Rethinking Experience and Expression: An Examination of Specialness

Meaning Framework Threat and Identification of Retroactive Jealousy Responses

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Jessica Renee Frampton

Graduate Program in Communication The Ohio State University

2019

Dissertation Committee

Dr. Jesse Fox, Advisor

Dr. Kelly Garrett

Dr. Shelly Hovick

Dr. Roselyn Lee-Won

1

Copyrighted by

Jessica Renee Frampton

2019

2

Abstract

Extant jealousy models predict jealousy is a response to perceiving a partner’s current or anticipated involvement with a rival as threatening to a relationship’s existence, relational benefits, or self-esteem (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White &

Mullen, 1989). Those three threats may explain cases of reactive jealousy, which occurs in response to a partner’s unambiguous involvement with a current rival (Barelds &

Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Bringle, 1991), but they likely cannot explain cases of retroactive jealousy. Retroactive jealousy entails a negative response to information about a partner’s prior romantic or sexual experiences that occurred before the primary relationship began

(Frampton & Fox, 2018b). This type of jealousy is evoked even though the partner is not perceived to be currently romantically or sexually involved with ex-partners. This difference in the nature of retroactive jealousy makes it difficult for current jealousy models to predict retroactive jealousy experience and expression.

Two studies were conducted to further explore retroactive jealousy experience and expression. Study 1 experimentally tested predictions about threat to a specialness meaning framework derived from the meaning maintenance model (MMM; Heine,

Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012) alongside of predictions about threat to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, and self-esteem. The study also examined the role of attachment and specialness meaning framework endorsement, the latter of

iii which was evaluated with a new measure introduced in this study. Results provide tentative support for the idea that a specialness meaning framework is threatened in experiences of both reactive and retroactive jealousy, and that it is the primary type of threat perceived in cases of retroactive jealousy. The results also help clarify previous findings regarding attachment.

Study 2 presented preliminary findings of a study regarding both face-to-face and mediated communicative responses to retroactive jealousy. In particular, an analysis of written descriptions of retroactive jealousy experiences and an examination of responses on communicative responses to jealousy measures suggested that people engage in a variety of communicative responses to retroactive jealousy, some of which are reflected in the existing communicative responses to jealousy typology (Guerrero et al., 2011), and some of which are not. An attempt was also made to link broad categories of responses to meaning maintenance strategies described in the MMM. Altogether, these two studies support the notion that retroactive jealousy is a distinct experience, and they serve as a solid foundation for future research on the role of communication in the experience and expression of this understudied phenomenon.

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Jesse Fox, for her continued support and guidance throughout my time as a graduate student at Ohio State. She challenged me to grow as a scholar and inspires me in my academic pursuits every day. I am also thankful for the mentorship of Dr. Andrew Weaver and Dr. Kelly Garrett, who not only offered me advice about my research, but also about life and academia in general. Dr. Garrett served as one of my committee members alongside of Dr. Shelly Hovick and Dr. Roselyn

Lee-Won, and I am appreciative of the time all of my committee members spent reading through my work and offering me invaluable feedback.

Additionally, I am grateful to my friends and for their encouragement throughout the past several years. My , sister, and fiancé consistently cheered me on in everything I did. My friends –particularly Jerrica, Ellie, and Guanjin—were also there to commiserate or ensure I took time to do something fun. My cat, Spencer, was adept at providing welcome distractions as well.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge support provided by the Time-sharing

Experiments for the School of Communication (TESoC). TESoC funding allowed me to recruit participants via SSI panels for Study 1.

v

Vita

2010...... International Baccalaureate Diploma, Fishers High School

2013...... B.A. English – Public and Professional Writing, Indiana University

2015…...... M.A. Communication, Technology, & Society, Clemson University

2015 to 2016 ...... Graduate Fellow, School of Communication, The Ohio State University

2016 to present ...... Graduate Associate, School of Communication, The Ohio State University

Publications

Weaver, A. J., & Frampton, J. R. (in press). Crossing the color line: An examination of

mediators and a social media intervention for racial bias in selective exposure to

movies. Communication Monographs.

Fox, J., Zhang, G., & Frampton, J. (2019). The dark side of social networking sites. In E.

Downs (Ed.), Dark side of media and technology: A 21st century guide to media

and technological literacy (pp. 118-129). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

vi

Frampton, J. R. (2019). Uncertainty, selective exposure, and message efficacy effects

during life transitions. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 27, 46-61. doi:

10.1080/15456870.2019.1540420

Frampton, J. R., & Fox, J. (2018). Social media’s role in romantic partners’ retroactive

jealousy: Social comparison, uncertainty, and information seeking. Social Media

+ Society, 4(3), 1-12. doi: 10.1177/205630511880031

Frampton, J. R., & Linvill, D. L. (2017). Green on the screen: Types of jealousy and

communicative responses to jealousy in romantic comedies. Southern

Communication Journal, 82, 298-311. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2017.1347701

Fox, J., & Frampton, J. (2017). Social media stressors in developing romantic

relationships. In N. M. Punyanunt-Carter & J. S. Wrench (Eds.), The impact of

social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 181-196). Lanham, MD:

Lexington Books.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Communication

