should
be with his ability to provide resources for their offspring, and
emotional infidelity is often seen as a threat to his ability to
provide these things (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,
1992; Wade, Palmer, DiMaria, Johnson, & Multack, 2008).
The results for the Big-5 personality dimensions are consis-
tent with Wade and Walsh’s (2008) findings where Big-5 di-
mensions were not related to overall jealousy or reactions to a
partner’s commission of sexual or emotional infidelity. This

J. L. WEINSTEIN ET AL. 521
leads one to infer that personality dimensions have no effect at
all on jealousy induction and reactions to jealousy induction
methods. However, while this is consistent with Wade and
Walsh’s (2008) research examining reactions to overall jeal-
ousy and infidelity, since the present research was the first
study to examine this, additional research is needed to verify
this inference.
Conclusion
The findings from the present research allow one to conclude
that individuals prefer to use emotional methods to induce
jealousy in a partner, and are more upset by a partner’s com-
mission of physical infidelity. Additionally, men are more
likely to end relationships due to a lack of physical (sexual)
access while women are more likely to end relationships due to
a lack of emotional access. One can also conclude that age
plays no role in these decisions since no significant correlations
with age were obtained and there was an extremely large age
range in this study (18 - 78 years old). The age finding is con-
sistent with prior research examining jealousy. Prior researchers
suggest that jealousy is a useful and functional relationship
emotion. From an evolutionary point of view, one who lacks
jealousy would be facing a shortcoming in terms of mate reten-
tion (Buss, 2000; Wade et al., 2008).
Limitations/Future Study
The present research used hypothetical situations, asking
participants to put themselves in situations which they may not
have been in before. Thus, one might assume that the ecological
validity of the findings is not as strong as it could be if actual
behavior was studied. However, Buss (2002) points out that
hypothetical scenarios investigating reactions to relationship
distress produce actual physiological responses. Thus, hypo-
thetical scenarios such as those used in the present study may
be good indicators of how individuals would actually be-
have/respond. Nevertheless, additional research investigating
actual behavior, if possible, could add additional useful infor-
mation.
The present research also used a short form of the Big-5
personality dimensions. Before one can conclude definitively
that the Big-5 dimensions are not related to an individual’s
choice of jealousy induction method and reactions to jealousy
induction additional research including a longer version of the
Big-5 personality dimensions is warranted.
References
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality
and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital sat-
isfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Let-
ters Special Issue, 23, 23-29.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Nec-
essary 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. Psy-
chological Science, 3: 251-255.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An
Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating. Psychological Review,
100, 203-232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Daly, M & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine-de
Gruyter.
Fisher, M., Voracek, M, Rekkas, V. P., & Cox, A. (2008). Sex differ-
ences in feelings of guilt arising from infidelity. Evolutionary Psy-
chology, 6, 436-446.
Fleischmann, A.A. (2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy induction in
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22,
49-73. doi:10.1177/0265407505049321
Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychoso-
cial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psy-
chology, 192-208.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr., W. B. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 504-528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Harris, C. R. (2004). The evolution of jealousy. American Scientist, 92,
62-71.
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. (2007). Sex differ-
ences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary
perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5. 612-631.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Personality psychology: Domains
of knowledge about human nature. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997) Cues to infidelity, Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034-1045.
doi:10.1177/01461672972310004
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or
breakup: Sex differences in response to a partner’s infidelity. Cogni-
tion and Emotion, 16, 299-307. doi:10.1080/02699930143000202
Shackelford, T. K., Michalski, R. L., & Schmitt, D. P. (2004). Upset in
response to a child’s partner’s infidelities. European Journal of So-
cial Psychology, 35, 489-497. doi:10.1002/ejsp.215
Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M. , Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-
Shackelford, V. A., & Michalski, R. L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in
early adulthood and in l a t er life. Human Nature, 15, 283-300.
doi:10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy
evocation, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An explo-
ration of the potential benefits of jealousy, Evolution of Human Be-
havior, 18,387-402. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00088-3
Wade, T. J., Palmer R., DiMaria, M., Johnson, C., & Multack, M.
(2008). Deficits in sexual access versus deficits in emotional access
and relationship termination decisions. Journal of Evolutionary Psy-
chology, 6, 1-9. doi:10.1556/JEP.6.2008.4.1
Wade, T. J., & Walsh, H. (2008). Does the big-5 relate to jealousy, or
infidelity reactions? Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural
Psychology, 2, 133-143.
Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy:
Investigation with a sample from Sweden. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 20, 121-128. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00046-4