THE DEVELOPBENT OF A SEXUAL JEALC'JSY INVENTORY

Edvard Alexander Clarke

B. A,, HcGill University, 1977

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTTAL FOLFILLYENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THS DEGREE OF

PIASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Psychology

0 Edward Alexander Clarke 1981 STPlCN FRASER UNIVERSITY

October 1981

All. rights reserved. This thesis may no? be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author, APPROVAL

Name: Edward Alexander Clarke

Degree, Master of Arts

Title of thesis: The development of a sexual inventory

Examining Cornmitee :

Chairperson: Dr. Dennis Krebs

~r.1~hillip G. wrief(t ' Senior Supervisor \

Dr. William Krane

'Dr. James E. Marcia

Dr. Julie R. Brickman External Examiner Clinical and Consulting P sychdogist

Date Approved! December 16. 1981 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis or dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Title of Thesis/Dissertation:

The developwnt of a sexual jealousy inventory

Author:

Edward Alexander Clarke (~arne) ABSTRACT Sexual jealousy is a complex emotioc which is usually definfd in the context of a situation, beliefs and perce~tionj, an affective state, and behaviours, Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists have developed typologies and etiolcgical theories of sexual jealcusy based on their work with clinical po~ulations, Psychologists have focused mcre on the development of jealousy within a cultural context, Recent psychological research has been aimed at the development and use of measuriag scales to examine the correlates of jealcusy and to examine-- szx differences in sexual jealousy expression. Hone of the research, - ---. _------however, has clearly demonstrated a valid and reliable measuring instrument-

A new inv~ntorywaz constructed on the basis of literature-derived social and dispositioral characteristics of sexually jealous people, The purpose of the three studies described in this paper was to evaluate the inventcry in terms of internal reliability, and convergent, discriminant and corrcurrent validities as they relate to ccnstruct validity, The inventory was shown to have internal reliability, and convergant and discriminart valid it^. Concurrent validity was not de~cnstrated, The latter result was related to weaknesses in the develosment of the inventory and in the criteria questions usad to evaluate concurrent validity. The overall trend cf positive results from the three studies was seen as a justification for the continuation of tce develcpment and evaluation of a sexual jealousy inventory on the basis of literature-derived social and dispositional charac teristics, ACKIOWLEDGBHEITS

I would like to express my deep appreciation to my senior supervisor, Cr, Philip G, Wright, who was a constant source of su~~ortand guidance. 1 would also like to thank the other tnembers of my committee--Dr. E, Krane, Dr- J, Marcia and Dr- J.

Brickman-f or their challenging and helpful suggestions, and occasional barks. Two ~soplewho were particular1y necessary for my thesis were 8s- J. Poster, %A- and H- Veiel--without them I would not have keen able to put any of nay own or ~sycommittee's ideas into action. I'd also like to thank a lovely young couple who provided me with much food for thought during the cocrse of my thesis--Ccnncr and Blue, Lastly, I would like to thank jealousy for giving ae something other than heartache, Definitions and examples of jealcusy ,,,.,,,,--- -,--2/ Typologies and etiological theories of sexual jealousy ...... Psychological research on jealousy ,,,,.,,.,,-.,,,, ,-. 20'

Construction of the Zander Jealousy Inventory .,,-,,,,33 Evaluation of the Zander Jealousp Inventozy ,,,, ,,,,,. 35

Reference notes--unpublished sources ,, ,,, ,,,,,, ,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, 1 19

References--published sources ,.. ,- --,-.,.,,. -,il,.w, 120 LIST Of TABLES Table 10-Means, standard deviations and reliability

coefficients cf the ZJI and SRJS,,,,, -,,,,,,,,,,,.43

Table 2--Differectial reliability index of ZJI items,,,,,,, 44

Table 3-2\11 items and factor loadings of the two factor ~~1~ti~n~~-~~~~~~.~~,~.,.~,~~~~.~.~.w,*,.,--.oo-,047 TaCle 4--Pearson correlation coefficients between the

ZJI, SCS, SRJS, SRJS subscales and age-m,,--,-.-,- 51

Takle 5--Weans, standard deviations and reliability

coefficients of the ZJI and SRJf-o------,-ww ,..w- 5E

Table 6--1te~s and factor loadings of the two factor ~o1~ti~n~~~*~~.~~~~~...*.~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~.~,~,~~~,~5~ Table 7-0 Eearson correlation coefficients between the

ZJI, SRJS,Endnrance and Play scales, SRJS

subscales, SDS and agew.~~~~,,,,,,~~.,.,~~o,i.o,~oo63 Table 8--Means, standard deviations and reliability

ccefficients of the ZJI and SRJS ,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,,69

Table 9--ZJI items and factor loadings of

the two factor solution,,,~w~~.~.~~~o~.~..~~~~~~~to70 Table 10--Pearson ccrrelatiosa between jealousy scores

and partner perception questions--between sex, ,,, 73

Table 1 1--Pearson correlations between jeaf ousy scores

and ~artner~erception questions--within sex,. ,, -75 Table 12--Pearson correlation coefficients between the ZJI,

vii SRJS, SRJS subscales, SCS, years together,

Eadnracce and Play scales and age,,,.,,.,,,...,,-76

Takle 13--Summary of Pearson correlation coefficients from Experiments I, 11, and 111. ,,-.-,.~,--.----.--=--79 I. Introduction

Sexual jealousy is, and probably always has been, a controversial tcgic. The romantic notiorr that sexual jealousy is an expression of true love has recently keen supplanted by the helief that sexual jealcusy is a clear sign of immaturity, Of i course, one's particular perspective degends upon the circles in

which one moves, Some cultures clearly regard sexual je,ilcusy as an integral aspect of interpersona 1 relations. In our society the responses vary considerably--solee pecple are proud of therr

jealous feelings, some hate themselves fcr thein and others cldim to not really kcow what feeling sexually jealous is all about, This Faper describes an attempt to develo~a ~exual jealousy measuring instrument, The initial section of the introducticn prcvides a definition and gives exam~lesof sexual jealousy. Following this I review the theoretical and observational wcrk of gsychoanalysts, psychiatrists and psychologists and their respective typolcgical and etiolcgicai thecries of sexual jealcusy, Each of these professional groups has provided valuable perspectives on jealcusy but as yet no integrated theory has emerged, The purpose of the review is not to Eropose such an integration but rather to provide the readzr

with background information on the ways in which sexual jealousy has been conce~tuallyand empirically analyzed. It is within the section which reviews the recent empirical studies of sexual jealousy that the rationale for the developent of a new sexual jealousy inv~ntcry is ~resented,

Definitions and examples gg jealousp ------U

The definition cf sexual jealcusy usually entails the

identification of four components: 1) a situation; 2) beliefs

and perceptions; 3) an affective state; and 4) behaviours. The ----situations vary but they typically involve an estatlished relationship between Person A (the jealous in'dividual) and

Person E [the partner), and the presence of Person C (the

other), In some cases Person C may not be present at all but

Person A will be convinced of their actual or potential

existence, In other cases, the relationship between Person A and

Person 0 will be seen aE established only by Person A, The

beliefs gig prceptions of the jealous individual are that he or

she is actually losing or may ~otentiallylose the physical aud emotional affection of the partner to the other, Person A usually perceives Person C as soaeone with physical, emotional or behavioural attributes more desirable to Person B than his/her own, The perception of the other as a threat to the

established rf latioashi~can range from a su~picior~that the partner prefers to talk with them to an absolute delusional con viction that the partner is secretly and spitefully being i se x ually active with them, In some cases the belief in 1 is reflected in uninvited ard repetitively intrusive thoughts about the nature of activities between the partner aad the other, The affectiv~component may involve a range of. emotional reactions including fear, anxiety, anger, helplessness r and guilt. Jealousyss affective part can be said to be made up ) of many single emotions which are stimulated in varying degreas by the nature of the situation and the p~rceptionsof the individual, The behavioural component of jealousy includes a 1 wide range of possible reactions. Person A may vigilantly or 1 zealously watch over the actions of Person B while the latter is with Person C; A may interrogate B about the nature of his/hex activities while apart; A aay inspect B's personal belongings and clothing for evidence of intimate contact; A may withdraw from interacting with B; A may make angry accusations accompanied by physical or make excessive demands of B as proof of his/her (B's) willingness to make retributior fcr actual or iaagired wrocgdcings (Arnold, 1960; Bo bman, 19f5;

Bringle, Roach, Andler, G Evenkck, Note 1; Speilmao, 1371;

Shepherd, 1961 ; Tipton, Benedictson, Mahoney, G Hartnett, 197d ;

Ncte 21, Clanton E Smith (1977) pint out that jealous reactioris can occur when a person ~erceivesthat she or he is losing the affection of a partner to non-human others such as hobbies, pats and wcrk bat the presect review is concerned with sexual. or .I romantic jealousy as outlined above.

While many writers have emphasized the differe~cestetween jealousy and envy (Evans, 1975; Rlein, 1957; S~eilman, 1971) 7 thcir usage is cften confused in everyday langoag~.The distinctions made by B ryson (Note 3) and definitions discussed by Eringle et al, (Note 1) offer clear and operational definitions, For these researchers there is a distinction to De made between jealousy, envy and rivalry, Jealousy is said to exist when a pre-established relationshi& between a perscri ana an asset (ie,, a person or object) is viewed as being threatened by another.. Envy exists when an individual is upset over the relationship someone else has with an asset, Rivalry exists w,len two people, neither of whom has an established relationship with a mutually desired object or person, comFete for its poseessisn,

The definition of jealousy, presented above, is the oce which will Le adopted for the Furposes of this payer,

Wolosies gq etiolwical theories a sexual, jealousy

Jealousy has not been extensively examined by psychclogiats? until recent years, Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have been i cnfp moderately more ccncerned with the Thenomenon despite thz recognition that jealousy is very common in a normal population and is quite prevalent within a clinical one (Langfeldt, 1961) - Romantic and sexual jealousy have been written about in the 6 literary works of nany nations for centuries but the current aestern conceptions of this memotien owe much to the work cf early twentieth century psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, The initial attempts to identify and understand ..jealousy's -,------differ~~~---.---- were represented in the literature- by case studies ar,d theoretical examinations from a Freudian--.a-$.d neo-Frwdiaa ------.--- pemve. Recently researchers in social and clinical psychology have begun to examine and evaluate scme of the correlates of sexual jealousy through ex~erimentalstudies- Tney also present their own theories on the etiology of jealousy,

Bith only a few except ions (eg,, Arnold, 1960) e~lotiontkeorists have gaid surprisingly little attention to jealous^,

1, The psychoanalytic/psychiatric literature

mies-..-- of - sexual j~alpusy, or attempts to differentiate its varying forms, are found primarily within the psychoanalytic and psychiatric liteta ture, The psychoanalytic/psychiatric typologies are ~ased,on_~stud_iesand -cli-a.cal _~b-gft-ns of jealous _$ndividuals, Hoooey (1965) identifies two traditional - - *'.x__- - - _, I classification systems within this f raaework, one psychodynamic and the other descriptive.

The wchodynamic classif icat- =stem is based ofi certaic intrapsychic mechanisms be1 ieved to be res~onsiblefor the different levels of observed intensity ir jealcus reacticcs. The descripticns of these Frocesses explain their functioning within

men but it is assumed that the mechanisms for wown are of a

sixtilar nature (Jones, 1930) Freud's $. [1922/1955) classificatror.

of jealousy stands as ths classic psychodynaaic typology, He divided jealousy into three general categories or grades-ncrmal, projected and delusional, Normal jealousy is in resFonse to a situation in which there is an actual threat ky a competitor to an individual's relationshif with a . It is not seen as being a completely rational or

conscious reaction as it still owes its scurce to the previously experi~ncedOedipal situation of cowpetitioo with the father for

possession of the mother, Normal jealousy is a mixture of: 1)

grief at the thought of losing the love cbject; 2) a

narcissistic injury or loss of self-esteem; 3) anger at the - rival; and 4) self-criticism for the loss, It is the base upon which the other two ty~esof jealousy are foraed, Projected jealousy is a more intense form that is the result of the - ----.--" projection of an unconscious i~pulseof unfaithfulness, Eleuler

(1911) had earlier identified this process as the prime

et iclogical factor in jealousy- For Freud, projected jealousy is

represented in the phrase, "it is not I who is unfaithful, but it is shen, Delusional jealousy is the result of unconscious

homosexual impulses which are distorted and projected onto the

accused, It also originates in the repressed teaptation of infidelity but the desired object is now of the same sex as %he # jealous individual, It is represented ir the phrase, "1 do not love him, but she loves himw, Freud observed that delusicnal jealousy is associa ted with parancid diecrders, Jones (1930) , following Freud, reiterated the sane grades of jealousy but relabellfd the projected type as neurotic jealousy, Both neurotic and delusional jealousy are again vieued

as magnified forms of normal jealousy, The particular type of

jealousy which manifests itself in an individual depends on the degree of unccnscious fixation at the Oedipal level, Here Jones

refers to the circumstances and strategic mechanistas which were

at play during the individual's prior situation with the mother and father. For Jones the components of normal jealousy are tne

sasE as Freud's vith one additiono-the re~ressedguilt of &oral inferiority which has its roots in the unacceptable impulse to

possess the @other. This aspect is expanded upon by Seidenberg

11952) who maintains that symptoms of jealousy reflect both ah indirect gratification of the Oedipal wish and suffering because of the guilt surrounding this wish, Jones* formulations of neurotic and delusional jealousy are the same as Freud's,

A number of other psychodynamic writers have presented irdividual case studies which serve to provide additional confirmatory evidence for the proposed intrapsychic mechanisms at work in sexually jealous people (Barag, 1949; Pao, 1477;

Riviere, 1932)- More general explanations of the dynaraics of the phenonenon of sexual jealousy are resented in pagers by ~ellenbach(1930) and Evans (1 975)-

The Bscriptive slassification systems generally ty~e jealcu~reacticns according to the nature of the resenting syr~tomsand do not usually intermesh etiology with typology, some authors do, however, include their own theories of etiology. Rather than presenting clear-cut symptom descriptions, the descriptive classifications are based on the degree of intensity of the jealous reactions and on whether or not the individual regards his or her jealousy as being ego-syntonic or dystonic faooney, 1965)- fiooney identif i&s three categories of jealousy usually found within the descri~tivesystems: 1 )normal;

2) irrational or obsessive; and 3) pathological or delusional,

Normal jealousy is defined as a justified and appropria tf reacticn tc the threat of loss, Irrational or obsessive jealoilsy is a reaction beyond what is called for by the actual situation- This aight involve recurrent investigative rituals and suspicions about the partner's behaviour with another. According to Cobbs E Harks (1979) such individuals are generally upset ~y the degree of their own reactions and regard them as a sign of their own imbalance ie,, the ego-dystonic form, Pathological or delusional jealcusy involves the firmly held belief that one';;: sexual partner is unfaithful in spite of evidence and opinion to the contrary, ie,, the ego-syntonic form, Confirmation for the belief is cften found in the most circuastantial of evidence-

Plooney reviews 138 cases from the literature and his own files # and reports that those with delusional jealousy were nore likcly to have had paranoid delusions, ideas of reference, bizarre behaviour and other psychotic symptoms whereas those with obsessive jealousy were more likely to have had neurotic symgtoms such as depression, suicidal tendencies and personal~ty discrders, Although the labels they use and the particular phenomena they refer to differ, Docherty & Ellis (1976) and Shepherd

(1961) use similarly baaed descriptive systems to classify jealousy into three categories, Docherty E Ellis divide jealous reactions into excessive, obsessive-de lusional and ego-dysfunctional types, They do not define the excessive category and focus primarily on obsessive-delusional jealousy which they say cccurs when individuals have a strong and persistent belief that their partner is cr has been sexually unfaithful, There is no loss of ego functioning in other areas of the person's life which distinguishes this ty~efrom ego-dysfunctional jealousy, Docherty G Ellis suggest that obsessive-delusional jealousy in men raight be the result of their having witnessed tteir mothers in extra-marital a€fairs during early adolescence, This was a pattern they identified while treating three cou~lesin which the husbands experienced jealousy, The authors found that the husbands* descripticns of their wives were not substantiated by observation and tended zo more closely reseable descriptions of their mothers, II Shepherd divides jealousy into normal, morbid and morbid-delusional types. He extracted these tyfes from his review of the psychiatric and psychoanalytic literature on jealousy and his own case studies, He regards the divisicn between nortrial and morbid jealousy as being unclear and klurred, The categories are traditionally differentiated on the basis af differeaces in the intensity of such symgtoms as suspiciousness, proof -seeking, doubt and angry reactions, Shepherd argues that the borderline between a normal and a morbid intensity of these sym~tomsis arbitrary. He reviews, in detail, the disozders which he found to be associated with the two categories of morbid jealousp--non-delusional and delusional, The non-delusional orbi id reactions are linked to neurotic acd personality disorders, He associates the cccurcence of -this type of jealousy with precipitating events in the inter~ersonalliZe of the individual, He argues that social and environmental factors play a role in the developsent of jealousy, Freud