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... vi

Table of Contents ...... viii

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview ...... 1

Chapter 2. Jealousy Experience ...... 5

Defining Jealousy...... 5

Types of Romantic Jealousy ...... 8

Extant Jealousy Models ...... 16

Attachment Theory ...... 21

A Meaning Maintenance Model Perspective ...... 24

Summary ...... 29

Chapter 3. Study 1: Predicting Jealousy Experience ...... 31

Threats...... 32 viii

Potential Moderators ...... 33

Affirmation ...... 35

Method ...... 38

Results ...... 53

Discussion ...... 77

Chapter 4. Jealousy Expression ...... 91

Jealousy Coping Strategies ...... 91

Communicative Responses to Jealousy ...... 95

Summary ...... 98

Chapter 5. Study 2: Retroactive Jealousy Expression ...... 99

Mediated Communicative Responses to Jealousy ...... 101

Integrating Meaning Maintenance Strategies ...... 105

Method ...... 107

Preliminary Findings ...... 117

Discussion ...... 127

Chapter 6. General Discussion ...... 141

Conclusion ...... 147

References ...... 148

Appendix A. Hypothetical Scenarios and Writing Task Instructions ...... 176

ix

Appendix B. Study 1 Pretest Measures...... 178

Appendix C. Study 1 Measures ...... 183

Appendix D. EFAs and CFA Tables for Study 1 Measures ...... 195

Appendix E. Correlation Matrix for Study 1 Variables ...... 201

Appendix F. Interaction Plots for Study 1 ...... 202

Appendix G. Path Diagrams for H12 ...... 208

Appendix H. Regression Results for H12 ...... 211

Appendix I. EFA for Study 1 Additional Analyses ...... 213

Appendix J. Interaction Plots for Additional Analyses ...... 215

Appendix K. Study 2 Questions...... 216

x

List of Tables

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Stimuli Pretest ...... 45

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Differences in Threat and Jealousy by

Condition...... 57

Table 3. Regression Results Predicting Specialness Meaning Framework Threat ...... 61

Table 4. Regression Results Predicting Relationship Existence Threat ...... 62

Table 5. Regression Results Predicting Relational Benefits Threat ...... 63

Table 6. Regression Results Predicting Self-esteem Threat ...... 65

Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for Affirmation Measures by Condition ...... 68

Table 8. Indirect Effects of Threats on Affirmation Through Jealousy ...... 69

Table 9. Regression Results Predicting General Relationship Threat ...... 75

Table 10. Means with Standard Deviations in Parentheses for Broad Response Categories

...... 115

Table 11. Comparisons of Specific Mediated Responses ...... 124

Table 12. Comparisons of Specific Face-to-face Responses ...... 124

Table 13. Correlation Matrix for the Four Broad Response Types and MMM Strategies

...... 126

Table 14. Jealousy Factor Matrix ...... 195

xi

Table 15. Factor Loadings for Romantic Relationship Specialness Meaning Framework

Items ...... 196

Table 16. CFA Loadings for Threat Measures ...... 199

Table 17. Correlation Matrix for Study 1 Variables ...... 201

Table 18. Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Relationship Existence Threat . 211

Table 19. Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Relational Benefits Threat ...... 211

Table 20. Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Self-esteem Threat ...... 212

Table 21. Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Specialness Meaning Framework

Threat ...... 212

Table 22. EFA for Study 1 Additional Analyses with One Relationship Threat Factor and

One Self-esteem Threat Factor ...... 213

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Simplified Model of Jealousy Tested in Study 1 ...... 37

Figure 2 Model with General Relationship Threat Variable ...... 74

Figure 3. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict Specialness MF Threat ...... 202

Figure 4. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict

Specialness MF Threat ...... 203

Figure 5. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict Relationship Existence Threat ...... 203

Figure 6. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework Factor: Unique and Close

Bond and Current Rival Condition to Predict Relationship Existence Threat ...... 204

Figure 7. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict

Relationship Existence Threat ...... 204

Figure 8. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict Relational Benefits Threat ...... 205

Figure 9. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict

Relational Benefits Threat ...... 205

Figure 10. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict Self-esteem Threat ...... 206

xiii

Figure 11. Interaction between Anxious Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict Self-esteem Threat ...... 206

Figure 12. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework: Favorable Comparisons and Current Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat ...... 207

Figure 13. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework: Unique and Close Bond and Past Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat ...... 207

Figure 14. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relationship

Existence Threat...... 208

Figure 15. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relational

Benefits Threat ...... 208

Figure 16. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Self-Esteem

Threat ...... 209

Figure 17. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Specialness

Meaning Framework Threat ...... 209

Figure 18. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relationship

Existence Threat...... 209

Figure 19. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relational

Benefits Threat ...... 210

Figure 20. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Self-Esteem

Threat ...... 210

Figure 21. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Specialness

Meaning Framework Threat ...... 210

xiv

Figure 22. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to

Predict General Relationship Threat ...... 215

Figure 23. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict

General Relationship Threat ...... 215

xv

Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview

Romantic jealousy is a common experience in romantic relationships, and it is associated with a variety of negative outcomes such as physical and verbal

(Caldwell, Swan, Allen, Sullivan, & Snow, 2009; de Weerth & Kalma, 1993; Paul, Foss,

& Galloway, 1993), relational conflict (Gatzeva & Paik, 2011), (Roberts, 2005), (Amato & Rogers, 1997), and homicide (Roma et al., 2012). In fact, jealousy is considered one of the most important for researchers to examine due to its potential for destruction (Buss, 2013), although it can lead to positive consequences such as increased commitment in some cases (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998). Most scholars agree that romantic jealousy occurs when a romantic partner’s real or imagined involvement with a rival is perceived as threatening in some way (e.g., Bevan, 2013;

White & Mullen, 1989). However, scholars often disagree about what is threatened in a jealousy-evoking scenario, who or what constitutes a rival, and which components of an emotional episode should be labeled jealousy.

Regardless, extant jealousy models position threat appraisal as the key to jealousy experiences (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White & Mullen, 1989). These models tend to suggest three different types of threat are possible in a jealousy-evoking situation: threat to the relationship’s existence, threat to the relational benefits, or threat to self- esteem. Moreover, the models argue that these threats arise when a partner is perceived to

1 be currently involved with a third-party rival or is likely to become involved with a third- party rival in the future. A commonly studied type of jealousy involving a current rival is reactive jealousy, which occurs in response to unambiguous cases of sexual or emotional (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991, 1997; Rydell

& Bringle, 2007). However, it is possible for people to experience jealousy in response to a partner’s past involvement with a rival as well (Anderson, Kunkel, & Dennis, 2011;

Frampton & Fox, 2018b; Robards & Lincoln, 2016). Jealousy stemming from information about a partner’s prior romantic or sexual experiences that occurred before the current relationship began is termed retroactive jealousy, and it is a relatively understudied phenomenon (Fox & Frampton, 2017; Frampton & Fox, 2018b). The existing jealousy models do little to explain cases of retroactive jealousy, and it is unlikely the types of threat identified in cases of reactive jealousy can also explain jealousy involving a past rival.

