This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures Robin R. Milhausen, John K. Sakaluk, Terri D. Fisher, Clive M. Davis, William L. Yarber Affect and Emotions Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315183169-3 Robin R. Milhausen, John K. Sakaluk, Terri D. Fisher, Clive M. Davis, William L. Yarber Published online on: 12 Jul 2019 How to cite :- Robin R. Milhausen, John K. Sakaluk, Terri D. Fisher, Clive M. Davis, William L. Yarber. 12 Jul 2019, Affect and Emotions from: Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315183169-3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 Affect and Emotions Types of Jealousy Scales Abraham P. Buunk,1 University of Groningen, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute Pieternel D. Dijkstra, private practice Dick P. H. Barelds, University of Groningen Jealousy has been defined as a negative response to the criticism, arguments, blaming, relationship uncertainty actual, imagined, or expected emotional, and particularly and dissatisfaction, and even aggression. sexual, involvement of one’s partner with someone else (e.g., Buunk, 1991), and has been conceptualized as a mul- Development tidimensional phenomenon (e.g., Sharpsteen, 1991). In line with these perspectives, our purpose was to develop The items generated for the scale on reactive jealousy were separate scales for three types of jealousy. First, reactive based upon the Anticipated Sexual Jealousy Scale developed jealousy refers to the degree of upset people experience if by Buunk (1998). The items for the preventive jealousy and their partner would engage in a number of intimate behav- anxious jealousy scales were based on earlier more extensive iors with a third person. Second, preventive jealousy (also scales (Buunk, 1991), extensive interviews with people who referred to as possessive jealousy or mate guarding; Buunk had experienced jealousy, and on descriptions of clinical forms & Castro Solano, 2012) concerns an extreme preoccupation of jealousy (e.g., Hoaken, 1976; Jaremko & Lindsey, 1979). with even slight indications of interest on the part of one’s partner in a third person, expressed through considerable Response Mode and Timing efforts to prevent contact of the partner with individu- als of the opposite sex. A similar phenomenon has been The scale can be completed both by individuals with and labelled behavioral jealousy by Pfeiffer and Wong (1989). without a committed intimate relationship. In the latter Third, anxious jealousy refers to an obsessive focus upon case, respondents are asked to think about how they would the mere possibility of the sexual and emotional involve- feel if they did have a relationship. All fifteen items (five ment of one’s partner with someone else. This implies an per scale) are self-report items which participants respond active cognitive process in which one generates images of to on a five-point, Likert-type scale. These Likert scales the partner becoming sexually involved with someone else, differ between the three subscales. The items for reactive which leads to more or less obsessive anxiety, upset, suspi- jealousy are answered on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all ciousness, and worrying (similar to cognitive jealousy, as upset) to 5 (extremely upset). The response scale for pre- distinguished by Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). ventive jealousy range from 1 (not applicable) to 5 (very Whereas jealousy may signal that romantic partners much applicable). The response scale for anxious jealousy care for each other and value their relationship enough to ranges from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The time to com- protect it, jealousy may also signal distrust and insecurity plete all three scales is typically about 2 to 3 minutes. and may severely undermine the relationship. Because reactive jealousy constitutes a direct response to an actual Scoring relationship threat (for instance, one’s partner is having sex with someone else), this type of jealousy can be con- The scores for each of the three subscales can be obtained sidered as relatively healthy, and may be interpreted as by summing the scores on the five items for each subscale. a token of love and commitment. In contrast, both pre- Reactive jealousy items are 1 through 5, preventive jealousy ventive and anxious jealousy may involve misperceptions items are 6 through 10, and anxious jealousy items are 11 of the partner’s behavior, and may therefore result in through 15. 1 Address correspondence to: [email protected] 34 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:45 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315183169, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315183169-3 Affect and Emotions 35 Reliability Studies on the relationship between personality charac- teristics and the three types of jealousy provide additional In the original study, the alpha reliabilities for the scales for evidence for the discriminant validity of the three scales. reactive jealousy, preventive jealousy and anxious jealousy Neuroticism has been found to be related more strongly were respectively .76, .89 and .89 (Buunk, 1997). In subse- to anxious and preventive jealousy than to reactive jeal- quent studies, similar reliabilities were obtained: .76, .77, ousy (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2003; Buunk, 1997). and .83 (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2003), .85, .88 and .72 (Barelds Conscientiousness has been found to relate more strongly & Dijkstra, 2006, among both homosexuals and heterosex- to reactive jealousy than to the other two types of jealousy uals), 64, .78, and .87 (Study 1; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007), (Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Conscientious individuals .71, .76 and .89 (Study 2; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007), .70, may be less likely to cheat and may also expect that their .78 and .87 (Study 3; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007), 76, .76, partner will not cheat. Also, in a related vein, Barelds, and .86 (Study 1; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008), .76, .74, and Dijkstra, Groothof and Pastoor (2017) showed that, among .82 (Study 2; Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008), .74, .85 and .92 both homosexuals and heterosexuals, anxious, and espe- (Buunk & Van Brummen-Girigori, 2016), and .80, .87 and cially preventive, jealousy were related to Dark Triad traits .84 (Barelds, Dijkstra, Groothof & Pastoor, 2017; among (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism), whereas both homosexuals and heterosexuals). reactive jealousy was not. As individuals reporting high Dark Triad scores are more likely to have been unfaithful, Validity they may project their tendencies on the partner, fueling anxious and preventive jealousy. There is considerable evidence for the construct validity Factor analysis has supported the conceptual inde- of the three scales. In two samples, Dijkstra and Barelds pendence of the three scales. Barelds and Dijkstra (2003) (2008) found that all three types of jealousy correlated applied principal components analysis (PCA) with an positively with neuroticism and negatively with agreeable- oblique rotation (oblimin) to the scores of 1,366 partici- ness. In the first study on the scales, Buunk (1997) found pants. Three components were found (based on the Scree that all three types of jealousy were correlated with more test and interpretation) which explained 57 percent of the or less maladaptive personality characteristics, including variance. All fifteen items had their highest loading on social anxiety, rigidity, hostility and a low self-esteem, the expected factor. In addition, congruence coefficients and were more prevalent among later-borns than among (Tucker’s phi; Tucker, 1951) were computed between first-borns. This latter effect was not due to differences the three a priori factors (the three theoretical subscales), in personality or attachment style, and may be due to the and the three factors found in the explorative PCA. These fact that parents often invest their material and immaterial congruencies were very high (reactive jealousy ϕ = .98, resources more in first-borns and that therefore, more so preventive jealousy ϕ = .97, and anxious jealousy ϕ = .99), than first-borns, later-borns have, throughout their child- which strongly supports the structural validity of the scale. hood, had to compete with their siblings for the resources The intercorrelations of the three scales are generally of their parents. Furthermore, those with a secure attach- weak to moderate (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2003). In addi- ment style were consistently less jealous than those with an tion, the intercorrelations between the more clinical scales insecure style, and among those with an insecure style, the (i.e.,