(1922/1958) had rade an indirect reference to the function of societal norms in contributing to jealous reactioris but Shepherd was the first among the psychiatric writers to directly acknowledge the importance of social expectations, Shepherd found the delusional morbid category to occur aost freguently with the following disorders: 1) toxic or cerebral organic disorders- including alcaholism, ~enility~epilepsyand

Parkinson's disease; 2) functional psychoses--with jealousy as a ptiaary or seccndary diagnosis most often in con junction with paranoid and schizophrenic disorders; and 3) affective disorders-- major depressive illnesses with paranoid features,

Enoch, Trethowen E Barker (1967) and Langfeldt (196 1) divide jealousy into only two categor ies-noraal arid delasional. Eacch et al- subsume obsessional and delusional jealousy under the heading of Othello syndromew. They maintain that all individuals with this syndrome are psychotic and differ only uy the number of associated symptcms and their demonstrated degree of personality disintegration. The authors do not define normal jealousy, An earlier paper by Todd & Dewhurst (1955) first referred to the Othello syndrome as a delusional belief in the infidelity of the partner- They noted that the syndrome could cccur in pure fcrm car in association with paranoid schizophrenia, cyclophrenia (manic-depressive ~sychosis), epilepsy and alcoholisa, Through an analpsis of case studies

Todd & Dewhurst suggest that there is an inherited constitutional factor which predis~oses~fople to develo~the Othello syndrcme, In addition, they identify the differences in the sexual needs of partners, reactions to and menopause, and impotence due to alcoholi~mas possible precipitating events to the onset of the syndrcme, Lanjfeldt "

(1 961) af so argues that there is a constitutional vulnerability in jealous peo~lethat, when triggered by biological or psychogenic factors, results in delusional jealous reactions. He L regards normal jealousy as an experience common to everyone id varying degrees whereas delusional jealousy, or what he refers to as "the erotic jealcusy syndromett, is marked by intense paranoid ideation and the loss of an ability to reality-test, He re~ortson 66 cases which had delusional jealousy as a secondary diagnosis. The ~rimarydiagnoges included alcoholisn, iaelancholia, organic syndroaes, feeble-mindedness, pyschopa thy and schizophrecia,

Downing 11977) and Schmideberg (1953) point out that zhe psychiatr ic/psychoanal ytic li teratnre often neglects to acknowledge or examine the role played by the partner in fostering the reactions of the jealous individual, The problem of jealousy is seen as residing within the individual's fsyche and the inter~ersonaland cultural factors are de-emphasized, Schmideberg re1;orts treating a woman whose lover was being treated for delusional jealousy by another analyst who putlisaed a paper on the basis of this man's delusions, Schmideberg vas aware, however, that the lover's delusions were based more on factual than intrapsychic evidence, Shepherd (1361) maintains that even when actual evidence of infidelity exists true aorbid jeaf ausy a1ways involves a reaction beyond what seems appropriate, Vanhkonen (1368) reiterates this point by saying that the Fa tient's behaviour is a better diagnostic indicator than the accnracy or inaccuracy of his or her assertions. Th-rity - of analysts and &sychiatrlst.s.. focus /- classification,_ __-- etiology and phenomenology of Je-alnps&-.X~ the-ir descriptions of jealousy there is a stxang_empharis-- or! the-.- pathology or tke disru~tiveeffects it has on the _individual and - - L - those around him or her- Two psychoanalytic payers take a mcre

~ositivoapproach to the phenorenon of jealousy by focusing on the potential transforming properties that such a reaction can have, Vollmer (l91)6/1977) takes a develogmenta?. psychod ynam ic stance on the function of jealcusy for the child and by implication, for the adult, He argues that jealous reactions reflect a formative stage wherein we are faced with having to depend more upon ourselofs as a source of suppcrt and nurturance instead of being overly and unrealistically reliant upon a possession--ie., the mother or the partner, Jealousy is seen as

Bavinc; the ~ctectialtc trigger off a differentiation of the ago which allows for creative (rational) com~;etitiveness, Downing

(1 977) presents Freud's psychodynaatic for~ulationof sexcal

jealousy as one of the many possible ways of approaching the ex~eriencefor ourselves, She argues that it is a particular ~erepectivewhich cannot be proven except in the level of self-understanding it can allow each of us to exper',lence,

Downing also relates jealousy to Jungls conception of the

Shadow, As with other encounters with the Shadow, jealous reactions force us to face the darker sides of our nature which allows for the possibility of growth, As can te seer? in the revieu above psychoanalysts and psychiatrists tend to divide sexual jealousy into two or three tyFes reflecting functional and dysfunctional foras. They have been more concerned with explanations for dysf unctioilal sexuai jealousy. Cnly the early psychoanalysts attempted to explain =he nature of normal jealousy, Whatever the form, the etiology is usually identified as king solely related to gsychosexual conflicts and corresponding intrapsychic strategies, There is little recognition of the role that inter~ersonaland culturai factors play in the development and maintenance of sexual jealousy. As well, these depth psychology approaches have beer developed in reference to men and do not directly address the issue of sexual jealousy in woitien, Nonetheless, this lirerature has contributed to an initial Beans of conceptualizing the development and workings of jealousy within the individual,

2, Social acd clinical psychology literature

A number of sociologists and anthrogologists have described -- \.- - - 1 - -- - - the patterns of jealousy when discussing social behaviour in different cultcres (Plurdock, 1949; Stephens, 1963), but it is for the most part, only within the past d~cadethat social L---- Esychologists-__- have begun examining the ph~nomenonof sexual jealousy. In contrast- to the psychiatric/psychoanlytic writers, psychologists have been less concerned with classification and - -- intra~sycbic--- - etiological Frocesses and have been more concerned with examining etiology from a cultural and interprsonal

E ective- P -P -___--.- J The only classification systems of jealousy, from a social -7 and clinical psychology perspective, were found in the volume on jealousy edited by Clantcn G Smith (1977)- They divide jealousy into normal and pathological. Normal jealousy is a negative -- -- -___ reaction to the threat of loss of a valued relaticnship,

~athologicaf- jealousy-- is the expression of the negative reaction 7- in a destructive way. E* (1977) takes a more cognitive L-- approach and divides jealcusy into rational and irrational categories. Rational jealousy is a realitp based reaction to the fact or possibility that one is losing the sexual affections dr - / the attention of one's partner. Irrational--- .- -- .- jealousy- - - - is a catastrophic reaction to the situation uherein the individual over~laysthe significance of the threat. Ma2ur (1977) looks in more detail at the jealous experience and divides it into five types as follows: 1) pos~essiv~-~-a__1~usy--thejealcus person requires reassurance f ICE, and a se@seof power and control over, the other whom he/she regards as a gossession; 2) exclusion jealcusy--this is the most painfnl type of jealousy wherein the jealous person feels excluded from the time, events and enthusiasm the partner shares with others; 3) _competition jealousy--this for@ of jealousy involves a projection of a _a- feeling cf isadequacy which leads the jealous person to coiapete L with the partner for the recognition of achievements and 1 friendshir;~;4) egotism fealoasy--this is a reflection of the I need to have a ~artnerwho fits into a traditional sex role; it is a reaction to the freedom and flexibility which a partter nad I bring to his/her role within the relationship; and 5) ---fear I i jealp_usy--this fcrm reflects the fear of being alone and of \ losing someone special and is usually based on an uncertaicty \ about the ccmmitment of the partner, \ Etiological theories fro^ the saalmhos -- perspectivk concentrate on the effects of cultural norms and bdiefs on 1 inter~ersooalrelations, It has been argued that jealousy is G ------.- -\ essentially an ianate biological reactioc to a perceived thr-e-dt i ta cne'z pqssessio~~[Ggsell, 1906; Saul, 1967). Cross-cultural patterns have been examined for evidence of an inborn

culture-free jealous response- Stelhens ( 1963) studied a number <+-. of different sccieties with polygynoos and polyandrous custoas 1 of matrimony and found varying degrees of tolerance for adultery I but found none in which jealousy was absent, It varied in form, J intensity and frequency in accordance with the different social

sanctions prevalent in each of the cultures observed. ~avg.';--,I, I (1936/1977) anticipated Stephens' findings by making the point I that jealousy is a response to those culturally defined situations that signal a transgression of customary sexual , rights, Jealousy does appear then to be universal but its definition, both 1iteral and topographic, is culturally * 7 _--- detergined.bC&anton S Smith (1977) regard jealousy as the label 3 for the ccabination of the biological instinct we feel when oar possession of the partner is threatened and the socially defined patterns of feelings and behaviours to deal uith the arousal, In __--- - a similar vein, Hilster E Walster-* - (1977) have applied ScAachter9s (1962) two factor theory of frotion tc jealousy.

They regard the mechanisms of physiological arousal in jealousy to be the same as those of other emotions but the interpretation of this arousal will be determined by the instilled beliefs about what one should or must feel in a culturally or sutculturally defined jealous situation, Bernard (1977) refers to this as the winstitutionalization of eaotionsm,

A number of psychologists have attempted to identify the re~resentativeNorth A serican beliefs which foster the occurrence of sexual jealousy.. Fleming & ~ashbufd(1978) give 4 - .-/- ---- the following examples cf jealousy enhancing beliefs: 1) jealcury is an expression of true love; 2) one's partner ia a possession to be possessed; and 3) love is a quantitative entity \, -7 '! that can cnly be given tc one person at a time. ~19- (1954), ic I I a bcok on the subject of sexuality in Aaerica, presents the view that the ~racticeof ---- - and its inherent notion of

possessive-pro~erty-- _ ..-% rights serves to support the idea that it is r---- -8 -8 one's right to be possessive uith a partner. !Plonog3'-- also teaches people that there is only cne ideal mate and has as its goal the progagation of socioeconomic and sexual possessiveness and co~petitiveness,As well, Ellis believes that the concern for one's econcmic sewity base with one's partner contributes to the tendency for jealous reactions, Viewed within a traditional sex-role context, wives nay lcse providers and hustands say lc~ehostesses and nurseaaids The societal beliefs about the prescribed roles for womea are regarded by many as being primarily responsible for the traditional view that wware the more jealous sex. - "- ---_

~istorical~y,~(~e~--Mu-d have had fewer economic and social alternatives outside of their reliance upon their husbands, Tney : \ have been more dependent on men for social status aobiljty dad 1 4 freedom of acticn {Head, 1977; Skolnick, 1978). Bernard (1977) j argues that the belief i~ monogamous exclosivi ty has been responsible for keeping women in az unfa~ourableand inferior social position, She believes that normal jealousy 'ill-- decrease and lose its function as the institutions of the rosanticmoIlogalaic iaeclogies wither away. The idea that nolpeii have had to bear the brunt of the practice of exclusivity has been borne out in cross-cultural studies, il'urdock (194 9) looked k..- at the taboos against extra-marital sex in a large number of patriarchal cnltures. He found that the societal sanctions foz extra-aasital sex were always aore severe against women, ,/- Gilmartin) {197'7) interviewed "swingingw and normal couples,

He found that the internalized norms or the beliefs of tke Cou~lesdifferentiated their ability to deal with jealousy situations. The normal couples believed in, and equated, psychclogical and physical monogamy while the swiriging couples regarded sex with others as a recreational activity and

psychological intimacy as the priraary focus of their relationships with their principal partner, Jealousy was still fouad to cccur among the swingers but its role was di'minished-

~ilrarti~argues that the occurrence of jealousy among swingers

was due to the greater difficulty in trying to internalize new beliefs emctiooally rather thaa intellectually- Ssnnet E

Bitdscng (1978) looked at gm2E ~arria~esand found that while no group was free from jealousy, a regular sexual rotaticn of

bed partners-, to insure sharing and lower favouritism, was found - --

*- L_" to effectively decrease its occurrence. Bdams (1980) reported 06

a group of individuals who use a ro-ng - - sleeg swuleand re~crtexgeriencing no jealousy.

The social psychology approach has focused on the effects

cf cultural beliefs and prescribed ioter~ersonalsex roles on the development of what has, to this point, been regarded as nno~malwjealousy, 1 n contrast to the psychiatric/psychoanalytic literature this approach shows little concern for the clinical manifestations of sexual jealousy, Despite a recognition of tae broad social influences there has not yet been a delineation of specific izterpersonal patterns of interaction which reflect these influences, In terms of women and men, the social psychology approach provides a perspective from which to view sex differences in the intensity and expressioo of sexual jealoury-

--~sycholoqicg& research jealousy

The two main thrusts of psychological research into sexual jealousy have been atten~tsto develop objective measures of jealousy and to delineate the sex differences in the expression of sexual jealousy. All of this research is quite recent and a gocd ~roportionremains unpublished, #hat follows below is a review of the literature on these two areas of research interest.

1, Cb jective measures of jealousy

Apart frcm the theoretical and observational work cf psychoanalysts/psychiatrists and social ~sychologistspsesented above, there has been a recent expansion of experimental 1 research on jealousy. A great part of this research has focused on develoring papr and pencil tests to measure ---jealousy acd correlate it w-i?h certain per~-~&a_kit~p-Wteristics, --- -.__ ___I. -- - $zpton, ,Benedictscn, nahoaey E Hartnett ( 1378, Nore 2) took L- a factor analytic approach to construct a measuring instrumeot for sexual jealousy, The authors viewed jealousy ae having three coiu~onents: 1)cognitive; 2)ernotional; and 3) behavioural, Tiyton et al, generated 92 items from interviews uith 25 people who

d were asked to give their views on the nature of jealousy, Items were also generated oo the basis of the following conceptualizaticns of ~eoplewith a high jealousy: 1) they will place more value cn the needs met by toe significant ctb~r;2) they will have fewer significarit relationships kith people and thus will have aost of their needs met by the significant other; 3) they will have lower feelings of self-worth; and 4) they will tend to have fewer resources and skills to develop other significant relationships, Three factor analyses of the items were done on data frca a total of 335 subjects and the same five factors were extracted in each analysis, Tke five factor labels are: 1) need for loyalty; 2) ae~dfor intimacy; 3) moodiness/eaotionality; 4) self-confidence; and 5) envy, The authors believe that the first factor captures the basic component of the cognitive and emotional experience of the jealous individual, The cognitive aspect involves the belief that one's partner is givirg hislher attention to soleone else and the emotional aspect is the distress reaction to this belief, No reliability or validity data were presented by the authors. i dite (1977, lote 4) developed a questionnaire to measure C/' different aspects of romantic involveinent and included questians related to jealcusy (eg,, *In general, how jealous a persor, are youw), White found that =us_l~correlated-._ _ with --.dependency ---- upon ---- - I ,/------Brow&Pine& (Note 5) have develo~edan extensive - - inventory vhich asks people detailed questions about the antrcedents and correlates of jealcusy, Preliminary results with a small sample of college students indicate that jealousy is corrmth, feelings of insecurity and a poor self-image,

~cunqe-rsutjects - ----. wers-.Lo-ra likely- t.o report experiencing C, - __--- jealousy than older subjects- This finding supports the - -. -l____-" ------contention by Constantine E Constantine (1974) that jealcusy decreases with age. 3These researchers found that EeopIe ~nder - - \--/'-----__c------.--- I the age of 31 were more likely to identify jealousy as a probiem

-___- ---..------1- in tbeir rclaticnships than were ~eopleover the. .age - - . of-- - 31, .__.I___------I-- Aronson & Pines also found that those individuals who had been unfaithful with current partners tended to report higher levels of jealousy thac faithful partners,

~r_f;~'igle,Roach, Andler & Evenbeck (Rote 1, Note 6) have developed a scale which is designed to measure the intensity of individua 1 reaction differences to jealousy evoking situations,

They refer to this quantitative aspect as dispositional jealousyw On the basis of 100 college studentsf descriptions of jealousy situations and characteristics, 20 representative items were generated to form the Self-Report Jealonsy Scale (SRJS). The items generated shoved that people do not necessarily distinguish envy from jealousy as many of the items actually invclve envy as it has been defined by Bringle et al-, (Note 1 f . The authors argue that in real life situations the distinctions between jealousy and envy blur as more than one emotion cac influfnce a person's beahviour. Thus, th~ysuggest that the subjectsi inability to discriminate between jealousy and envy makes a conceptual distinction unimportant to the meaning of jealousy on a self- report scale.