On the other hand, some prior theoretical speculation and research suggests that a sense of specialness may be threatened in jealousy-evoking situations (Bringle & Buunk,

1991; Frampton & Fox, 2018b; White & Mullen, 1989). For example, if Gabby finds out her partner engaged in certain romantic activities with someone else, Gabby may think that makes her own romantic activities with her partner less meaningful or unique in some way. Gabby may feel this way irrespective of whether her partner engaged in these activities with someone else during the relationship with Gabby or before the relationship with Gabby even started. In other words, a threat to specialness expectations may explain both reactive jealousy and retroactive jealousy.

2

The idea that jealousy stems from a threat to expectations of specialness, exclusivity, or uniqueness is consistent with a broader model of threat called the meaning maintenance model (MMM; Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). One goal of the present studies is to test predictions from extant jealousy models and a newly proposed model of jealousy based on the MMM. Specifically, the first of two studies presented here is an experiment that investigates how threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, self-esteem, and expectations of specialness or uniqueness are related to experiences of both reactive and retroactive jealousy. This study examines the role of attachment in jealousy experiences and introduces a new measure of specialness meaning frameworks as well.

Existing jealousy literature also outlines several ways people respond to or communicate their jealousy (Guerrero, Hannawa, & Babin, 2011). However, differences in the type of perceived threat and the nature of the rival in retroactive jealousy experiences likely result in different motivations and responses to jealousy than those identified in cases of reactive jealousy. To address the gap in the literature concerning responses to retroactive jealousy specifically, the second study consists of an inductive analysis of written descriptions of retroactive jealousy experiences and an examination of jealousy response measures. In particular, participants reported how they typically communicate retroactive jealousy both face-to-face and via communication technologies.

They also filled out exploratory measures related to motivations identified in the MMM.

Together, these two studies contribute to theory by attempting to clarify the nature of threat in jealousy experiences, illuminating how people express and cope with their

3 jealousy regarding the past, and further establishing retroactive romantic jealousy as a distinct experience.

4

Chapter 2. Jealousy Experience

This chapter first describes how scholars tend to define jealousy and discusses cognitions and emotions. Then, the chapter outlines several types of jealousy identified in literature before describing extant jealousy models. These existing models point to a number of relationship factors and individual differences that impact jealousy experiences. Of these individual differences, attachment (particularly anxious attachment) is one of the most consistent predictors of jealousy (see Bevan, 2013, for a review).

Therefore, this chapter also summarizes how may shed light on both reactive and retroactive jealousy experiences. The chapter ends with a discussion of jealousy experiences from the perspective of the meaning maintenance model.

Defining Jealousy

Several relationship scholars define jealousy as an emotional response to some sort of threat stemming from a partner’s actual or perceived involvement with a rival

(e.g., Bringle & Buunk, 1985; DeLamater, 1991; Parrot, 1991; Staske, 1999). When examining emotions, it is important to distinguish between discrete emotions and compound emotions. Discrete or basic emotions are biologically determined states that motivate organisms to take action (Ekman, 2003; Harmon-Jones, Harmon-

Jones, & Summerell, 2017; Izard, Libero, Putnam, & Haynes, 1993). Researchers working from a discrete perspective often identify a core set of emotions that

5 people experience across cultures, although scholars disagree about which emotions should be considered discrete emotions (Harmon-Jones et al., 2017). These basic or discrete emotions are “the central, most prototypical elements of a set of similar emotions” (Harmon-Jones et al., 2017, p. 3) and “cannot be decomposed into smaller semantic labels” (Du, Tao, & Martinez, 2014, p. 1454).

On the other hand, compound or blended emotions “are those that can be constructed by combining basic component categories to create new ones” (Du et al.,

2014, p. 1454). For example, hate is a blended emotion that is a combination of the basic emotions and , whereas is a blend of and (Du et al., 2014).

Still other scholars argue that emotions are not entities in themselves. Rather, emotions are merely the result of categorizing initial general positive or negative (e.g.,

Barrett, 2006). In these instances, people label their emotional experience as “anger” or

“” based on what they learned from prior experiences and the immediate circumstances surrounding their affective response.

Regarding jealousy specifically, though a few scholars consider jealousy a basic emotion (e.g., Buss, 2013), most argue jealousy is a blended or compound emotion (e.g.,

Barker, 1987; Hansen, 1991; Mathes, 1991; Parrot & Smith, 1993). For example,

Sharpsteen (1991) suggested that jealousy involves simultaneous or successive of the basic emotions sadness, fear, and anger. Definitions of jealousy as an emotion also derive from cognitive theories of emotion such as the two-factor theory (Schacter &

Singer, 1962) or Lazarus’s (1991) . The two-factor theory of emotion suggests when people perceive a stimulus, they experience physical , and this

6 arousal is then labeled as a particular emotion depending on situational factors. For example, Sally may observe her partner kissing someone else, experience physiological reactions such as an increased heart rate, and then label those reactions as jealousy given the context of infidelity. Similarly, Lazarus proposed that people observe a stimulus and then engage in a primary appraisal wherein they think about the stimulus’s relevance to, and congruence with, their goals. If the stimulus is evaluated as threatening to goals, negative emotions such as jealousy occur. Secondary appraisals, which assess who is to blame, coping potential, and future expectations, can amplify or mitigate the initial emotional responses. Lastly, people engage in various coping efforts that may lead to reappraisal of the stimulus.

Appraisal theorists debate whether cognitions lead to emotions or whether cognitions should be considered part of the entire emotional episode (e.g., Lazarus, 1991;

Roseman & Evodokas, 2004; Scherer, 2009). Accordingly, some scholars suggest jealousy is an umbrella term given to both cognitions and emotions (Afifi & Reichert,

1996; Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001), or to cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in the context of threat stemming from a third-party rival (e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989;

White & Mullen, 1989). For instance, Bevan (2013) defined jealousy as “an interpersonal, interactive experience that is comprised of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral/communicative components and involves the need to protect and defend a valued relationship from the threat of a perceived (and possibly actual) third-party rival”

(p. 6). However, Bringle and Buunk (1985) argued that cognitions likely lead to the compound emotion jealousy, and subsequent cognitions and behaviors are coping

7 strategies in response to the emotion. Still others view cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects as different types of jealousy rather than as dimensions of jealousy.

The present studies focus on jealousy as an emotion, recognizing that cognitions and behaviors are intertwined with emotion and occur as part of a broader emotional process.

By separately examining emotions, cognition, and behavior, researchers can better understand how each contributes to different relational experiences and outcomes.

Types of Romantic Jealousy

Although similar emotional reactions can occur in each jealousy-evoking situation, types of jealousy are often distinguished by the particular rival or the sort of relationship involved. In these cases, jealousy is still identified as a response to a threat stemming from a partner’s involvement with a rival, but the “partner” and “rival” in these situations vary. Thus, types of jealousy are not necessarily indicative of fundamentally different emotional responses; rather, they are indicative of different situational factors surrounding these responses.

Some types of jealousy can be distinguished by the particular relationship partners they involve, such as and parents (e.g., Kolak & Volling, 2011; Miller, Volling,

& McElwain, 2000), friends (Casper & Card, 2010; Parker, Kruse, & Aikins, 2010), graduate advisors and advisees (Salovey & Rothman, 1991), coworkers (Buunk, aan’t

Goor, & Castro Solano, 2010), or romantic partners (White & Mullen, 1989). Moreover, scholars argue that various types of jealousy are distinguished by different human and non-human rivals for a partner’s , such as family (i.e., family jealousy), other friends (i.e., friend jealousy), or hobbies (i.e., activity jealousy; Bevan & Samter, 2004).

8

However, some researchers suggest these are merely different sources of jealousy rather than different types of jealousy (Hansen, 1991). Bevan and Samter (2004) also found that people experience different types of jealousy if their friend is highly influenced by someone else (i.e., power jealousy) or asks others for advice rather than them (i.e., intimacy jealousy), although these particular types of jealousy seem to overlap considerably with the concept of (i.e., the for objects or attributes possessed by someone else that are not currently possessed by oneself; Buss, 2013).

The current studies, much like the vast majority of jealousy literature, limit their scope to romantic relationships and jealousy that stems from a romantic partner’s involvement with a human third-party romantic rival. Romantic relationships are defined as “mutually acknowledged ongoing voluntary interactions” (Collins, Welsh, & Furman,

2009, p. 632). These interactions typically involve some degree of interdependence, expressions of , feelings of closeness, and current or anticipated sexual behavior

(Buunk & Bringle, 1987; Collins et al., 2009). When people perceive their romantic partner’s emotional or sexual involvement with another person as threatening in some way, they experience romantic jealousy. Researchers have developed several typologies pertaining to romantic jealousy and romantic relationships specifically.

Sexual and Emotional Jealousy

Researchers working from an perspective often discuss both sexual and emotional jealousy, which are concepts used to reflect differences in the type of infidelity a partner engages in with a rival (de Souza, Verderane, Taira, & Otta,

2006; Guerrero, Spitzberg, & Yoshimura, 2004; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008; Russell &

9

Harton, 2005). Specifically, occurs when people perceive that their romantic partner has had, or to have, intimate physical contact with a rival

(Bringle, 1995; Buunk, 1982; Guerrero et al., 2004; Mathes, 2005). On the other hand, emotional jealousy occurs when people feel upset by their partner’s feelings of closeness to a rival (Guerrero et al., 2004; Mathes, 2005).

According to evolutionary , there are sex differences in the occurrence of each type of jealousy (Buss, 2000; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,

1992). Males are posited to be more upset by their partner’s sexual infidelity (i.e., they are more likely to experience sexual jealousy), whereas women are more upset by emotional infidelity (i.e., they are more likely to experience emotional jealousy). This sex difference presumably occurs because males face paternity uncertainty if their mates are sexually involved with other males, whereas females might lose their mate’s resources to other females if their mate is emotionally involved with others (Buss et al., 1992).

However, findings from multiple studies suggest biological sex is an inconsistent predictor of jealousy type (see Carpenter, 2012, and Harris, 2003, for reviews). Other researchers argue that any sex differences in sexual or emotional jealousy are largely due to the way jealousy is measured (e.g., DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002) or to learned gender roles (e.g., Guerrero et al., 2003; Hupka & Bank, 1996). Regardless of biological sex, infidelity involving sexual activity is likely to be especially upsetting

(Bringle & Buunk, 1991; Hupka & Bank, 1996), although this may again depend on the way jealousy is measured or cultural factors (Carpenter, 2012).

10

According to the double-shot hypothesis (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996), people may believe the existence of one type of infidelity implies the other. For example, if Larry knows his is sexually involved with someone else, he might also infer his spouse has an emotional connection with that person as well. In such a case, it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish sexual jealousy from emotional jealousy. Harris (2003) proposed a similar idea; namely, she suggested that cues for sexual and emotional infidelity are often difficult to distinguish. Thus, people may have developed a more general and less content-specific jealousy mechanism. If this is true, people will react negatively to any cue signaling infidelity regardless of the specific type of infidelity involved. Harris further argued that sex differences in jealousy are attributable to socially learned differences in the appraisal of the jealousy-evoking situation. What women interpret as an infidelity cue may not align with what men interpret as signs of infidelity.