The authors report the internal consistency of the SRJS to be cver -90 by coefficient alpha (bl=751) and test-retest reliability to be -73, A factor analysis with 651 subjects identified four factors in the scale: 1) sexual jealousy (eg,, myour steady date expresses a desire to date othersn); 2) social jealousy (eg,, a friend is smarter and gets higher gradesw); 3) family jeaw (eg,, "your brother or sister is given mcre freedom); and 4) work jealousy (eg,, another person gets the promotion for which you were qualified), In four studies Bringfe et al. (Note 1, Note 6) looked at the correlations between the

SRJS and 11 gersonality scales. Sex roles and jealousy were exa~inedby correlating the Bern Social Beliability Index,

Gonghts Feminine Interest Scale and the Attitudes Toward #oaen

Scale with the SRJS for 90 subjects, B mcderatelp significant

finding was that more feeinine------pergons report mo~~e_rllousy, \--- - Correlations bftween the SRJS and the Cooperseith Self-Esteera

Inventory, the Life satisfaction Scale and the Rotter Locus of Control Scale (M=144) iodicated that subjects who score high on the SBJS show low self-esteem, dissatisfaction with life, as well as an external locus of control (all correlations * significant at the -01 level), Correlaticns between the SRJS dad the Zuckerl~anAcxiety Scale, the Steiner Benevolent-Malevolent Scale and the flachivellianism Scale (N=90) showed highly jealous peo~leto be significantly Bore anxious and, to a lesser degree, more malevolent in their attitudes toward the world than low jealous people. The correlations b~tweenthe SRJS and the Crowne-Flarlowe Social Desirability Scale and a dogmatism scale

(N= 52) shoved no relationship between social desirabiity and the scale but highly jealous people were found to be more dogmatic-

Bringle et al, conclude that the pattern of results from these correlaticns offers some sup~ortfcr the construct validity of the SRJS based on what would be expected front the literature on jea lousy.

In a study designed to evaluate the hypothesis that jealous pecyle would net be able to use a cognitive coping strategy as well as nonjealcus people in a stressful situatioc Jarenko E

Lindsey (1979) found no significant differezces, ghat was interesting was their finding that the SRJS was significantly and negatively correlated with the Crowne-Harlowe Social Desirability Scale &=--44) and was not significantly correlated with the Locus of Ccntxul Scale (g=-12)- These resul5s are not consistent with the findings of Bringle et al,,

It is clear from this review of the literature on okjective measures of jealousy that the Self-Report Jealcusy Scale is the aost highly dev~lopedscale to date, It is the only scale which * has been evaluated in terms of reliability and const:

validity. The other inventories have offered suggestive findings but have nct yet provided evaluative data with regard to reliability and validity-

2- Sex dlf f erences and a ~sociatedfindings in ~sych0:ogical

research

The question of whather- or-not there are 9ualit.tive and quantitative differences in the experience of jealcusy b~tueen __ _ - -. --- -.------_ women and men has been of interest to a number of the above ------*- .-- - res~axchers, Tbe traditional YA~Wthat women are the more - -- -1- jealous sea has already teen discussed within the context of 1

culturally determined sex-roles and romantic ideology. Ncne of

the research has directly addressed the quantitative questiori

but the research and theorizing on the qualitative aspects of jealousy in men and women have provided evidence for qualitative

sex differences in jealousy reactions,

0- (cited in Bringle & Willia~s, 1979) factor acalyzed / retorted r~actiansto jealousy and identified the f olloving I eight factors: 1) eiuot ional iievas5ation {eg, , feeling helpless) ; I' 2) reactive retribution (eg., beccxiing more sexually assertive) ; / 3) arousal (eg., paying more attention tc the partner) ; 4) need for social support feg,, talking with others for advice) ; 5) \ intrapunitiveness (eg, , blaming self ; 6) conf rontatior. leg,, confronting partner or the other) ; 7) anger (eg-, wanting to jet

. even) ; and 8) impression management (eg,, trying to make it seem one doesn't eight components were reduced tc two dimen~ions--one reflecting an attempt to aid or stabilize the relationship and the oth~rreflecting an attempt to boost or stabilize one's own ego and feelings of self-esteem,A Bryson r'\ found that males are more likely to respond with the intrapersonal components involved with boosting or stabiliziry

their self-esteea whereas f ernales are more likely to resgond with the inter~ersonal coaponents involved with aiding or

stabilizing the relationship, Shettel-leuber, Bryson & Y cung (1978) report on the ex~~rimentswhich 1~dto these conclusions,I forty females and forty males watched videotapes and were asked

to rate the likelihood that they would respond in 36 different

ways, The video tape showed a cou~lesitting together at a

party, They are kissing, hugging and talking together* One of

the partners then gets up and leaves the room, At this pcint an

cld boyfriend or an old girlfriend enters the room and is

greeted with a hug by the remaining partner. They sit together and get progressively Bore intimate with each cther, The absent ~artnertten returns acd looks at them on the couch. There are four different versions of the tape, The women subjects watched

cne of two tapes which show the female pa~tnerleaving and an

old girlfriend entering the scene, In one tape she is attractively dressed and groomed and in the other she is 1 one of two tapes showing the male ~artnerleavirg and an old boy friend, who is either attractive or unattractive, enter the t scene, Results showed that men were+meJikely<- to say that they would start going out with others or becc~esexually aggressive "

videotape. Uomen were more likely to say they would feign- indifference or try to make themselves more attractive to thelr ____-._------. - partn_e_mlZ-b differences were greater when the fa;mer friend 1 / was attzactive. The authors argue that these findings shcw that)

and swfactors are more important than - --- ( I personality characteristics in determining the type and I

Mhite (1980) looked at the relationship between oneas degree of involvement in a relationship and attempts to induce

jeafonsy in one's partner- He hypothesiz~dthat an attemgt to

induce jealcusy was most likely to be done by the ~artnerwho is

sore involved but has weaker control in the relationship as a

strategy to increase their control, One hundred and fifty couples were asked to rat€ their relative degree of involvement in the relationship and were asked to answer questions akout how 7-----. and why they might have atteapted to 'induce<.- - jea19~. Five

categories af inducement were used to code the responses: 1)

increase rewards; 2) baleter self-esteem; 3) test the

relationship; 4) revenge; and 5) punishment, Five categories ,I were used to code the ty~esof inducements reported: 1) talking about past relationships; 2) talking aboct current relationships; 3) ; 4) dating or sexual contact with others; and 5) lyiag about the existence of a rival, Each gartner also rated their degree of involvement as being nuch more, more, equally, less, or much less than their partner's.

Results indicated that wcmen were significantly more likely to report jealousy inducement than men, While no effect for the level cf involvelsent was found for men, women vho were more involved were almost twice as likely to report inducement than those women whc were less or equally involved, For both sexes, - --- the most frequently reporte inducing jealousy were ------__ to test the relationship (39-75) and to increase rewards /------t_30,1%), The mqst frequently reported method of inducement uas __C_------"" - . - r +r - to talk------abo utcurrent attractions to others (5 I. 4%)flAccordir.y - to Bhite the finding that uoaen are more likely than men to

------. -1_1__ induce jea _ ---- society, He argues that jealousy may be more a reflection of the -- - Fewer relationships between two people in a couple than of a dis~ositionwithin an individual.

Francis (1977) had 15 cou~lesfill out questionnaires after a structured intervieu, designed to elicit jealousy, was conducted, The questionnaires dealt with relationships and jealousy ard included the SRJS, She fourd that for men jealousy is associated more with situations where there is sexual e involvement between one's partner and a third party and a com~arisonof oneself with a rival. Women indicat~dthat jealon~yuas more associated with situations where the partner talks with another person on the phone or in person, the partner kisses ancther, or spends more time with a rival, Francis also found data which suggest that males are more likely to repress or deny awareness of jealous feelings while females tend to be more sensitive to jealcusy evoking situations,

Teismann E Mosher (1978) set up role-playing situations ~rt which cougles had to discuss jealousy and other ccnflict issues, They rated the couples ' interpersonal communication styles using a coding scheme with 36 categories, They hypothesized that men would use more rejecting verkal acts and women would use more coercive verbal acts while discussing jealcusy issues. This was based on ideas by Bernard (1971) and Reik (1957) who suggested that jealcus vcaen fight to win their partners back while jealous men withdraw froat and reject their partners. Teismann E nosher also examined the notion (again based on ideas frcm Ber~ardand Reik) that for women jealousy centers around time, attention and resource issues uhile for @en jealousy has a more sexual context. The authors found that more rejecting and coercive verbal behavionrs were used in jealous conflict situations than non- jealous conflict situations and that this was true for both sexes, Houewer, roaen were found to be eaore ------likekg to express jealcusy in terms of time and attention loss d ------i whereas men were more likely to exgress jealousy over semual ------<------__ matters,- - - --

Eringle, Evenbeck 8 Schmedel (Note 7) hypothesized that a tendency toward high jealousy (as measured by the SRJS) vould be disruptive to people's , They lccked at the relationship between jealcusy intensity and marital satisfact ion- They found that highly jealous couples repcrted

Foorer expectations fox outcomes with relationships outside of their . This indicated to the authors that jealous ~eo~letend to be more dependent uFon their primary relationships. For aen, hut not for women, the estimate of marital satisfaction was correlated with the estimate of the prtner's jealousy level,

Bringle G Uilliass (1979) looked at the similarity of results between parents and their children on the the SRJS acd two other personality measures-the Bepression-Sensitization Scale and the flehrabian Screening-Nonscreening Scale, They fo~ad that jealous people are more likely to be sensitizers lie,, people who have a lower threshold for emotional stimuli) and nonscreeners (ie,, geo~lewho are more easily aroused in co18pLex st imulus environments) , Parent-child similarities for these trio personality diaensions were found ~ostfrequently between

Farents and fe~alechildren, A si~ilaritybetween parents and children of both sexes was found for the tendency to be jealous and the way in which jealousy was reported to be expressed. d The main findings of qualitative differences in sexual jealousy expression between women and men can be summarized as I follows. Yomen tend to get jealcus over issues of time or attention loss whereas sen tend to get jealous over sexual issues- Women are more likely to attempt inducement of jealcusy \ in their partners than are men. The latter finding has been related to the poorer power status of women in society, The last finding of note is that nen are more likely than women to repless or deny sexual jealous feelings.J While the studies reviewed in this section on psychclogical J resrarch offer interesting and suggestive data on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of sexual jealousy the majority of thee share a drawback which hinders the credibility of their findings; namely, they have not yet demonstrated a sufficiently valid means of measuring jealousy. Despite this shortcoming a number of the studies atteapt to demonstrate certain correlates of jealousy. It should be noted that the Self-Report Jealousy Scale was shown to have internal reliability and some construct validity hut it has not yet been evaluated in terms of discriminant or predictive validity. As well, the scales developed to date have another ehcrtcoaing which jeopardizes their utility. A11 of the jealousy questionnaires, with the exception of the Tipton et al- study

11978; Note 2) , have asked peo~lequestions which include the word jealousy. It has heen pointed out, howevez, that jealousi has different meanings far different people (Bringle et al.,

Note 1; Note 6). is often denied (Preud, 1'322/1'358; Aronson E

Pines, Note 5). and is often most explicitly denied by those who are most jealous (Clanton 6 Smith, 1977)- Although Tipton et al, ineasure jealousy more indirectly, they dc not ~xovidedata on the reliability or validity of their measore, As a result, the findings of researchers such as Bringle et al, (Note 1, Eote 6) and by White (1980, Note 4) , may have be~ndistorted by their use of tests using the word jealousy. Jareako & Lindsey's (1973) finding that the SR JS was significantly and negatively correlated with social desisability can be interfreted as an indication that jealousy is seen as a negative attribute, On this basis it was thought that a less biased jealousy scale, that did not mention the word jealcusy, should and could be developed by ta~pingthe purported characteristics of jealous individuals. The description of the construction and evaluation of such a scale follows below. a !the clinical and research literatures on sexual or ro~aritic

jealousy repeatedly report that jealous ~eoplehave certain

social and dispositional characteristics, Regardless of the

particular ~erspectivespresented by various authors, certain

- characteristics tend to ke mentioned with greater frequency than

others. What fcllous belou is a listing of the most commonly

mentioned social and dispositional characteristics of jealous

people and the literature sources which identified them: 1) gg --ovese~ende~p 9 others- (Beecher & Beecher, 1971; Berscheid E Pei, 1977; Clanton G Smith, 1977; Fleming G Washburn, 1978;

Hoaken, 1976; Rlimeck, 1979; Mazur, 1977; Shepherd, 196 1; and

Tigtoo et al,, 1978): 2) feelinqs gg insecurity and

-..----inadeguacp- [Eerscheid E Fei, 1977; Bowman, 1965: Clanton G

Smith, 1977; Enoch, Trethowen 6 Barker, 1967; Fleming E

Washburn, 1978; Hoaken, 1976; Jones, 1930; Kliaeck, 1979;

Langfeldt, 196 1; Plazur, 1977; Mead, 1977; Shepherd, 196 1 ;

Skolnick, 1978; Speilman, 1971 ; and Tipton et al, , 1978) ; 3) -aoodiness ans anxiety-- {Blood E Blood, 1978; Bringre et al- ,

d Note 1, Note 6; Davitz, 1969; Langfeldt, 1961; Hocney, 1465; schmideberg, 1953; Speilrnan, 1971; and Tipton et al, , 1378) ; 4) msessiveness--(Blood E Blood, 1978; Encch et al, , 1967; Fleming 6 Mashknrn, 1978; Hoaken, 1976; flazur, 1977; schmideberg, 1953; Speilman, 1971; and Vcllmer, l946/l977) ; 5) oversensitivity and suepiciousnesp- (Beecher E Beecher, 137 1; Bowman, 1965; Enoch et al., 1967; Hoaken, 1976; Jones, 1930;

Langfeldt, 196 1; and Spilaan, 1971) ; and 6) belief in socially def ins4 relationshi2 roles- (Bernard, 197 1, 1977;

Davis, 1936/1977; Ellis, 1954,1977; Fleming E Yashburn, 1978;

Gilmartin, 1377; Mazur, 1977; Mead, 1977; Skolnick, 1978; and

Yhitehurst, 1977)- Another significant, though scmewha t less frequently mentioned characteristic, is ccmpetitiveness cr attention seeking beha viour (Beecher G Beecher , 1971 ; Downing,

1977; Ellis, 1954; and Schmaideber g, 1953)-

On the basis of the seven main characteristics a total of

71 statements were generated fro& 1) the ideas expressed by tne above authors; 2) the scales developed by Tipton et al. (1978;

Mote 2) and Asonson & Pines (Note 5); 3) the Jacksca Per~onality

Research Form (Jackson, 1967) ; and 4) the Gordon Personal Profile Inventory (Gordon, 1978) - The statements are presented in Appendix A and are grouped according to the characteristics th~yare designed to taF, Some items are grouped under two headings because they logically appear to reflect two characteristics, Extra statements, which did not fit intc any of the defined categories, were included as potentially relevant items- To estaklish some content validity for the statements they were presented, in nixed order, to five professionals working in the areas of relationship counseling and/or academic clinical psychology. These professionals were asked to rate the items on how likely tbsy thought it would be that jealous people would ident if y a statement as being characteristic of their way of thinking, feeling or behaving to a greater degree than nonjealcus peo~le. The rating vas done on a five point scale from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5)- Thirty-two items which received an average rating of 3-6 cr higher were retained for the inventory. Retained items are laasked with asterisks in Appendix A. An additioaal item--"I like to know what my

~artner/sponse is doing when wet re apartw--was added after being suggested by one of the raters. The 33 iteas were then compiled into an inventory which was named the Zacder Jealousy Inventory (ZJ I) .