Suspicious, Reactive, and Possessive Jealousy

Several researchers distinguish two types of jealousy that are both related to infidelity: suspicious jealousy and reactive jealousy. Suspicious jealousy, sometimes referred to as anxious jealousy (e.g., Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Buunk, 1997) or self-generated jealousy (Buunk, 1991), refers to obsessive worrying and upset regarding a partner’s possible infidelity (Bringle, 1991; Parrot, 1991; Rydell & Bringle, 2007).

With this type of jealousy, there is no definitive proof the partner is, or plans to be, unfaithful. However, there are often minor external cues that trigger the (e.g., knowledge that the partner cheats on tax returns leads to an inference that the partner disregards relationship rules; Bringle, 1991). In contrast, reactive jealousy, also referred

11 to as fait accompli jealousy (Parrot, 1991), is a negative emotional response to unambiguous cases of sexual or emotional infidelity, such as walking in on a partner in bed with someone else (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991,

1997; Rydell & Bringle, 2007). Bringle (1991) noted that these two types of jealousy may be blurred in some cases, such as when a seemingly minor jealousy-evoking event (e.g., a partner flirts with or lightly kisses another person) spurs reactive jealousy which then fuels later suspicious jealousy.

A third type of jealousy was added to the suspicious and reactive jealousy typology (Buunk, 1991). Namely, preventive or possessive jealousy involves attempts to limit a partner’s contact with potential rivals (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Buunk,

1991; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2006). However, Bevan (2013) argued that possessive jealousy is merely an extreme form of suspicious jealousy. Indeed, Buunk (1997) suggested preventive jealousy is similar to both suspicious jealousy as explained by Bringle (1991) and Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) behavioral jealousy dimension.

Attridge (2013) equated suspicious or anxious jealousy with Pfeiffer and Wong’s

(1989) cognitive jealousy dimension, as both this dimension and jealousy type involve paranoid suspicions. Reactive jealousy is said to be equivalent to the emotional dimension of jealousy because both involve an affective response to a partner’s clear involvement with a rival (Attridge, 2013; Buunk, 1991, 1997). Likewise, possessive jealousy is similar to the behavioral jealousy dimension because both involve performing actions to reduce the partner’s opportunity to become involved with a rival (Buunk,

1997). Indeed, rather than cognitions, emotions, and behaviors as jealousy

12 dimensions, several jealousy researchers regard them as different types of jealousy (e.g.,

Buunk, 1997; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2006) or use Pfeiffer and Wong’s dimension measures to measure reactive and suspicious jealousy (e.g., Rydell & Bringle, 2007). However,

Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) argued that suspicious, reactive, and possessive jealousy should not be equated with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy dimensions because, to a certain extent, suspicious, reactive, and possessive jealousy all contain emotional, cognitive, and behavioral elements.

Normal and

Reactive and suspicious jealousy may also be related to normal and pathological jealousy (Buunk, 1991). Normal or rational jealousy “follows the appraisal of a real threat and involves some degree of emotional upset, as well as protective behaviours designed to maintain the relationship in the face of threat” (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989, p.

185). Normal jealousy is similar to reactive jealousy in the sense that both types are a response to strong evidence of a partner’s involvement with a rival (Buunk, 1991). On the other hand, pathological or morbid jealousy “might involve imagined threats, paranoid suspicions, a high degree of emotional upset and/or detective behaviours designed to check up on the suspected partner” (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989, p. 185). This type of jealousy is similar to suspicious or anxious jealousy in the sense that it involves obsessive worrying without a clear indication of a partner’s infidelity (Buunk, 1991, 1997). Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) suggested that normal and pathological jealousy can be distinguished by using their measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy dimensions.

Specifically, they stated that “a low score on any subscale indicates normal jealousy,

13 while a high score is indicative of pathological jealousy” (p. 186). However, Bevan

(2013) suggested that normal and pathological jealousy are largely distinguished by differences in intensity of the emotions experienced. As Bevan noted, the vast majority of jealousy research centers on normal jealousy, and pathological jealousy is mostly examined by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.

Retroactive and Retrospective Jealousy

The above types of jealousy all involve a partner’s current (real or imagined) or potential involvement with a romantic rival. However, there is growing evidence that certain types of jealousy can also occur in response to a partner’s past involvement with a rival. Popular press writers coined the terms retroactive jealousy (e.g., Ben-Zeév, 2013;

Stockill, 2013) and retrospective jealousy (e.g., Ben-Zeév, 2013) to refer to threats stemming from a partner’s prior relationships. Retroactive romantic jealousy describes feeling upset about a romantic partner’s past romantic or sexual experiences that occurred before the current relationship began. In this case, the exes are not perceived to be currently romantically or sexually involved with the partner, nor were they romantically or sexually involved with the partner at any point during the primary relationship’s existence (Fox & Frampton, 2017; Frampton & Fox, 2018b). For example, Taylor becomes jealous listening to Dakota talk about a meaningful sexual experience he had in college even though he no longer has any contact with that .

Retrospective romantic jealousy describes feeling upset about a romantic partner’s past romantic or sexual involvement with a rival that occurred during the primary relationship’s existence, but the partner is not perceived to be romantically or

14 sexually involved with the rival any longer (Fox & Frampton, 2017; Frampton & Fox,

2018b). For instance, Andy could become upset thinking about the one time his spouse slept with his co-worker after a Christmas party. Andy is confident his spouse is no longer romantically or sexually involved with the co-worker, but he experiences negative emotions when reflecting on this past event.