Evaluation ~ the Zander Jealousy xoventory

The general purpose of the studies which follow are to establish whether or not the characteristics listed above allow for the establishment cf a reliable and valid inventory to measure sexual jealousy, The Zander Jealousy Inventory is to De evaluated in terms of its internal reliakility and convergent, L discriainart and concurrent validities as they relate to the construct validity of the inventory (Cronbach G Heehl,

1955/1967; Allen G Yen, 1979). The use of the Self-Report

Jealousy Scale (Bringle et al,, Note 1, Rote 6) as the tool to de~onstratethe convergent validity bears some comaent at this goint- As previously ~entioned,this scale is the only jealousy measuring tool that has been shown to have internal consistent y, test-retest reliability and soree construct validity, An ia~ortantconsideration of the SRJS is that it makes no distinction between envy and jealousy, Ocly seven of the twenty item on the scale belcng to the factor identified as sexual jealousy by Eringle et al.. It is expected that a higher correlation will exist between the ZJI and this factor t hali with the other factors, as th~items in the 2.31 are derived from a review of the literature on sexual or roraantic jealousy. The other factors identified by Bringle et al. in the SRJS (family, social and work jealousy) appear to reflect envy more than jealousy as it is currently conceptualized- Another consideration which will, it is predicted, attenuate the degree of relationship between the ZJI and SRJS is the fact that the latter scale asks respondents to directly rate how jealous they think they would be in different situations, The weaknesses of this style of questioning have been revifwed in Chapter I, On these bases the SRJS may not be the best means of evaluating the new inventory tut currently, it is the best objective jealousy II scale available.

Aside from evaluating the status of the new inventory the first study attempts to exataine some of the demographic factors

which have been associated with jealousy--age, sex, number of sitlirgs, and number of relationships, Sex has been included to exasin€ the possible differences between males and females on

the inventory- As mentioned earlier, the traditional vier that women are tte nrore jealcns sex has been blamed on the

patriarchal control of societies and the practice cf monogaEy (Bernard, 1977; Bead, 1977; Skolnick, 1978; White, 1980). Bringle et al- (Note 1 , Note 6) re~ortno significant differences between female and male scores on their jealcusy scale Cut they did find an association betveen feminine traits and jealousy. Francis (1977) found data which suggested that males deny or repress tbeir jealous feelings to a greaker degsee than women who are more likely to be sensitive to jealousy evoking situations- With these issues in mind the ZJI will be examined fcr possible sex differences. Age has been inclcded to examine wtetber or not jealousy decreases with age on the cew inventory and the SRJS. It is generally regarded within the psychoanalytic/psychiatric literature that roman tic or sexual jealousy occurs with greater frequency in the middle years of lif~(Enocb et al,, 1967; llooney, 1965)- This is usually the case uith geople who havf been diagnosed as having neurotic or delusional jealcus y. Researchers in psychology, who have looked 6 at more standard populations (eg., college students and couples attending workshops), have found that jealousy decreases with age (Aronson G Pines, Note 5; Constantine & Constantine, 19741,

The number of siblings in the subjects* families is being examined to see if any relationship exists between this factor and jealousy scores. lo evidence has been found to support the idea that a relationship does exist but little data has been gathered (Clanton Q Smith, 1977; Langfeldt, 1961 ; Vauhkonec,

1968)- The nuraker of past relationships is being examined to investigate Fenichel's (1945) contention that, because of strong nafcissistic needs, jealous people have an inability to develop lasting love attachments and would therefore have a greater number of relationships than non jealous people, Relationship status is being examined to see if one's current status differentially affects one's jealousy scores, The second study includes two subscales from the Jackso~ Personality Research Form--Endurance and Plap-to evaluate the discriginant validity of the new inventory (Jackson, 1967)-

According to Jackson (1970), a test should not only correlate highly with conceptually similar measures but it should alsc not correlate kighly with theoretical13 unrelated measures. ?hus the Endurance and Play subscales were chosen to provide a test of the discriainant validity of the inventosy as they appGar to be conceptually aorelated to jealousy- The third study evaluates the concurrent validity of the new inventory. For this purpose couples were asked to rate their partners on a series of questions thought to be related to jealousy and these ratings were then con~areduith the partner's scores on the jealousy scales, Although a predictive criterion-rela t ed means of establishing this validity for the new inventory would have been preferable, the ethical problems of experimentally manipulating and measuring jealousy sade the present ccncurrent methcd more expedient, if less effective, Het hod

Subjects

A total of 150 undergraduate students, enrolled in psychology courses at Simcn Fraser University, served as the subjects for the initial pilot study of the inventcry- The mean age of all subjects was 22.6 with an age range from 18 to 44 years, The 88 female subjects ranged in age from 18 to U4 with a mean age of 22.8 years, and the 62 male snbjects ranged in age frca 78 to 35 with a mean of 22.4 years.

Raterials

1)Zandey Jealousx Inventory- The inventory is made up of the 33 statements derived in the manner described above, Each ite~is scored on a scale froa nnot at all characteristic of sew

(1) to uextremely characteristic of men (5). The tctal score can range from 33 tc 165 with higher scores designed to indicate grrater jealcusy (see Appendix B) . 2) Self-Report Jealousy Scale. The SRJS consists sf 20 items scored from %ot very jealousn (1) to "very jealousn 19) with a tctal score range of 20 to 180. Based on 651 subjects from a college population the SRJS was found to have a mean score of

94.2 with a standard deviation of 30.0 (see Appendix C) ,

3) Social gg&rabi lity Scale.. This scale (Crowne & Marlowe,

1964) is included to evaluate the degree to which a self-representational response bias confounds kith the overall

ZSI, its individual items and the SRJS- The inclusion of such an evaluation is a necessary step in the development of a new inventory (Jackson, 1970)- The scale consists of 33 questions and has a true-false resgonse format (see Appendix D), 4) Demoqraehic iteras, As previously ~tentioned, questions on sex, age, number of siblings, number of relationships and present relationship status were included (see Bp~endixE) ,

The materials were comgiled into a questionnaire package in the following order: 1) the Zander Jealousy Inventory (ZJI); 2) demographic it~ms;3) the Social Desirability Scale (SDS) ; and

4) the Self-Reprt Jealousy Scale (SRJS) ,

Procedure

The questionnaire ~ackageuas administered to subjects in small tutorial groups or singly in an office- Subjects were told that the researcher was interested in relatior-ships and were asked to read the package instructions and to refrain from discussing the questions. They were informed that they could obtain their individual results at a later date, The package

d took approximately 20 minutes to complete,

Results and conclusion^

Heans, standard deviations and alpha coefficients cf tht3

ZJI and SRJS are preseated for fenales, males and the total sam~lein Table 1. Both the ZJI and the SRJS have total sample reliability coefficients just below .go. The mean itea-total correlation coefficient of the ZJI was -38, A t-test of the difference between female and aale mean scores on the ZJI (107-3 versus 38-2, respectively) showed significance, 2 (1118) =- 3-55,

~<-001,whereas a test of the female and aale mean scores on the

SRJS (94.9 versus 88-2, respectively) showed no significant difference, f (148) =-1-61, p>,10, An analysis of the individual items in the ZJI was based on the Differential Reliability Index (DRI), described by Jacksod (1970)- The ERI procedur~was used to ccisare the item-total ccrrelations with the item-desirability correlations (see Table

2)- The computed DRI is intended to reflect the degree of itea content saturation with social desirability renovad, Those itsnts which clearly correlate more highly with social desirability than with tte criginal scale are not useful for measuring the construct tbe original scale was designed for. As can be seen from Table 2, two of the ?XI items correlated more with social desirability ttan they did uith the total inventory. In this study, items considered worth retaining had a DRI of -20

b Takle 1--Hean& standard deviatioqs and zeliability coefficients --of ---the --ZJI --and ----SRJS

Alpha -M -SD -coefficient ---Zander ----Jealousp ---Inventorq A3.1 subjects 103-5 16-1 -87

Females 107.3 17.0 -88

Self-Bepors Jealousy Scale

All subjects Females Bales --Takle -2-Cifferential reliability index of ZJI iteas 3 1 112 -12

32 -60 -06

3 3 a 40 -.24

*--indicates item is to be elininated or above and the DRI exceeded their item-desirability correlation by -03 or above., The latter cut-off point was arbitrarily chosen as no set rules exist for the selection of items on the basis of the DBI, The items which failed to meet the criteria for retention are marked with asterisks in Table 2, In order to examine whether the pattern of shared variance of the items would reveal distinct factors, a factor analysis with Yariman rctation uas performed on the 231. By exanining the residual correlations it was found that a two factor solution best fit the data. The items making up the factors and their factor loadings are presented in Table 3, The first factor appears to reflect the preferences and beliefs that jealous people may bring with thela into relationships while the second factor appars to reflect emotional sensitivity, When female and male subjects were compared in terms of their relative mEan scores on the two factors it was found that wcmen cored significantly higher thar Ben on the emotional senstivitp factor (40.6 versus 3 5.3, respective1y) , 2 (1 4 8) =-3.74, E<. 001, bhereas there was no significant difference between their Eean scores on the pseference and belief factor (66.6 versus E2- 9, respectively), 2 (148) =- 1-93, g>, 05. The emotional sensitivity factor therefore accounts for the women's significantly higher scores on the total ZJI,

Pearson product-moaent correlations of the Zander Jealousy Inventory with the Self-Eeport Jealousy Scale and the -Tab& 3-251 Ateas factor loadinqs a thg two factor -solnti~n

-item# -i tea ----factor Joadin q Factor 1

24 Z like ay partner/spouse to spend most of his/her free time with me

1 I like to spend the majority of my free time with ay par tner/spouse 22 Hy partner/spouse satisfies aost of my emotional needs

18 I am very much in love with my zartner/,p= ouse

32 I like to know what ay partner/spouse is doing when we're apart -6 11

4 I believe that life-long moncgamous relationrhi~sare the best kind ,545

13 Uhen my partaer/sponse and I are together then I prefer

to be alone with him/her -53 1

5 Ry ~artner/spousesatisfies most of my

intellectual needs ,528

30 By partner/spouse satisfies aost of ay recreational needs ,521

3 1 like to think of my lartner/spouse an an extension of

myself , 495

9 Hy happiness often depiznds on how my ~artner/spouseis fee ling

12 Harriage/cohabitation should only happen between two peo~lewho are prepared to be faithful to each other

14 By partner/spouse satisfies my sexual needs

27 I find myself feeling resentful if my gartner/spouse spends a lot of time with friends rather than with me

20 I so~etiaesfind myself imagining all kinds of things my gartner/Eponse nay be doing while we're apart

17 I tend to get strongly attached to pecple

7 I believe that there is an ideal mate for me

8 I know by my ~artner*s/spouse*sbehaviour whether or net she/he is sexually interested in a persur: of the sane sex as ae

29 1 believe that sexual relations should be had only with someone you feel emotionally intimate with

19 Ply partner*~/spouse*s behaviour around members of the same sen as me tells me a lot about how she/he is feeling about me

Factor 2

26 IYp feelings are easily hurt

2 I get depressed easily

23 I get upset easily

33 I probably have more ups and downs in moods than most

gea gle ,t 28 1 tense u~ easily -704

15 I can ke very sensitive about what othes people thirik about me ,584

I6 Hy imagination can get carried away soaetiaes ,543

10 I feel inferior to others in many respects ,524

25 I ~ometi~esfeel that I an not receiving enough attention f r cr ~y partner/spouse -462

31 I am an emotional person ,460

21 When 1 talk about someone I like a lot I have a hard time hiding my feelings ,358

27 I find ~yselffeeling resentful if my ~artnsr/spouse s~endsa lot of time with friends rather than with ae ,350

6 It is im~ortantfor me to have a job or career that will bring me prestige and recognition from others 11 1 like to be the centre of attention in a group Social Desirability Scale showed that it was significantly and positively correlated with the SRJS, p.53, g<.001, and has not significaritly correlated with the SDS, g=.04, p>- 10. As predicted the ZJI correlated more positively with the sexual jealousy factor of the SRJS than with the family, social or work factors (see Table 4). The female and male samples* correlations of the ZJI with the SRJS both showed significance but the male coefficient was lower, g=.37 for males versus g=-00 for feaales- Following ccr~utationalguidelines found in Brnnirg G Kintz

(1968), the difference between these correlations was tested and found to be nonsignificant, ==I. 80, E>-OS, Correlations f;etween the ZJI and the SDS were nonsignificant for the female and male santgles. The SSJS was found to be significantly and negatively correlated with the SDS for females, males and the total satn~ie

(all of the above correlations are presented in Table 4)-

To examine the relationship between age and scores cn the

WI, and scores on the SRJS, Pearscn correlation coefficients were computed (see Table 4)- The overall and female ZJI scores were negatively and signif icantfy correlated with age whereas the male ZJI sccres were negative1y but nonsignif icantly related to age, The same pattern of results was found for the ccrrelaticns between age and the overall, female and aalf SRJS scores, ---Table ------4--Pearson correlation soeff icients between the ZJf, SDS, qc& -&SRJS --SRJS -subscales --and

--All Subjects --n= 1SO ZJI with SRJS ,53***

ZJI with sexual ,56***

ZJI with family ,32***

ZJX with social ,31***

ZJI vith work ,23**

ZJI vith SDS -00

SRJS with SDS -,25**+

ZJI with age -,3 I***

SRJS with age -,20** The otter demographic items evaluated were the number of siblings, number of relationships and present relationship status (see Appendix E), The correlation between the number of siblings and the scores on the ZJI for all subjecto was nqnsignificant, r=.09, E>, 10. The method used to obtain an estimate cf sabjects* number of relationships proved to he anbigaons and this data was not analyzed- The aabiguity was reflected in the fact that a subject, for example, could have had a ronantic, cohabiting and married relationshir with one person but tbe experimenter would have counted these as three separate relationships krcause this kind of inforgation was not recorded by tho method used. As well, the relationship between subjects* present relationship status and their jealcusy scores uas not evaluated because the majority of subjects fell within only tuo of the nine relationship status categories (see

Appendix E), As a result, an examination of the effect of present relatiocship status on ZJI scores was not possible, To summarize, the ZJI showed itself to have a sufficient degree of internal reliability as reflected by the overall alpha coefficient of -87 and by the aean iteaa-scale correlation of

-38, Females scored significantly higher than males on the ZJX and their significantly tigher scores on the emotional sensitivity factor accounted for this sex difference, The convergelt validity of the ZJI with the SEJS was established and, as predicted, the ZJI correlated most signif icantf y with the sexual jealousy factor of the SRJS, The ZJI showed itself to be nonsignificantly related to social desirability whereas the

SRJS was shown to be significantly prone to this response bias,

The latter result is consistent with Jarfsko & Lindsey's (1973) finding and contrasts with the Bringle et al- (Note 6) result,

The existence of a substantial degree of internal consistency and convergent validity for the ZJI was a promising step in the de~€lc~!4m3tcf the inventory and indicated that a further evaluation of the ZJI was justified, On the kasis of the DRI item analysis certain aodificati~ns of the ZJI were made, The eight items shcwn to hav~the ~oorest content satnfation relative to social derirabilit y were deleted and a new fora of the ZJI was prepared for the second strrdy (see

App~ndixF), The primary purpose of the second study was to establish discriainant validity for the ZJI and to examine whether or not the patterns established in the first study-convergent validity, internal reliability, factor structure, a negative correlation between age and jealousy scores, and the sex differences-would be repeated, Due to the lack of significance in the relationship between number of siblings and jealousy scores, the difficulty in obtaining a reliable estimate of the number of relaticnships, and the insufficient numbers to evaluate relationship status these three demographic variables were deleted from further testing, Subjects

A new sample of 97 undergraduate students from Simon Fraser University, served as the subjects in this study. The

mean age of all sub jecta was 25.9 with an age range from 19 to

51 years, The 69 female subjects ranged in age from 19 to 51

with a mean of 25-3 pears, The 28 aale subjects ranged in age frcm 19 to 42 rith a mean of 27.4 pears,

Mat frials

1) Zgg- Ge_alwy zgqentg=y. The ZJI ncw consisted of 25 items which were scored in the same Btanner as in Experiment 1,

The possible tctal scores now ranged fro^ 25 tc 125 with higher scares again d~signedto indicate greater jealousy, [Appendix PI - 2) Self-Re~ortJealousy Scale, The SRJS and its fouz factors

were again used to evaluate the convergent validity of the 2JI

and tte relative merits cf the scales (Appendix C).

3)scial &sirability Scale. The SDS was included tc evaluate the self-representational biases of the new ZJI and the SRJS (Appendix D) . 4)mrance gqq Scales. These subscales of the Jackson Personality Besearch Form are made up of 16 questions each and have a true-false respcnse format, The Endurance scale was

developed to reflect a willingness to stay with problems, and a patient, gersevering work style, The Play scale was designed to " reflect an easy going and fun-loving approach to life (Jackson, 1967) - In the resent study these two scales uere combined into one, with questions from each appearing in alternating order.

They were included to evaluate the discriminant validity of the

ZJI (Appendix G). The materials were coepiled into a questionnaire package in the f~llowingorder: 1)ZJI; 2) SDS; 3) Endurance and Play scales; and 4) SRJS,

Procedure The questionnaire ~ackagewas adninistered to subjects in small tutorial groups or singly in an office. Subjects were tald that the ~ackagfasked ~uestionsabout their relationshi~swith important people in their lives and with the world around t ha,

The latter instruction was included to account for the addition of the Endurance and Play scales- The instructions to refrair, from discussing the questions and to read the directions uere again given, Subjects were inf orned that individual results could ke obtained at a later date- The package tock ap~xoximatelp30 minutes to co~plete,

Results and Conclusions Heans, standard deviations and alpta coefficients cf the

ZJT and tbe SRJS are presented for females, males and the total samgle in Table 5. The reliability coefficient of the ZJI decreased to -81 in this study and was particularly lower for the eale sample (alpha=.72). The mean item-total correlation coefficient for the ZJI was -35. The SRJS again demonstrated high internal consistency, A t-test of the difference between femal~and male mean scores on the ZJI (79.9 versus 74.5, respectively) proved significant, z(95) =-1.95, g<-05, whereas a t-test of the difference between f~maleand male mean sccres an the SIiJS (98-0 versus 93.0, respectively) showed nc significant difference, 2[95)=--7, ~>-10. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed on the new ZJI. Again, a two factor solution best fit the data. The items making UF the factors and their factor loadings are presented in Table 6. This time the first factor appears to reflect eaotiocal sensitivity and the second factor appears to reflect the preferences and beliefs jealous people may bring with them into relationships. Once again women scored significantly higher thac men on the emotional sensitivity factor (46.8 versus 42.8, respectively) , f (95) =-2.2, E<- Cot, and there uas no significant difference between their mean scores or the preference and belief factor (38-0 versus 36-7, respectively), 2{95)=,76, g>-10. Alpha -M -SD Coefficient --Zander -Jealousy pventory All subjects 78.5

Females 79.9 Hales 74.9

Self-Report Jealous1 Scale

All subjects 96.6 Peaales 98.0 Hales 93.0 --Table ----6--Items --and --factor Aoadinqs pf +,ws factcr solution

-item 2 -i ten _---factor ----loadiilq

Pat tor 1

21 I get ugset easily

16 Hy feelings are easily hurt

13 fly iaagination can get carried away scnetimes

25 I probably have aore ups and downs in moods than rost geople

9 1 tense up easily

17 I sometimes find myself imagining all kinds of things my Eartner/spouse may be doing while ue're apart

24 I like to know what my partner/spouse is doing when we're a~art

22 I find ~yselffeeling resentful if my ~artner/ spouse spends a lot of time with friends rather than with me

3 1 atr an emotional person

18 Yhen I talk about someone I like a lot I have a hard time hiding ay feelings

19 I sometimes feel that I am not receiving enough attention from my partner/spouse

12 I can be " very sensitive about what other people think of me

11 Wheo my fartner/spouso and 1: are together then I prefer to be alone with hie/her

15 By partner*s/spouse *s behaviour around merabors cf tbe same sex as me tells me a lot about how she/he is feeling about me

14 X tend to get strongly attached to people

Factor 2

6 I believe that there is an ideal mate for me

20 I like my partner/spouse to spend most of his/her free time with me

1 I like to spend the majority of my free tise witb my partner/spouse

23 I believe that sexual relations should only be had with soaeone you feel emotionally intimate vith

2 I like to think of my partner/spouse as an extension cf myself

5 My Fartner/sFcuse satisfies most of my intellectual nefds

4 I hrlieve that life-long monogamous relationships are the best kind 10 Marriage/cohabitation should only happen betweec twc ~ec~lewho are prfpared to be faithful to each other

8 My happiness cften depends on how my ~artner/spouseis feeling 15 MY partner' s/spouse *s behaviour around members of the same sex as me tells me a lot about how she/he is feeling about me

2U I like tc know vhat my partner/spouse is doing when we're apart

22 I find myself feeling resentful if my partner/spouse spends more time with friends rather than with me

Ite~7-"1 kncu by my ~artner~s/spouse*s behaviour whether or not she/he is sexually interested in a person of the same sex as me*--did not obtain a factor lcading above ,250 for either factor, The Pearson correlations between the ZJI and the Endurance and Play scales for the total, female and rale samples were all nunsignif icant (see Table 7). This result provides evidence of discriainant validity for the new ZJI, Pearson correla ticns betweer, the 2JI ar,d the SRJS and SDS showed it to be significantly and positively correlated with the SRJS, r=,52,

~<.001, and not significantly correlated with the SDS, g=,06,

E>, 10, These correlations aod the ones discussed below are all presented in Table 7, The correlation of the ZJI with the SRJS for the female sample was significant and positive, ~=.56, ~<,C01, but the correlation for males failed to reach significance, g=,36, ~>-05. (It should be noted that this coefficient is comparable to the significant correlation coefficient found between male ZJI and SBJS scores in the first study,) $ test of the difference between the female aad male correlation coefficients was again nonsignificant, q=1,O8, p>.05, As in the first study, the 231 correlated rore positively with the sexual jealousy factor of the SRJS thao with the other factors, This was true for the male and feaale sam~lesas uell,

Once again the SRJS was found to be sigrificantly and riegatively correlated with the SDS, As in the first study, age correlated negatively and significantly with the overall and female ZJI scores, The male 231 scores were negatively but nonsignificanzfy correlated with age, In contrast to the first study, however, the correlations betweeen age and the overall, female and male All sub** Penales --n= 97 -n=69

ZJI with Endurance

ZJI with Play ZJI with SRJS

ZJI with sexual ZJI with fasify ZJI with social

ZJI with work

ZJI with SDS SRJS with SDS

ZJI with age

SRJS with ags SRJS scores were not all negative and were all nonsignificant

(SEE Table 7)- In sumaary, the results from this second study showed that the new ZJI had a sufficient degree of internal consistezcy as deiacnstratsd bp the overall alpha coefficient of -81 and the mean item-total correlation of -35. The same factor structure as in study one was found for the new ZJI and females scored sigcificantly higher once again on the eaotional senstivity factor, The desired discriminant validity of the new ZJI was demcnstrat~dby the lack of significant correlaticns bet%een it and the Endurance and Play scales- The neb ZJI showed convergent validity with the SRJS and in particular uith the latter's sexual jealousy subscale, As in the first study, social desirability was found to be a confounding factor for the SRJS and not the ZJI. Finally, age was once again fcund to be negatively correlated with ZJI scores but this pattern did not hold for the SRJS. The results from these first twc studies of the ZJI show consistent patterns with regard to the reliability and validity of the inventory- The criterion-related validity of the ZJI still remains to be establisled, Study Three is designed to test this validity of the ZJI, as well as to provide further inforaation on the pattern of results with the inventory. flet kod

Subjects

Thirty couples were contacted by telephone after they had signed their names and telephone numbers on sign-up sheets psted through~utSimon Fmser University.. These sheets asked for married or cohabiting couples, who had been living togethsr for at least one year, to fill out a questionnaire on relationships, Couples were offered $10,00 for filling out the questionnaire package, Approximately 501 of the subjects were students, and the other SO% consisted of pople who (1) vere ho~ecaretakers, or (2) worked full time, The aean age of the 60 subjects was 29-0, vith an age range of 13 to 48, The 30 fe~aies ranged in age from 19 to 48, with a mean cf 28.5 years, Ihe 30 aales ranged in age frcm 23 to 37, vith a mean of 30.0 years. Bat €rials

The same materials presented to subjects in Experiment 2 were presented to the couples in this study, The one additior, was a set of four questions designed to peasure the partner's perception of the other gartner9s role in the relationship-

These questions are discussed below and resented in Appendix H.

Question l--nHave you ever had (or are you now having) relationships with other people which ancoyed or u~setycur ~artner/spouse?"-- was included to test the hypothesis that people scoring high on the ZJI and SRJS would be more likely to qet upset as annoyed over relationships their &a rtners have with others outside of the ~rimarprelationship- Question 2--'*In genezal, hon dependent upon you is your ~artn~r/s~ouse?~--was adapted from White (1977, Note 4) , and was designed to test the hypothesis that peo~lescoring higher oa the jealousy scales would be rated as being higher on defecdency by their artn nets. Question 3--"1n gen~ral,would you say that your ~artner/spouse is less involved, equally involved or more invclved than you are in the relations hi^?^--was based the work of Qhite (1980) who found that women were more likely to attempt inducement of jealousy in their partners when they were sore invclved in the relationship, White did not find this patterr for men, It was therefore predicted that the feaale partners, and possibly males, who were rated as more involv~din the relationship, rould score higher on the jealousy scale, Question 4--"How jealous a person is pour par tner/sp~nse?~~--provideda straight-f oruard examinatioo of the hy~ctbesisthat those ~artnerswho scored high on the jealousy scales would be rated high in jealousy by their partners, The itaterials were compiled into a ~ackagein the same order as in Exreriment 2, with the inclusion of the four partner perception questions placed prior to the SRJS. As sell, couples were asked to estimate the number of years they had been together as it was hypotkesized that jealousy scores would decrease as years together increased.

Procedure Couples rere seen individually or in pairs in a large tutorial room, Couples were seated so as nct to face each other while filling cut the package, and the set of instructions given to the subjects in Experiment 2 were repeated, After comrletioa of the questionzaire package, the experirenter discussed the purFose of the study with the couples and answered their questions.

Results and conclusion^ Beans, standard deviations and alpha coefficients cf the

ZJI are presented in Table 8. The SRJS again showed bigher internal consistency than the ZJI, The mean item-total correlation for the ZJZ in this study was -37, The difference in .( Mean scores between females and males (80.8 versus 70.6, res~ectively)was again significant for the ZJI, &=-3.8, Q<-001, and nonsignificant for the difference in mean female and male

SRJS scores (88-1 versus 7U.2, respectively) , A=-1-68, E>. 10, The overall reliability coefficient of the ZJI is -80, but this time the alpha is considerably lower for females than it was rn the previcus study (alpha=,77).

A factor analysis with Varimax rotation again produced a tvo factor solution (see Table 9)- The factors are similar in content to the factors cbtained in the previous factor analyses,

As in the previous two studies women scored significantly higher than aen on the emotional sensitivity factor (33-9 versus 32-3, respectively), f (58)=-4. 16, ~<.001, and there was no significant. difference between their mean scores on the preference and belief factor (37-0 versus 33-7, respectively) g (58)=- 1.74, g>-08, Once again it is the eaotional sensitivity factor whictl acccunts fcr wemen's significantly higher overall ZJI sccres,

The primary purpose of Experiment 3 was to establish some level cf concurrent validity for the ZJI, The results frcm tha correlations of the four partner perception questions with ths

ZJT scores showed no significant correlations for @alesand females (see Table 10) - A similar evaluation of the SRJS showed it to be significantly and positively correlated with gaest ion 4--*HOW jealcus a person is yaur partner/rpou~e?*~--for koth mal~sand females, L=-39, E<-05 for both samples, For @ales, -Takle J 8--Heaos --standard deviations asd reliability ----coefficients of thg ZJI ane SRJS

Alpha -H -SD ----coefficient --Zander Jealopsg!--- Inventory All subjects 75-7 females 80-8

Males 70-6

-Sel f-Report Jealous1 Scale All Subjects 81-1 Females 88.1 Males 74-2 -Table -- 9--ZJI ---items and factor --loadings Ilf Qg factor ~lution

-item 2 factor lo.o~~q

Factor 1

16 My feelings are easily hurt

21 I get upset easily

25 I probably have more ups and downs in aoods than most ~eople

9 I tense us ~asily

3 I am an emotional person

13 fly imagination can get carried away sofietimes

12 I can be very sensitive about what other people think of me

22 I find myself feeling resentful if my ~attner/ spouse spends more tine with friends rather than with me

14 I tend to get strongly attached to people

19 I sometimes feel that I a@ not receiving enough attention f r clu my partner/~pouse

17 I sonetiaes find myself imagining all kinds of things my ~artner/spouseBay be doing uhile we're apart 24 1 like to know vhat my partner/spouse is doing when we're alart 15 fly partner*s/spouse*s behaviour around members of the saEe sex as ae tells me a lot about how h~/sheis feeling ahuut me

Factor 2

10 flarriage/cohabitat ion should only happ~nbetween twc people who are prepared to be faithful to each other

20 I like my partner/s~onse to spend most of his/her free time with me

1 I like to spend the ~ajorityof my free time with my partner/spouse

4 I telieve that fife-long moncgamous relationships are the beet kind 6 I telieve that there is an ideal mate for rne

5 Xp partner/spouse satisfies most of my intellectual needs

23 I believe that sexual relations should only he had with someone you feel emoticnallpt intimate with

2 I like to think of my partner/spouse as an extension cf myself

8 Esy happiness often de~endson hou my Fartner/ spouse is feeling

22 1 find myself feeling resentful if my ~artner/ spouse spends a lot of time with friends rather than witk ise

24 I like to know what my partner/spouse is doing when we're a~art

Ite~s7, 11, and 18 did not attain facSor loadings of

,250 ar above fcr either factor. ----Table ----10- pear son --corpslati_ons &sueen jfalcusp zcores ---and ~artner--- perception questiocs-between

Correlatiors of feaale Correlaticns of male

jealcusy scores rith jealousy scores witn male ratings of female ratings of partner perception partner perception questions questions

ZJ I SAJS ZJI

scores scores scores -U_ -- &stions Annoyance - 09 -02 -19

Degendency -32 -06 , 17

Involvement -25 -08 -,09

Jea lousy -33 ,39* -34 their SRJS scorfs were significantly and positively correlatea with their partner's ratings on Question 2--w1n general, how dependent upon you is your partner/sp~use?~--I, r=. 47, p<-01, Another set of correlations explored was the relaticnshi2 between subjects' 231 and SRJS scores, and their own ratings of their partners, Regarding the perception ratings, it seemed possible, that tased on the projective as~ectsof sexual jealousy, individuals scoring high on the ZJI and SRJS would label. their partners as beios high on the four juestions. These correlations (presented in Table 11) demcnstrated two sigoificant effects, Female ratings of their partners on the dependency and jealousy questions (Questions 2 and 4) were positively and significantly correlated vith their scores on the

SBJS, ==, 41, E<-05 and ==,43, p<,OS, respectively. The couples ' estimate of their years together did not correlate significantly with scores on the ZJI for any of the sa~~les(see Table 12).