Previous studies offer some conceptual support for these types of jealousy. For example, even though they do not necessarily use the term retrospective jealousy, a few clinical studies suggest people have difficulty managing memories of a spouse’s and experience negative emotions in response to the affair years after it ended (e.g.,

Abrahamson, Hussain, Khan, & Schofield, 2012). Extant literature also documents cases of retroactive jealousy. For instance, Anderson et al. (2011) examined why romantic partners avoid discussing past sexual experiences and relationships. They found that information about a partner’s past makes the current relationship feel less special, makes people feel less close to their partner, and evokes jealousy. Likewise, seeing old posts about a partner’s previous relationships on social media often evokes retroactive jealousy

(Frampton & Fox, 2018b; Robards & Lincoln, 2016), especially because social networking sites provide opportunities to make social comparisons to a partner’s exes and prior relationships (Fox & Moreland, 2015; Frampton & Fox, 2018b). Buunk and Bringle

(1987) also argued people may experience jealousy in response to their partner’s past relationships if the partner says positive things about an ex or shows pictures of the former lover, although they did not provide empirical evidence of this phenomenon.

Jealousy in response to a partner’s past romantic or sexual involvement with a

15 rival challenges existing jealousy models, the majority of which suggest jealousy is a response to perceiving a partner’s current or anticipated involvement with a rival as threatening in some way (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White & Mullen, 1989). By definition, retrospective and retroactive jealousy do not involve the perception of a partner’s current or anticipated involvement with a rival. Moreover, as outlined below, jealousy scholars predict that a partner’s involvement with a rival can pose different types of threat, the most common of which is a threat to the primary relationship’s existence

(Bevan, 2013). In cases of jealousy stemming from the past, especially retroactive jealousy, the nature of the threat is fundamentally different. If there is no current or anticipated rival relationship to usurp the primary relationship, then it is unlikely this type of jealousy involves a threat to the relationship itself.

Extant Jealousy Models

Several broad theories or models from both psychology and communication have been tested in the context of jealousy. These include, but are not limited to, social exchange theory (e.g., Buunk, 1991), attribution theory (Bauerle, Amirkhan, & Hupka,

2002), evolutionary theory (e.g., Buss et al., 1992), attachment theory (e.g., Buunk, 1997;

Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997), uncertainty reduction theory (e.g., Afifi & Reichert,

1996), and the relational turbulence model (e.g., Theiss & Solomon, 2006). The investment model (Rusbult, 1980) has also been used to predict jealousy experience, although some researchers question its utility (e.g., Bevan, 2008). With the exception of studies examining anxious attachment as a predictor, many of the studies using these theories to predict jealousy experience have inconsistent findings (see Bevan, 2013, for a

16 review). Moreover, these broader theories do little to further elaborate what is threatened in jealousy experiences. Rather, they suggest factors that influence whether a potentially jealousy-evoking situation is appraised as threatening. Therefore, this section of the review is limited to models that specifically predict jealousy experience, as they provide more insight regarding the nature of threat.

The most widely recognized jealousy theories or models draw from Lazarus’s

(1966, 1991) cognitive appraisal theory to explain jealousy (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen,

1998; Mathes, 1991; White 1981; White & Mullen, 1989). These theories or models suggest that jealousy episodes consist of primary appraisals, secondary appraisals, emotions, and coping behaviors, although each model suggests differences in each part of the process. For example, Mathes (1991) outlined a cognitive theory of jealousy and suggested that primary appraisals consist of evaluating whether a partner’s involvement with a rival is benign, stressful, or irrelevant. People appraise the involvement as stressful when they their partner and the rival has a high probability of taking the partner away (or already has taken the partner away). Mathes posited people’s values or moral maturity, psychological health, and propensity to respond in a jealous manner impact primary appraisals as well. According to the theory, the evaluation of the partner’s involvement with a rival as stressful evokes negative emotions because it is perceived to threaten both the relationship’s rewards and the individual’s global self-esteem. After negative emotions are evoked, then people evaluate whether they can offer their partner more than the rival (i.e., they will engage in social comparisons), whether punishment would be effective in getting the partner to stay, and the moral and legal implications of

17 leaving the relationship. Based on these evaluations, people will choose a coping strategy, enact it, and then evaluate whether the strategy was successful.

Other scholars proposed similar, albeit more complex, cognitive models (e.g.,

Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White, 1981; White and Mullen, 1989). Specifically, White

(1981) and later White and Mullen (1989), developed one of the first cognitive models of romantic jealousy, and Guerrero and Andersen (1998) then built on White and Mullen’s model for their own componential model. White and Mullen defined romantic jealousy as the following:

Romantic jealousy is a complex of thoughts, emotions, and actions that follows

loss of or threat to self-esteem and/or the existence or quality of the romantic

relationship. The perceived loss or threat is generated by the perception of a real

or potential romantic attraction between one’s partner and a (perhaps imaginary)

rival. (p. 9)

In both Guerrero and Andersen’s and White and Mullen’s models, threat to self-esteem refers to jealous people evaluating themselves more negatively in the face of information about a partner’s involvement with a rival. A threat to the existence of the relationship refers to the perception that a rival relationship may entirely displace the primary relationship, and a threat to the quality of the relationship refers to the perception that a rival takes some of the jealous individual’s relational rewards or benefits (e.g., the partner’s affection, the partner’s attention, companionship). Threats to the existence of the relationship and the quality of the relationship are lumped together under the label

18

“threats to the relationship” in theoretical explanations of jealousy with little discussion of how these types of threats differ (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White & Mullen, 1989).

Due to the fact that threat is at the center of their definition of jealousy, Guerrero and Andersen (1998) positioned the “perception of threat” as the “generative mechanism” in their model (p. 156). Like Mathes (1991), both White and Mullen (1989) and Guerrero and Andersen suggested threat is identified during a primary appraisal process.

According to White and Mullen, these appraisals consist of a) determining whether there is the potential for a rival relationship to form, b) determining whether the rival relationship already exists, and c) determining the degree of threat or damage posed by the potential or actual rival relationship. These primary appraisals determine whether jealousy is experienced. Guerrero and Andersen’s (1998) model also outlines a large number of antecedent factors that “probably interact with one another” and “can influence all aspects of jealousy experience and expression, including a person’s initial perception of jealousy threat” (p. 156). These antecedents fall under the categories of biology, culture, personality, relational factors, situational factors, and strategic motives.