Once again the ZJI was 1) significantly and positively correlated vith the SRJS for females, males and the total sam~le;2) more significantly and positively correlated kith the sexual factor cf the SRJS than with the other factors; and 3) nonsignificant ly correlated with the SDS (See Table 12) , For C this saaple, tbe SRJS was significantly and negatively correlated with the SDS for the total and male samples only. The ZJI was found t~ correlate significantly and negatively with the Endcrance Sacale for the male sample, ==39, p<,05, but not for Tatle 11--Pear= correlations between -&alcnsy scorgp -and jartney gerception ques&iuns--withip

Correlations of female Correlations of male

jealcusy scores uith jealousy scores with

female ratings of male ratings of partner perception partner perception questions questions

ZJ I SRJS ZJI --sccres ---scores scores Question

Annoyance 0.23 0.16

Dependency --06 , 4 I*

Involvement -26 -04 Jealousy .C3 ,43* Table 12--Pear~on . ------correlation ,,coefficients between ,-the ,AzJI SRJS, SRJS subsca&ee, SCS, ygagS ig~ther, ------Endurance --and --Plap --scales --and

All subjects Females Ha les

Jn=601 (n=30L _(n=30L

ZJI with SRJS ,53***

ZJI with sexual ,56*** ZJI with farily ,39***

ZJI with social ,38***

ZJI with work ,43***

ZJI with SDS -01

SRJS with SDS -,26*

SRJS with years tog- -05

ZJI with pears tog, ,I1 ZJI with Endurance -022

WI with Play -12

ZJI with age -,UO***

SRJS with age 9-03 C the female or the total samples, Age was again significantly and

negatively ccrrelat~dwith the ZJI for the overall, female and

ale samples, As in the second study, the SRJS did not show this

pattern (see Table 12)- In summary, the ZJI was again found to be internally consistent as shown by the overall coefficient alpha of -80 and the mean item-total correlation of -37, The factor structure was essentially identical to the factor structire of the first two studies and woaen, once again, scored significantly higher on the eaotiomal sensitivity factor, The attempt to demonstrate concurrent validity for the 231 on the basis of the four criteria questicns was not successful, Although the magnitude of

the correlations between Question 4 and the ZJI were -33 and

-34, for females and laal~srespectively, they were not

statistically significant, On the other hand, the SRJS scores

uere significantly and positively correlated with questicri 4

(correlaticn coefficients were -39 for both sexes), As well, cne correlation k~tweenaale SRJS scores and female ratings of

Cuestion 2 was significant (see Table 10). When lcoking at the

within sex correlation coefficients between SRJS scores and the criteria questions (Table 11) it was found that female SFJS

C scores correlated positively and significantly with female

ratings of the criteria questions 2 and 4--the same questions which contributed to the establishment of some concurrent

validity for the SRJS, The latter result suggests that a I( t L pro jectivf process may be functioning in relation to these

questions. The same pattern, however, did not occur for the male

sa m~le- The other pattfrns of findings in study three--convergent

and discriminant validity for the ZJZ, the lack of a significant

correlation uitb the SDS, and a negative relation between age

and ZJI scores-were consistent with the results from the first

two studies. The degree of consistency of the correlations between the various scales in all three studies is shown in

Table 13. The way in which the results from the stcdies relate to the original hypothesis and the area of scale developeect is discussed below- -Table ---- 13--Summary of Pearson correlation coefficient3 from --Experiments I, II, and &Ix

ZJI with SRJS I_ -- -- A11 subjects Females dales -231 ---with ---sexual All subjects Pea ales Males ZJI with faril~ -- UI _Y__ All subjects Feaales Males -ZJI ---with ---social C A11 subjects Females Bales All subjects

Pemales Hales --ZJI 3s All subjects Females Hales SRJS with SDS --- - v- All subjects Females nales --ZJI y&gags All subjects Feaales nales ---SBJS ---with sge All subjects Females Hales

All subjects

C Pemales

All subjects Females Bales 111, Discussion

The original hypothesis, that the characteristics of jealous people describ~din the literature allow for the establishment of a reliable and valid inventory, is supported in part, hy the results of the three studies with the Zander

Jealousy Inventcry. The item-test ccr relations, internal consistency aearures, convergent, discriminant and concurrent validities all contribute to the establishment of the construct

validity cf a test of this nature- Construct validity of a test

is defined as the degree to which the test measures the

theoretical construct it was designed to measure (Allen & Yen,

1379; Crontach E Heehl, 1355/1967)- A proper evaluation of the

Zander Jealousy Inventory requires that each of the reliability and validity results be discussed in terHrs of how they

contribute to the construct validity of the test, ie,, the degree to which they support the hypothesis that the ZJI

aea sures sexual jealousy,

The it EE- test correlations and the reliability coefficients both indicate the degree of internal consistency of the

inventory. The lower bound internal reliability coefficients

were sufficiently high to consider the forms of the ZJI to be

homcgeneou~ in vhat they measure (Jackson, 1.370)- 'lo sup~ortthe construct validity of the 2.31, the iteaa-tctal correlations must

be consistently high (Cronkach G Heehl, lSSS/l967) . The three studies showed some items to have consistently high or few item-total correlations whereas others were inconsistent in this

regard, It is clear from this analysis that the item pool of the

ZJI must be modified and tested several times with several

subject saia~lesbefore the desired consistency is attained, The present item pool of the ZJI rfflects only certain

characteristics, and many more items might be generated and

tested from all of the personality characteristics said to Ce related to sexual jealousy. The test- retest reliability cf the

inventory has yet to be established as well.

It was predicted and found in the three studies that +he

Zander Jealousy Inventory correlated significantly with the

Self-Report Jealousy Scale. This test confirms the convergent

validity of the ZJI. As discussed above, certain properties of the SRJS are believed to have limited the degree of the

correlation. Since according to operational definitions, the

SRJS apFears to measure envy rather than jealousy in 13 of its

20 questions, it was predicted that the ZJI would correlate mast

highly with the 7 guestions related to sexual jealcusy, This

C exptzctation was confirmed in all three studies, and added to the convergent validity of the inventory. The SRJS, as well,

measures jealousy by asking how jealous pople would be in certain situations, The observation of the frequent denial. of jealousy has been discussed above. The SRJS, and not the ZJI,

was found to be significantly and negatively correlated with the

Social Desirability Scale in all three studies, and this pattern was always true to a grfater degree for men than for women, The Social Desirability Scale is intended to measure a

self-representational response bias (Crowne E flarlowe, 1964),

and the above result can be interpreted as confirming the negative valence for the word jealousy. Thus it appars that

resEonses to the SRJS were confounded with the need for ccocial

approval, This my also account for some of the unshared variance between the ZJI and the SRJS, especially for the male sar~les, The fact that the ZJI correlated significantly with all four subscales of the SRJS, and not just the sexual jealcusy subscale, requires some comment, The SRJS was developed ky

asking 100 people to describe situations in which they had been

jealous. Bringle et al. (Note 1) note that, despite operational distinctions between envy and jealcusy, ~eopledo attribute

jealousy to situations which would operationally be defined as

envy, It was thf present author*^ experience that subjects

freguontly had diff icntly filling out the SRJS because they

C found that the word jealousy did not apply, No records %ere kept of the number of subjects who had this difficulty, but it did demcnstrate that people had different definitions of jealousy, In order to complete the SRJS, however, subjects were forced co t i respond to the situations in terms of jealousy. Thus people wno i may have identified situatioos as being envy-eliciting (or any

oth~r motion) aay have cognitively altered their definitions to

comply vith the demands of the SRJS, If this was the case, then it may explain the observed correlations between the envy

qu~ationsof the SRJS and the ZJI. On the other hand, it may be that envy and jealousy are not con~letelydistinct constructs,

and people who freguentlp experience these emotions share mani

of the saw characteristics,

As for discriminant validity, the Zander Jealousy I Eventory was fcund to correlate ~cnsignificantlyvith the Endurance and - Play Scales (Jackson, 1967) for the total and female samples in

Experieents 2 and 3, The only correlation that did reach significance was between the ZJI and the Endurance Scale for the

male sample in Experiment 3- Since this result did rlot occur in

Exp~riment2, a plausible explanation Rag be that this result was due tc the articular sasple of males in the third study,

Nonetheless this result necessitates the further examination df the discriminant validity of the inventory- Whereas the Endurance and Play Scales provide sufficient initial measures of

the discriminant validity of the 231 because they appear to be

C conceptually unrelated to jealousy, fuzther validation of the inventory could include other scales which measure constructs conceptually closer to jealousy, This vould provide evidence that the 231 is not meascring a number of traits whose nomclogical networks might cluster more closely to the ccnstruct of sexual jealcusy than do the Endurance or Play scales, Nonetheless, tbese preliminary results with the ZJI do establish

a degree of discriminant validity for the inventor y,

As demonstrated by the nonsignificant correlations tetween the four criterion questions and the Zander Jealousy Inventory

in fx~eriment3, the concurrent validity of the ZJI was not established, In fact, the Self-Report Jealousy Scale was shown

to be significantly correlated with the jealousy question for

the female and f ale samples and with the dependency question for the male sample only- The latter result. ~10videssome evidence of the concurrent validity for the SRJS. For females, houever, their dependency and jealousy criteria question ratings

(Questions 2 & 4) were correlated significantly with their oun

ZJI scores, The latter result weakens the evidence of concurrent

validity for the SRJS. The lack of concurrent validity of the ZJX in this articular study can be inter~retedin a numter of

different vaps following guidelines f rcm Cronbach and Pleehl (19f5/1967) - According to these authors, a negative result such as +-he one above can be due to ooe or faore problems: (1) "The test does not measure the construct adequatelyw; (2IwThe

L theoretical network which generated the hypothesis is

incorrecta; and (3) nThe experimental design failed to test the hypothesis properly** (F, 70)- These probleas can be used to evaluat~both the critezion questions and the Zandsr Jealousy Inventory.

B11 three of the above ~erspectiveson negative results apply to the four criterion questions- The questicns were pritrarily generated on the basis of their apparent face validity. It was assumed that jealous partaers in relaticnships arG perceived by their gartners as being (1) annoyed or upset by certain of the latter's relationships with cthers; (2) high in dependency; (3) equally or more involved in the relations hi^; and (4) high in jealausy. In addition to questioning the logical assumptions on which the questions are based, one could argue that there was little eapirical evidence to su~pcrttheir use as criterion variakles, Questions 2 and 3, dealing with levels of dependency and involvement, were derived from studies by Whit&

(1 977, 1980, Note 4) discussed earlier- As grevicosly mecticned, however, Whitets method cf aeasuring jealousy has yet to be validated, Thus, while the criterion questions appeared sufficient to test the hypothesis adequately they were fcunded on questionable empirical and theoretical grounds,

According to Allen and Pea (1379). concurrent validity coefficients nt~ndto underestimate a predictive-validitp. coefficientw and therefcre are not usually the preferable method

C of establishing criterion-related validity (p- 97)- In this context, the best way to establish the ccnstruct validit1 of the

ZJI would be to relate it to behaviourally defined observations of jealous " peo~lealong with self and significant other reports (Cronkach E Heehl, l955/1967) - The ethical problems of experimentally aanipulating sexual jealousy are ap~arentand thus the establishment of predictive criterion-related validity

for the ZJI awaits the development of an ethical, behavioural measure,

Bs for the Zander Jealousy Inventory, the establishment of internal reliability, and convergent and discriminant validities for the test eliminate the possibility that the experimental

design used or the theoretical network upon which it is tased are responsible for its incomplete demonstration of construct

validity. It is more likely that the third problem, an

inadequate meaeureaent of the construct, is responsible, As was discussed in relation to the item-total correlaticns, th~

present item pool of the ZJI is limited in that it reflects oaly

some and not all of the theoretically derived characteristics of

sexually jealous people- In fact, the form of the WI used in

Experiments 2 and 3 ooly reflects five of the original seven

characteristics associated with jealousy, and then only to a

limited degree, B larger pool of item ircm each of the characteristics needs to be developed and tested several times on several subject samples in order to properly evaluate the

C theoretically Cased structure of the inventory; i-e,,

identifying the characteristics which contribute most to the tendency to be jealous. The two factor solutions from the factor analyses of the

Zander Jealonsy Inventory consisted of what may be labelled (1)

an Emctional Sensitivity Factor, and (2) a Preference and Belief Factor, Although these two factors do not directly reflect the characteristics from which the items were derived, they are both

ccnsistent with two of the four defining components of jealousy; namely, the affective, and beliefs and perception components,

The situational and &ehavioura& aspects of jealousy were cot eeasnred by the inventory- The demographic factors examined in the studies contributed

minimally to the construct validity of the ZJI, The finding that women scored significantly higher on the eaotional sensitivity

factor appears to be consistent with the suggestion by Francis (1977) that women are more senstive about jealousy issues while

men tend tc deny or reFress their feelings about jealousy; ana

with Spence & Belmreichgs (1978) finding that women scorf hiyaer

thar aen on scales which measure emotional vulnerability, The

attaipt to evaluate the connection between jealousy and the

variables of present relationship status, years together, cumber

of elations ships and the number of siblings groved premature as no d~finite theoretically based predicticns could have been nade

L about the direction of the correlations tetween these variablas

and the ZJI, As Cam~bellE Fiske (1959/1967) state: **We telieve that before one can test the relations hi^ between a specific test and other traits, one must have some confidence in cnets measure of that trait-" (pa 128)- In other words, the construct

validity of the ZJI must be established before variables

associated with jealcusy may be p~operlyevaluated, An exception

to this caveat is the variable of age, It has been found that, within a non-clinical populaticn, reported jealousy decreases as

agr increase2 (Constantine G Constantine, 1974; Aronson E Pines, Note 4). This stable finding is consistent with the results of

the three studies which found that ZJI scores decr~asedas the

age of subjects increased, This result does add to the construct validity of the ZJI,

How do the studies cn the ZJI relate to the theoretical and

ob~ervationalwork of psychoanalysts/psychiatrist,c and sccial

psychologists? At this ~cintthe ZJI has not revealed much in tko way of relevant infcraation on the etiological and

ty~ologicalth~ories of these grouFs, flany of the guestioos concerning sexual jealcusy may be fully explored in future

studies once the construct validity of the ZJI is more firmly

established. This holds true, as well, fcr the ap~licaticnof

the ZJI to zesearch on the qualitative sex differences in sexual

jealousy expression. The fact that women scored significantly

higher thar nen oo the ZJI might lead one to conclude that women

L are indeed the more jealous sex, What seems clear, however, is that women are not the more jealous sex bct are more

self-disclosing about emotional issues (Cozby, 1973)- This qua~titativequestion--which sex is the more jealous?--is protably never going to be answered as the real issue seems to be the need for a fuller understanding of social influences or inter prscna I relationships.

In conclusion, the Zander Jealousy Inventory has shewn itself to have a sufficient degree of reliability and validity to warrant its further development on the basis of literature- derived characteristics. A sexual jealousy scale, free from a self-representational bias, ray prove useful, not only for theoretical examinations of the sexual jealousy construct, but also as a diagnostic tool in clinical work such as relationship counselling, where jeal-ousy denial map prove to he a hinderaace to change, IV, Appendices

Ap~~ndixA--Original characteristics and items list

A- Overdependency on others

1, I have many interests that do not include my partner/spouse

2, *fly partnerlspouse satisfies most of my intellectual needs

3, *By happiness often depends on how mp partner/spouse is feeling 4, *fly partner/sponse satisfies nost of my sexual needs

5, *I tend to get strongly attached to ~fople

6, I like to make as aany friends as I can

7, I ittake close friend^ easily

8, *Hy partner/spouse satisfies most of my emoticnal needs

9, I don't need the coepany of others to be happy

10, *I like my ~artner/spouseto spend mcst of her/his free time with me

.. 11, *I sometiares feel that I am not receiving enough attention

frcm ~y Fa rtner/spouse i 12. I have many friends outside of my relationship with iey 13, I share my ~ersonalconcerns kith maoy people aside from my ~artner/spouse

14, *Ply partner/spouse satisfies mcst of my recreational needs

Insecurity and inadequacy

I have very few doubts about my social competence

I feel good about ay physical appearance

*I feel inferior to others in many respects

I generally feel secure about my relationship with mj partner/spouse

I am fairly self-confident about obtaining those chings life which are iaportant to me

I feel that I: am a self-confident person

bodiness and anxiety

*I get depressed easily

I get upset whec people have points of view which differ front mine

I often get angry when people tease me

I find myself feeling quite ill a? ease when I am meeting new peo~le

I get impatient easily

Sometimes I feel so nervous that I begin to get all choked

UF 7, *I get cpset easily

8, *I probably have mcre ups and downs in moods than most

pfople

9, I generally feel uncertain about what to do or say when I'm with a grouF of people

10. *My feelings are easily hurt

11, *I tense us easily

12, I sometimes feel timid in the presence of ethers whom I

regard as my su~erioqrs

13, *I am an efnotional person

Possessiveness

*I like to spend the majority cf my free time with mj

~artner/sponse

*I like to think of my partner/spouse as an extension of

la yself

Some little things do annoy me--like when friends help

themselves to some food that I am eating

*When t~y&a~tner/s~ouse and I are together then 1 prefer to

be alone vith him/her

I like to share things with my friends

I like my ~artner/s~ouseto involve ise in most of her/his interests

I find it difficult sonetimes to share things without worrying atout how much is going to he taken

*I like my ~ar.L,ner/~~ouseto spend most of his/her free fame with me

*I fiad myself feeling resentful if my partner/spous~spends a lot of time with friends rather than with me

Oversensitivity and suspiciousness

I get upset when people have paints of view which differ fraa mine

I often get angry when people tease Be r *I know by ay pa,tner's/spouse *s behaviour whether or not

she/he is sexually icterested in a person of the same sex as me

I sometimes think that people are planning something about me behind my back

I like to observe and analyze the betaviour of others

*I can be very sensitive about what other people think of ae *fly imagination can get carried away scmetimes

*Ply partner's/spouse9s behaviour around members of the saBe

sex as me tells me a lot about how she/he is feeling about me

*I sometimes find myself imagining all kinds of things my ~artner/spouse may be doing while we're apart

10, *I get upset easily 11. *Hy feelings are easily hurt

B b~liefin ~ociallydefined relationship roles

*X believe that life-long monogamous relationships are the best kind

*I believe that there is an ideal mate for me

*Harr iage/cahabita tion should only happen bet ween t vo people

who are prepared to be faithful to each other

*I am very isnch in love with ray partner/spouse

*I believe that sexual relations should only be had with someone you feel emotionally intimate with

Cornpetit i veness- attention see king

1, I enjcy working in situations involving skill and

competition

2, I enjoy workicg in groups more than by myself

3, *Xt is important for me to have a jot or career that will bring me prestige and recognition from others

4, I like to be able to do things better than other peo~lecan

5, *I like to ke the centre of attention in a group L 6. I like to Ze independent of others in deciding what I want

7, I sometimes like to supervise and direct the actions of other pecple 8, I enjoy competitive activities

9, I would like to be a recognized specialist in a job, profession or field of endeavour

10, The main satisfaction I ex~ectI would get from a full-tiae jok is the work itself and not being around people

11, I like working where I won't be bothered by others

H, Extra statements

1, Talking about feelings is cne of the best ways to understand ancther Ferscn

2, Uhen I'm in disagreement vith my partner/spouse my o~inion usually prevails

3, 1 find it easy to talk about ay feelizgs with my gartner/spouse

4, When I'm with my partner/spouse I usually go aloog vith whatever suggestions she/he makes

5, *When I talk about someone I like very much I have a hard tire hiding my feelings

6, By partner/rpouse is open with me abcut other sexual attractions/experiences - 7, I am open with my ~artner/spouseabout other sexual attracticns/experiences Appenaix 0--The Zander Jealousy Inventory

. , This section asks you questions about your current rklatimship ii',tl, a ;&nm or spouse. If you are not currently in a &iation6hip could you answer the questions afyou are now in a relationship. .

The statements which follow on the next page concern feelings, thoughts aqe behaviours. You are to rate how characteristic you find these statements tc be of the way in which you feel, think or behave.

The evlewk~ich follow:; is to familiarize you with the rating sgcter. &a? Is nct to be aqswered.

Exmr:le - "1 eat lots of junk food" A E C D E not at ali ~liei,tly ~cderately very extrenely chhrzrterl sti c ck~arzcteristicchaacteristi c characteristic chzracteri st! c of xe of me of me of me of me

You L-e to moose a letter from A to E which corresponds to how chcacteri stic of yourself you find each statement. The appropriate letter space is then to be filled out on the computer sheet provided. C 1. I like to spend the majcritp .of my free time with mj. pzrtner/spouse "- 4 5 riot at 811 very . extrenely

zot at all slightly .moderately very. extreme1 y * w .-b ch=;cteristic 1 characteristic of ne

3. 1 like to tb-ink of. iny pri,ne+/spouse as ar. e F- 1 2 3 not tit dl slightly mderately ckarkcteri stic stic cf ze

4. I telieve that life-long nonogarnous relationships are the best kind --- 1 -- 2 3 4 -2 ~.stit dl siigktly moderately very extremely c!xrzcte~istic characteristic :f ::s of Ine

7. I believs thzt there is an ideal nate for me -- 1 2 3 -.4 1. nct at all sl:ght;y moderately veq extremely ck~rzcterlstic chaxacteristic of nie ++ of me E. I hoii by my partner's/spouse'~ behaviour ~heinaror not she/he is sexually interested in a person of the siwe sex as me .

of re

10, 1 fesl inferior to others in n;ar,y respects

.l 2 -7 not E: ell slightly moderately c:.ar;cterlstic of me

13. T like to be the center of attention in a croup 2 3- -4 5 not at all slightly moderately t~ry extremely c?,;rzcterlstic characteristic sf r.e of me

12. ~:krrl~~t/coh&kltationshould orJy happen betxsen two people whc are yrep;:-ed to be faithful to each other --- 2 3 4 5; xd 27, 211 ~lightiy moderately very extrexely ci-.erz,-yerlstic chamAeristic af T.E o:? me

13. W;im ~y prtr.~r/s~ouseznd I are together tha- 1 prefer to be aiocs hit5 hin/her ,- --1 2 3-, 4 5 nct at 211 slightly rnderately very e:rctremely C ~h~i~teristic -characteristic of se of ~e

14. Ky partner/spouse satAsfies my sexual needs 1 2 3 4 5 not at all slightly : rr,ocierately very extremely ct.eracteri r9Yc -=*. characteristic of r,e of me 15. I can be very sensitive aboiit xhat other people think of m 1 -2 3 4 5 not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic of me

ometl

ve r-7 extremely characteristic

. **:-y" " -*. * *- 17. I tend to &b;fjtronglY- atkcfie2 to people % 1 2 not at all slightly mo3eriitely characteristic of me

2,i ax very much in love with my partner/syouse -- 1 2 3 4 5 riot at 211 slightly- moderately very extremely c:k:,iracteristic characteristic c-!' r.e of me

:'?, ?.y p;rtner's,/sj~~se's b;.ehaviour somd umbers of the sane sex ~s r.e tells r.~a lo? &out how she/he is feeling about me 1 2 3 4 2- r ci at ail silghtly uioderately very extreniely c-tzracter;stlc chaacterisiic < f ~.e of ne

2 C. I soxetimes flrici r;..yself Inqinirg all kkds 3f things my pzrtner my be doing while we're apzrt

4 -i --2 3 4 5 riot at all sllghtky moderately Very cxtrenely characteristic chzracteristic C of me of ne

2:. C!hec I talk &-tolitsDmeone I like a lot I time hiding IL~ feelings 1 2 not - 3 -4- at all slightly . '- moderately characteristid extremely of me . characteristic of me 22. E:y partner spozse satisfies rr.ost of rr.3 er;.otlonal needs

1 r; - -L 3 I: I not at ell ' slightly noderately Ve.4 extremely characteristic characteristic of me

4 1 5 very 6 extremely

24. I llke my partnrk/sPouse to spend most of his/her free -i&& with me , a 1 -. J, -&v - 1 , a" :?-" 5 2 4 .4 - - - 3 - - 5 not at all slightly mocierately very '.%&remely chzracteristic .-dharact eri s t lc of me of me

25. 1 sometimes feel that I am not receiving enough attention from my utner/spouse 1 2 3 4 5 nct bt ili slightly mcderstely very extremeiy cF.zr;cteristic '~h~acteristic

I L-') 3 4 5 P not at all sli6:htiy mderately very extr- mely ck-iracter; stic - chasrc : -ristic r of r;,e of me

26. 1 ter,se up easily 3 2 3 -4 5 not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic . ..+ characteristic of me e -. of me 25. 1 believe th2.t semal relations should be only with sor?one ycc feel enotio~dlyintimte with * 4 5 very extremely characteristic of me

recrest! csal needs 4 .5 not at all very charicteristic

31. I an an enoti -1 2 3 4 5 nct at all slightly moderately very extrenely chricterlstic chasacteristic of me of me

?L . I like t c h-]OWxhat rr,y partner is doing when we ' re 2p& .-- -, -- 2 3 4 rlot at all slig!tly mderetely very

.--- --2 3 ii r.ct 2: kll s>jz?:-. I-,- r,cZ~r::t ely very Appendix C--The Self-Report Jealousy Scale ,"

Below are 20 situations in which ou may have been involved, or in which you could be involved. Rate thd with regard to how jealous you would be if you were confronted with the situation by placing a check mark in a space on the scale. I

1. You find out your spouse is having an affair. Not Very : . Very Jealous -~'-r'J'T'T'T'T%*T~ Jealous

2. Spouse or steady looks at another.

Not Very : Very Jea 1ous T'T:T:V:T:T:T:T:V' Jeal ous

3. A close friend obtains goals which you value. NotVery : -- -: Very Jealous T'T'T'T'T'T'-I ' 8 ' 9 Jealous

4. Another person gets the promotion for which yaJ were quaiified.

5. k friend is smarter and gets higher grades.

Not Very : Very Jealous T'~-*T'-~'T'T'T'T'T~Jeal ou s

C

6. Someone else gets the praise or credit for something you did. Not Very : Very Jeal ous T*-T'T*-~'T'-~'T'T'T* Jeal ous

7. A spouse or steady spends increasingly more time with others.

Not Very : : Very Jealous ~-'-T'T'T'T'T~T-'TJeal ou s

104 ' An outsider becomes close to your children. Not Very : L~ry Jealous T'T'T'-~'T'T*T'T~'V-~ 3ea lou s

A group of people who would not include you in their a~iivities..

Not Very : Very Jealous T'T'T'T'T'T'T'T'V'~ealo-s

You are stood up, and then learn that your date was out with another person. Not? Very : Very Jealous T'YJ'T'T'T'T'T'V' ~ea~ous

Friends who have more money and are able to buy clothes, etc. Not Very : Uery Jealous T'T'T'V'T'T'T'T'T'Jealous

A brother or sister excells in school.

NotVery : Very Jealous T'T'T'T'T'T'T'T'T'Jeal ous k classmate has superior athletic abilities.

Nct Very : \!cry ~i.ia10l.i~ T'-T'T'T'~--'T;-'-T-'-K'T' .lea I ous

A brother or sister receiving presents, and you don't get any.

Not Very : Very Jealous T'T'T'v'T'T'T'T'V' Jealous

Your steady date expresses a desire to date others.

Not Very : Very Jealous ~-'-T'-~'T'T'T'T'B'T~Jea 1ous Your brother or sister is given more freedom, such as staying up later, or driving the car.

Not Very 4 Very Jealous ~T'T'T'T'T'T'T'V'Jealous

Another person is flirting with your date or spouse.

Not Very : + Very Jea 1ous T'-T*T'v'T'T'T'T'V' Jealous

A classmate gets more attention from a teacher. Not Very : Vkry Jealous T'T'T'T'T'T''T*-B'V' Jealous

Your brother or sister seems to be receiving more affection and/or attention from your parents. Not Very : Very Jealous T'T'T'T'T'T'T'T'V'Jealous

A spouse or steady spends increasingly more time in outside activities.

Not Very : Very Jealous T'T'T'T"T'T'T'-S~T*Jealous 4 . . . --' .> 8 - i . . - w- .. .* - Appendix s6ciiir ,oe-siraaility scale . . Ye e" -- A - 1. Before votlng Z .thd.+~ghly ihi&stigate the qualifications of all - . * .- *. - the c&df dates. ' ; ; - , f . - - :I. T (true) 2. (false) 2. 1 never hesittite togo out of ny way to help someone in -tmiible. 1. T 2. F

3. It is sometimes har8-'for me to go on * >' ,-e " encour&ed. - -.1 . T 2. F 4. I have never intensely disliked ariyone.

5. Or. occaslon I have had doubts &out my a?ility to 1. T 2. I'

6. 1 sometines feel resentful when I don't get my way.

12 .There hhve hsec times when I felt like rebelling against people

'In auttority even though I knew they were right. 1, T -- 2. F

- * 13. No mstter who I'm talking to, I'n: always a good listener. 1. T 2. F

ik. I can rememyer playing sick to get out of samething. 1. ,T 2 F - - - . , -- .%,.. 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone, 1. T 2. F *. h 16. I'o al~i~swil1ir.g to adrat it irhen.1 hake amistahe. I. T 2. F 24. 1 would never think of letting arlyoEe else be punlshe3 for my wrongdoings. 1. T 2. F .

25. 7 never resent being asked to return a fsvor. 1. 7'' 2. F'

26. I hhve nev3r beez irked wker. people expressed ideas very different

frcTT. r:\ Cv!!,, 1. 'I 2. F

-. 251. r.zve r=li..cst rlever felt +he urge to tell soc,eo~ecff. 1.1 2.F

3C'. I ar. sc:.;.eii~.es irritate3 by yrapie who ask favors of me. 1. 'I 2. F

31. 1 hhve never felt that I was punished without cause. -'1. T 2. F - 32. 1 sometimes think that when people have a misfortune they only got wh&t they deserved. 1. T 2. F

33. 1 have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. 1. T 2. F -- 4. -- - -.

E; Fresent occupation: r re ydu a full or part-time student; are yc" full or pa-t-time en; l~;;ed)

C) Ireserit relationship status: (check off one or ncre, as appropriate,

slr.gle zk ditlng two or more rorxmtic partners EIT,L;~F.aflllvix~g with a roearttic partner Fleaze indi~tebelow the -TEE (by .a check mark) ar.2 LETiSTh (ln years a.d/or n~ths)of relationships (pk~ied,&hcbiting MB rom.tic)

<, <, . 7- - %*- - 5 ,-

8 - L ,,"_ * '~.-. . I.' r- I. - 8 =- ' (~nyears &/or -

~ommtic a pxths) , .-*I- ' . 5. . 2=s*- EOS..

2. yrs. + - mos , 2. 'yrS. 10s. _ 2

2 , . yrs. : nos. 3 + -- yrs. nos. -- --a ' ", -- 4.- ., C--..~~I *.I. lc %OS. ... 4. . - 2: - nos, %&.* -, :+> 3- e G&-- * - r .<. .&i - . " - -- coh&%itiq TimeTime(&$=igare ,&/*- ,:onfhs') 5 .--A BM .-.$r&. ' - roa; -- - -* *^% 9s,&y - 3 -. - -t- :ei& -.% '-"-- ,- 9-p;%- * - a; yrs . rnw* - i; .- . P 3% 6*--- -+++-Y=* -- EOS. s =. A , 2. yrs. * nos. 7.--- ,.. .+..).. *y?,+ yrs. ____ nos.

3.Yrs* . RDE. f+. yrs. ROS: -7 i r?. - - z. . I;. - --Y*S*.,-m*S* -+-,--.- - yrs. nos.

(If you kve ~ctprevio-sly been in a relztiocship please ealousy Inventorg - - -- -

%ties? statcnents to be of the way in which you feel, think ~~,;Bebm,-

s -- s- ,. + , px.? i" Tlw s~arn~3ewhf ch follows is to f amili~~zeyou with the rating systrr ,mc? Is not to tc anr.wered.

You me to ci~oosi.E. letter from A to E which comespcnds to how - chararteristlc of yourself you find each statement. The appropriate Ictter tpacr is then to be filled out on the computer shest provia&,

1 % C - 1. I like to spenC the majority of my free time with my partner/spouse

4. I believe that life-Lor+ monoganous relationships Ere

not at all characteristic of me

'5. Ry partnrr/spouse satisfies most of my intellectual needs A B --C D E not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic characteristic of me of me

6. 1 believe that there is an ideal mate for me A E -C. -D -E not at all sliljh,- . t ly ~noderately very . extremely characteristic . --, - -characteristic t of me .-b % n of ae - - 7. I know by my partnerls/spouse's behaviour whether or not &e/he is sexually interested in a persm of the same sex as me )I A B -C -P -E not at all slightly moderately ve4 extremely characterlstic . characteristic .-. t of ne si .. of me e. My happiness often depends a how IUJ partner/spouse is feeling

11. When my partner/spouse and I are together then I $refer to be alone with hidher -A B -C D -E not at all slightly moderately 'feu extremely charz.cteristic characteristic of re of me

"12. 1 can be very sensitive about what other people think of me A -B C D E not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic characteristic of me of me ' 13. Ky imac;ination can get carried away soretimes -A --ti C -D E not at all slfghtly moderately very extremely charactedstic .characteristic ' of me of rme

14. I tend to get strongly attached to people -A --E C D- -E not at all' slightly moderately very extremery characterlstic characteristlc of me v of me , 1 . .ST .. - %.