According to White and Mullen (1989) and Guerrero and Andersen (1998), secondary appraisals are also part of jealous cognitions. White and Mullen identified four types of secondary appraisals: motives assessment, social comparison to the rival, alternatives assessment, and loss assessment. According to White and Mullen, these secondary appraisals involve asking “‘Why is my partner interested in the rival?,’ ‘What does my rival have that I don’t (and versa)?,’ ‘What is going to happen to me if I get left?,’ and ‘Just what might I lose or have lost?’” (p. 40). These assessments supposedly

19 help people plan coping strategies. Planning coping strategies and assessing the results of the coping strategies are also part of the secondary appraisal process according to both

White and Mullen and the componential model of jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998).

Guerrero and Andersen (1998) also outlined functions or goals in their componential model of jealousy. Specifically, they posited that primary and secondary appraisals of a jealousy situation lead to six communicative functions or goals: preserving or bolstering self-esteem, maintaining the primary relationship, reducing uncertainty about the primary relationship, reducing uncertainty about the rival relationship, restoring relational equity, and reassessing the relationship. However, in their discussion, it is unclear whether these functions actually are a result of primary and secondary appraisal processes, such as when the secondary appraisal of a rival as more attractive than oneself results in a self-esteem preservation goal, or are a result of the inability to adequately appraise the situation, such as when a person is unsure about whether a rival will be successful in poaching the romantic partner. Regardless, they predict that these functions impact the way jealousy is expressed in relationships. However, they also recognized that emotion can have a direct effect on communicative responses to jealousy, meaning that people may emotionally react with little thought about how their jealousy expression will affect their relationship. Automatic reactions are more likely when the emotional experience is particularly intense and there is an opportunity for immediate response.

Lastly, Bringle’s (1991) transactional model of jealousy suggests that the perception of a potentially jealousy-evoking event is a constructive process that is best viewed as a “transaction” (p. 104) between the person and the social environment.

20

Various individual differences (e.g., personality traits, mood), relationship factors (e.g., interaction styles, recent conflicts), and situational variables (e.g., specific events) impact commitment, insecurity, and arousability levels. Commitment, insecurity, and arousability presumably work together to impact jealousy experiences such that higher levels of each variable increase the intensity and frequency of jealousy experiences, although it is not made clear why these three concepts are the key to jealousy (East &

Watts, 1999). The types of jealousy addressed in the model include both reactive and suspicious jealousy. For either type of jealousy to occur, people must appraise a social event as potentially reducing relationship outcomes, which includes both loss of the relationship and rewards such as status and time together. However, this model’s predictions are largely unsupported by empirical tests (see Bevan, 2013, for a review).

Attachment Theory

As noted above, several of the extant models of jealousy suggest there are individual and relationship factors that influence whether a person will appraise a potentially-jealousy evoking situation as threatening. The most consistent of these factors is attachment. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973) suggests that infants are born with a psychobiological attachment system that motivates them to maintain proximity to a nurturing in times of need. If the caregiver is consistently available and responsive to the child’s needs, the child feels a sense of security, is able to explore the environment, and starts to realize support-seeking is an effective distress-regulation strategy

(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973; Mikulincer, Shaver, Sapir-

Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009). If the caregiver is unavailable, uncaring, or sends mixed

21 messages, the child does not feel a sense of security and uses secondary attachment strategies such as from the caregiver (Ainsworth et al., 1978;

Bowlby, 1973; Mikulincer et al., 2009).

Over time and repeated interactions with caregivers, children develop internal working models (Bowlby, 1973). Working models are defined as “mental representations of the self and others during attachment-related interactions” (Shaver & Mikulincer,

2006, p. 252). These working models about self-worth and in others form the key dimensions of attachment, and avoidance. The anxious dimension reflects the degree to which people have a low sense of self-worth and that a partner will reject or abandon them in times of need, whereas the avoidance dimension reflects the degree to which people others and feel uncomfortable with dependence and closeness

(Mikulincer et al., 2009; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). The working models established in childhood presumably carry over into adult romantic relationships (Collins & Read,

1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997; Simpson & Rholes,

2012), though research suggests attachment can change over time in romantic relationships (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Simpson, & Overall, 2018). Regardless, when an attachment-relevant event occurs, working models are automatically activated to guide interpretation of the event and behavior (Collins, 1996; Mikulincer et al., 2009).

Research shows attachment is associated with relationship-relevant outcomes such as satisfaction (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), attributions for a partner’s behavior (Collins, 1996), commitment (Simpson, 1990), and emotional distress (Collins, 1996; Simpson, 1990). Many studies have also demonstrated

22 that anxious attachment is positively related to jealousy (e.g., Drouin, Miller, & Dibble,

2014; Guerrero, 1998; Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2013; Sharpsteen &

Kirkpatrick, 1997), particularly the emotional component of jealousy (Knobloch et al.,

2001), which is often equated with reactive jealousy (e.g., Attridge, 2013). The relationship between anxious attachment and reactive jealousy likely exists because anxiously attached individuals tend to appraise situations as threatening to their relationship, monitor their partner for signs of commitment, and overreact to interactions with the partner (see Arriaga et al., 2018, for a review). Research also suggests that individuals with low self-esteem (a trait often ascribed to people high in anxious attachment) desire to be regarded positively by their partners but greatly underestimate how positively their partners view them (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000), which could affect judgments in a jealousy-evoking scenario.

The relationship between avoidant attachment and jealousy is less clear in extant literature (see Bevan, 2013, for a review). However, because avoidant individuals value independence in relationships (Ren, Arriaga, & Mahan, 2017), place a low emphasis on intimacy (Ren et al., 2017), are unconcerned about whether others will accept or reject them (Collins, 1996), and emotionally withdraw from partners in stressful situations

(Peitromonaco & Barrett, 1997), they may be less likely to evaluate a partner’s current or past involvement with a rival as threatening. Thus, they would be less likely to experience either reactive or retroactive jealousy.