L - 15. Ky partner 's/spouse* 6 behaviour around merc5ers of the sane sex as me tells me a lot about how she/he is feeling about me A -3 -.c -D -E not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic v characteristic of me - of me

-# CIA 16. -Hy feelings are easily hurt -A -B --C G -E not at all 5U ght ly mcderately very *. extremely cha,racteri sti c arwteristi c of me

17, 1 sometimes find myself iuining all kinds of may be doing while we're apart. 8 -A 3 C not at all slightly rm5erately characteristic of me

18. h'hen I talk about someone I like a lot I hav; a hard time hiding my feelings A B -C D E not at all. slightly rmierately very extlrrnel) characteri stic characteristic -of me of me

19. I sometines feel that I an not receiving enough attention front my partner/spouse A -E C D --E not at a:11 slightly moderately very extremely characteristic of me

20. 1 like my partner/spouse to spend most of his/her free time d# ae A -B C D --E not at all slightly moderately very extremely charact erist: c characteristic of me of me

. - 21. I get upset e~sily

A B -. C D -- E - a - not at all slightly moderately very extremely characteristic characteri st1c 22. 1 find ~~selffeeling resentful If my partner/s?ouse spends a lot of time with other friends rather thm wlth me ' -A -B -C -D -E not at all slightly moderately ve ry extremely characteristic - characteristic of me of ae -'I -'I .= ' -,?L. , I_ \_ z- h " _ , . 23. I be~ethatse-1 rekfQna should mly be bad with amerne you feel emotionally ictimate with

-A not at all characteristic characteristic of me t of me

25. I probably have mbre ups and downs In moods than most people --A B -C D -E not a?. all slightly moderately very extremely chzracterl sti c characteristic of me of me 59. 1 don't-have thez+s4a#%+%gpower to do work that ~ustbe very rccumte. T+ %-- , :=.' A. T B. .F

- 60. People consider ae s serious, reserved pers

61, When I hit a snag in hat I'm doing, I don't st a way to get around it. A. T B. F

62. 1 spend a good ded of niy tine just having fun. A. T 3. F

63. If i nz.7 into great dlfficu~tieson a project, I usually stop work rathcr thin tq to solve. the;ii. A. T B. F

64, Kost of n.y friends are serixs-rAnded people. h. T b. F

66, kt tines T get fascinated ~5thsome unimportant game =d play uith it for hours. A. T B. F

67. if : get tired wfsile playing a game, I generally stop playir'g, A. T B. F

GF, I would prefer a quiet evening wlth friends to a loud party. T B. F A. - 69. I have spent how looking for something I needed to complete a project. A. T B. F

70. Most of my spare moments are spent are spent relaxing and musing .. myself. A. T 3. F 71. I don't belleve in sticking to something hen there is little chance of succ&ss. A. T B. T.-. -,;. - Fven If T had. the money an2 the tlme, I wouldn't fee:! rl&t just

73. If I want to know the answer to a question, I sorretimes look for it for days. A. T B. F r)

' 74. Rarely, if ever, do I turn dorm a chance to have a good time.

I an^ more rested. * I B. F 1) L. 77. I rarely let anything keep me fron an important job. A. IT B. F

78. I pride myself on being able to see the funn

A, T - B. F-&--*- %

79. 1 don't have the energy to do some of th A. T B. F

80. 1 believe in working toward the futurerather than spendlng my time in fun now. A. T 3. F

el. I will continue working on e problem even with a severe headache. 0 1.. T B. F

82. I try to make my work into a gme. A. T B. F'

e3. nken I get to s hard place in my work I csually stop and go back to 1 t later. A. T B. F

I$+. I never play jokes on people, and prefer not to have theli. played on me. A. T 5. F

e5, *en other people give up working on a problerc, I usually quit too. A. T 5. F

86. I often do something for no reason at all except that It sounds like fun. A. T B. F -

87. Even when I 'm feeling quite ill, 1 dl1 continue working if It is

88. I usually tiam some reason for %he things I do other than just IE~ own amusement. A. T B. F

69. if people bar~ta j:;b cme which requires patience, they ask me.

A. T a B. F

A. % B. 93. I enjoy parties, shows, gariec - hnythir.4 for fun, F ._ - .

" Appendix &-Partner perception questions

.. -< . .* r-i -:. -- - PLEASE ANS& THE FOXLIKING QUESTIONS Oh' THIS SHW BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE SPACE.

k

Have you ever had (or are you now having) relat ?e ople which annoyed or upset your ~artner/s - s

& In general, how dependent upon you 3s your partner/spouse? - not at all slightly moderately very extrelne ly dependent on me

-C. Ir. general, would you say that your paxtner/spouse is. . .a. less involved beequally involved ; OR c.more involved ; than you are in the relationship?

-D. Row jeilous a person is your pa.rtner/spouse? ------not at all slightly moderately extremely jealous Reference notes--unpublished sources

1, Bringle, R., Roach, S, , Andler, C., E Evenbeck, S, neasuring the intensity of jealous reactions, Unpublished manurcrip~ listed in JSAS CataLa of Selected pQcuments ~c_h~loq~, -9, 1979- 2, Ti~ton,R,, Benedictson, C,, Hahoney, J,, & Hartnett, J, r! -develp~ment of 2 scale fog && g-men& qf iealougy- Unpublished manuscript, Virgiaia Cceamonwealth Univ, , 1377,

3, Bryson, J, Situational werminants qf g& gxpression o_f

jealousy, Paper presented at the aeeting of the A,P,A., San

Francisco, 1977,

4, White, G, Inequalit2 & graotionQ inwolvemen~2nd iealous~ -in =atantic -2. Paper presented at a meeting of the A,P,A,, San Francisco, 1977-

5, Aronson, E,, E Pines, A, Exploring sexual iealousy. Unpublished manuscript, Univ, of California, Santa Cruz,

1980,

6, Bringle, R,, Roach, S,, Andler, C,, G Evenbeck, S. ---Correlates 1Zf jealcusl, Paper presented at the meeting of the Rid western Psychological Association, Chicago, 1977,

7, Bringle, R,, Evenbeck, S., & Schmedel, K- The g& of

iealousy 12 marriaqg. Paper presented at the meeting of the

A-P-A, , San Francisco, 1977, References--published sources

/Adams, V, Getting at the heart of jealous love. Psycholo~y C Today, flay, 1980,

Arnold, P!, Emotion and personality Wof, 1): Psycholoqica~ -aspects. N, P,: Columbia University Press, 1960, h/~arag, G, A case of . gsvchoanal~ti~& V puarterll, 1949, Jl, 1-18,

ps~cher,I!-, G Beecher, U. mark of &g anatoiay jealousy, FLY,: Harper G Row, 1971- Bernard, J, Jealousy in marriage, Iedical meets 9f Ifugqr, Sexualitp, 1971, 3, 200-215,

Bernard, J. Jealousy and marriage, In G, Clanton E L, Smith (Eds,) , Jealous& Englewood Cliffs, N, J, : Prentice Hall, 1977.

Berscheid, E,, E Pei, J. Romantic love and sexual jealousy. Xu G, Clanton C L, Smith (Eds.) , Jealousy, Englewood Cliffs, N-3.: Prentice Hall, 1977,

Bleuler, E, [Dementia jraecox or Ilf schizophrenias], (J. Zinkin, trans, ), N, Y,: International University Press, 1955, (Originally published, 19 11,)

Blood, B,, E Blood, X, flarriaqs ed.1, N-Y-: Free Press, 1978,

Eowaean, R, hrria_ge for aoderns ea,l, N, Y, : flcGraw Rill, 1465.

Bringle, R, , E Siilliams, L, Parental-of fsprieg siailarity on jealousy and related personality dinensions Botivat&n_ and --Emotion 1979, 3, 265-286. Brnning, J., 6 Kintz, 3, Comgutational handbook g statistics- Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Poresnan E Co,, 1968,

Campbell, D,, E Piske, D, Convergent and discriminart validation by the naultitsait-taultimethod matrix, In D, Jackson E S, ilessick (Eds,) , qubleaas human assessment. N. Y. : BcGraw- Hill, '1967, (Reprinted from _PSYcholo~ica1B_g&leriq, 1959, ) Clantoc, G,, & Smith, L, (Eds,), Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs, N-J,: Prentice Hall, 1977-

Cobb, J,, & Barks I. Morbid jealousy featuring as I/' obsessive-compulsive neurosis: Treatnent by behavioral psych~tkerapy, British Journal gf Psychiatry, 1979, 135, 301-305-

Cronbach, D,, E Beehl, P, Construct validity in psychological tests. In D, Jackson 6 So Plessick (Eds.), Problems $J human --assessaeng, I, Y,: flcGraw-Hill, 1967, (Reprinted from Ps~choloqicalBulletin, 1355.)

Crowne, D., 6 Marlowe, D, Zhe approval mctivg, N, Yo: J, Uiley E Sons, 1964,

Constantine, L,, & Constantine, J, Sexual aspects of multilateral relations, In J, Smith E L. Staith (Eds,), -Bevong aonogarny, Baltimore: Johns Ho~kinsUniv, Press, 1974. Davis, K. [Jealousy and sexual property, ] In G, Clanton E L, Smith fEds.) , aealousx- Engleuood Cliffs, N, J,: Preo tice Hall, 1977, [Reprinted from Social Forces, 1936, l4, 395-405,)

Davitz, J, 92lanquaqg of emotions, N, Y,: Academic Press, 1363,

/ochert y, J., 6 Ellis, J. A new concept and finding in ncrbid jealousy, American Journal gf l??ychiatgy, 1976, 33, 679-683-

Downing, C, Jealousy: A depth-psychological perspective, IG Go Clantcn & L. Smith (Eds,), Jealousy- Englewood Cliffs, M-J.: Prentice Hall, 1973,

Ellis, A, XI afferican sexual traqedz, 1-Y, : Twayne, 1954.

Ellis, A, Rational and irrational jealousy, Fn G. Clanton & , Smith (Eds,) , Jealousv, Engleuood Cliffs, N, 3.: Pren tice Hall, 1977,

Enoctt, W,, Trethowan, R,, & Barker, J, Some uncommon psychiatzic syndroaeg- Bristol: J, Vright & Sons, 1967-

Evans, 1- The eye of envy and jealousy. PsychoanaSytic,, Review J 1975, 52, 481-1192.

Farber, L, On jealousy- mmentar~,1973, 15, 50-58, \/ Peoichel, ,O. The ~sychoanalytictheory of neurosis, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1945,

Fleming, J., & Rashburn, C, Fog &&zgy worse, N-Y-: Charles Scribners Sans, 1977, Francis, J, Toward the manage aent of heterosexual jealousy- -Journal qf Marria= and Falcily _cOUnselinq, 1977, 3, 61-69, Freud, E, [Sorae neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and , ] In J, Stachey (Ed, and Trans,), The _complete psycholoqical works of S, Freud (VoL London: Hcgarth Press, t 955, {Originally published, 1922. )

\/Gesell, A, Jealousy, Aarerican Journal of Psychol~,1906, x, 437-446,

Gil~artin,0, Jealousy among swingers, In G, Clanton & L, Smith (Eds,) , Jealous, Znglewood Cliffs, N, J, : Prentice Hall, 1977,

Gordon, L. x& gersonal profilf inventory. W.Y.: The Psychological Corporation, 1978,

Hoaken, P, Jealousy as a symptom of psychiatric disorder, Australian and New Zealand Journal sf Psychiatry, 1976, 12, ------)_ 47-51, -

Jackson, C-, Personality reseagg f_orm, Gashen, N. P,: Research Psychologists Press, 1967-

Jackscn, C, A sequential system for personality scale development, In C, Spielberger (Ed, ) , Current topics & clinical 4communiQ pspcholoq~(VcL a, N. 1- : Acadeaie Press, 197C-

/~are~ko,H., & Iindzey, 8. Stress-coping abilities of individuals high and fou in jealousy- Psvcholoc&cal Feports, 1979, 24, 547-553,

Jaspers, K, [General pflcJgpathology, ] Chicago: ~ni~versityof Chicago Press, 1963, (Originally published, 1910,)

Jor,es, E, Jealousy, Psyche, 1930, 11, 41-55,

Klein, N, gy~ggatitudg. EI-Y.: Basic Books, 1957,

Rlimeck, D, I33neath selection g&i plarriagg- NOYO: Van Nostand Reinhold, 1979- Langfeldt, G, The erotic jealousy syndrome. &uPsychiatrica st Neuroloq&g Scandinavica, 196 1, 25, (Supplementurn 151) , -7-68,

Hazur, R, Eayond jealousy and possessivecess, In G, Clanton G L, Smith (Eds,), Jealcusy. Englewood Cliffs, N, J-: Pren tice Hall, 1977,

Head, iY, Jealousy: Primitive and civilized, In G, Clanton E L, Sfaith (Eds.) , Jealousv- Engleuood Cliffs, #, J, : Pren tice Hall, 1977,

!looney, H. Pathological jealousy and psychocbemotterapy. British Journal of Psychiatrp, 1965, 111, 1023-1042,

Ilurdock, G, social structure- N- Y, : Bacllillan, 19 43,

Pao, P, Pathological jealousy, In C. Socarides (Ed,), The worLJ --of ----emotions, N, Y, : International University Press, 1977, Reik, T, Of love and &go N.Y.: Grove Press, 1957, Riviere, 4, Jealousy as a mechanism of defence. mernatioca --Journal -of Fsychoanalysis, 1932, 73, 414-424, Saul, L, Fidelity adinfidelity. Philadelphia: J. 3. Lippencott, 1967,

Schachter, S,, 6 Singer, J, Cognitive, sccial and psychological deter~inantaof emotional state- Psyc_hological Review, 1962, -69, 379-399. flchaideberg, H, Some ar~ectsof jealousy and feeling hurt, Ps~choana1vti.cReview, 1953, 40, 1-16,

/%idenberg, R. Jealousy: The wish, Psychcanalytit Review, 1952, --39, 345-3530 Shepherd, l!, Ilorbid jealousy: Some clinical and social aspects of a psychiatric symptom, Jours& sf Bental Science, 1901, -107, 687-753, Shettel-Neuber, J,, Bryson, J,, G Young, L, of the "other personqq and iealuusy. ---Personali- 24Social &y+oiogy ~ulleti;, 1378; 5, 6 12-6 15,

Skclnick, A, gT Intimats environmen-t: Ex~loriqpmarriaqf a_gd ---the --famu 12119 f,da.Boston:Little, Erown E fo,, 1978, Speilman, P, Envy and jealousy: An attemgt at clarification, psychoanalytic p,uafterly, 1971, W, 59-82,

Spence, J,, & Helsnreich, 8, Plasculini9 and femininity, Austia: Univ- of Texas Press, 1978-

Ste~hens, W, The family & cross-cultural -?ecC,ive- N, Y, : Holt, Rhinehart E Winston, 1963,

Stinnet, N,, & Birdsong, C, Thf fiqgjlY a~,dalternate lifestyla+ Chicagc: Nelson-Hall, 1978,

Teisaann, I•÷,, E nosher, D- Jealous con•’lict in dating couples, -Psvcholoqical Re~orts, 1978, 52, 12 11- 12 16, Tellenbach, EL On the nature of jealousy- Journal of ----Pheno~tle~al~qical Psvcho_loqy, 1974, 2, 461-468, Ti~ton,R., Eenedictson, C,, Flahoney, J-, E Hartnett, J, Dfvelopment of a scale for the assessment of jealousy, Psycholcgical Reports, 7978, 52, 1217-1218,

Todd, J,, E Dewhurst, K, The Othello syndsoae, Journal ~f Nervous mental Disorders, 1955, 22, 367-374-

Vauhkonen, K, On the pathogenesis cf morbid jealousy, Acta Psvchiatrica Scandinavica, 1968, s,(Supplementurn 202) - Vollmer, 8, f Jealousy in children, ] In G, Clanton E L, Smith (Eds,), Jealou_sy- Englewood Cliffs, N-J,: Prentice Hall, 1977, (Reprinted from American Journal of Qrthops~chiatry, 1946, 15, 660-671.1

Walster, E, , G Walster, G, The social psychology of jealcusy. In G, Clanton & L, Smith (Eds,), jealous^. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1977.

Uhite, G, The social psychology of romantic jealousy, -----Dissertation ------Abstracts znternational, 1977, Xfl, 5449-5453- White, G, Inducing jealousy: A power perspecti ve, Personality -and ---Social p~ycholoqyBulletin, 1380, 5, 222-227, Whitehurst, R, Jealousy and American values. In G, Clanton & Lo Smith i~ds.) , ~ealousy. Englewood Cliffs, N, J,: Prentice Ball, 1977,