23

A Meaning Maintenance Model Perspective

The meaning maintenance model (MMM; Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht,

2012) is a broad model that builds on cognitive dissonance theory, and it offers a different explanation for jealousy experience. The model suggests that people form meaning frameworks, which are knowledge structures that explain expected relationships within the external world, within the self, and between the self and the external world

(Heine et al., 2006). Proulx and Inzlicht (2012) suggested that concepts such as scripts, schema, prototypes, and beliefs are all encompassed in the term “meaning frameworks.”

Although explications of the MMM do not discuss relational meaning frameworks in detail, extant relationship research indicates that people have prototypes (Fehr, 1993), scripts (Honeycutt & Sheldon, 2018), schema (Andersen, 1993), beliefs (Sprecher &

Metts, 1989), standards (Vangelisti & Daly, 1997), ideals (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, &

Giles, 1999), implicit theories (Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003), working mental models (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), and knowledge structures (Fletcher & Fitness, 1993) regarding romantic relationships.

According to the MMM, people rely on their meaning frameworks to make sense of their experiences and act within their environment; however, these meaning frameworks can be threatened. The model predicts information or experiences that are discrepant with expectations derived from an existing meaning framework will be appraised as threatening. When people perceive threats to their meaning frameworks, they experience an aversive arousal state that includes feelings such as anxiety, vague uneasiness, and, potentially, jealousy (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). Thus, the MMM aligns

24 with existing jealousy models in the sense that it suggests negative affect is the result of appraising a threat stemming from new information or experiences. However, it differs in the explanation of what is threatened and is less constrained by predictions about the timing of the partner’s involvement with rivals.

By looking at jealousy as a response to threatened meaning frameworks, scholars can possibly explain jealousy in response to the past, which is not easily accounted for in the models that focus on threats to the relationship’s existence, relational rewards, or self- esteem. Indeed, Buunk and Bringle (1987) speculated that a partner’s “former relationships will generally not constitute a threat in the sense that the other person may replace the relationship” (p. 127). Rather, they argued that a partner’s past relationships

“are probably more often threatening to the exclusivity of the relationship in the sense that they give rise to the feeling that the partner has shared certain previous intimacies and experiences with others” (Buunk & Bringle, 1987, p. 127).

To my knowledge, the MMM has not been tested in the context of jealousy thus far. However, there is some initial evidence that a particular relational meaning framework is threatened in each jealousy experience. Specifically, jealousy most likely results when information about a partner’s romantic or sexual involvement with a past, present, or anticipated rival is appraised as threatening to a specialness meaning framework. A specialness meaning framework is defined as a network of expectations and beliefs concerning whether current romantic partners or relationships are unique and different from other partners or relationships and whether certain things, such as sexual activity, are part of the current relationship’s exclusive domain.

25

Extant literature supports the idea that people expect relationships to feel special or unique (e.g., Sprecher & Metts, 1989; Vangelisti & Daly, 1997), and expect certain activities to be reserved exclusively for the primary relationship (e.g., Bringle & Buunk,

1985; White, 1981). In fact, Bringle and Buunk (1991) argued that “each human relationship encompasses some degree of specialness, exclusivity, and a definition of boundaries” (p. 135). According to the MMM, information or experiences that violate these specialness expectations should result in negative affect. In keeping with this argument, several jealousy scholars have suggested that jealousy is related to specialness.

For example, Bringle and Buunk (1991) stated, “jealousy will be evoked particularly when the collateral [rival] relationship touches upon areas of the primary relationship that are considered unique and special” (p. 136). Bringle and Buunk (1985) also argued that some people experiencing jealousy in response to infidelity were upset because they felt like they were no longer the “only one for the partner” (p. 247). Likewise, White and

Mullen (1989) speculated that jealousy may be evoked even if a relationship is not in danger if a partner’s current or anticipated involvement with a rival makes people lose their “sense of uniqueness or specialness about the relationship” (p. 10). Although White and Mullen emphasized current and anticipated rivals, there is also some evidence that information about ex-partners threatens a specialness meaning framework in the context of retroactive jealousy as well (Anderson et al., 2011; Frampton & Fox, 2018b).

Given this evidence and the MMM’s predictions, it is likely that a threat to specialness meaning frameworks occurs in both reactive and retroactive jealousy experiences. For example, if a person expects to be the only person their partner has

26 deeply loved, information that indicates the partner deeply loved a past rival would violate this expectation and evoke retroactive jealousy. Similarly, a person may expect kissing to be an activity exclusive to the primary relationship, and seeing a partner kissing a current rival would violate this expectation and evoke reactive jealousy.

Meaning Maintenance

The MMM posits that the more information conflicts with an existing meaning framework, the more people feel a sense of urgency in addressing the threat and reducing aversive arousal (Heine et al., 2006). Likewise, the more personally important a particular meaning framework is, the more people feel the need to engage in meaning maintenance attempts (Heine et al., 2006). Meaning maintenance attempts are individuals’ enactment of strategies meant to mitigate the negative affect associated with the threat. The MMM posits that there are five strategies people use for meaning maintenance: assimilation (i.e., reappraise the threat so that the experience is consistent with expectations), accommodation (i.e., change beliefs and expectations so that they are consistent with experiences), affirmation (i.e., bolster an intact meaning framework), abstraction (i.e., finding patterns in the environment, such as identifying complex patterns in seemingly random letter strings), and assembly (i.e., constructing an entirely new meaning framework; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012).

Proulx and Inzlicht (2012) argued that the MMM goes beyond other threat- defense models in its predictions about affirmation. Other, domain-specific models suggest that when aspects of one’s self-concept, identity, or beliefs are threatened, they may reaffirm related aspects of the self or beliefs (see Heine et al., 2006, Jonas et al.,

27

2014, and Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012, for reviews). For example, Toma and Hancock (2013) used self-affirmation theory to argue that when someone’s sense of self-worth is threatened, they seek out information in the environment that reaffirms their sense of self- worth. Toma and Hancock showed that when people received negative feedback about their speaking abilities, which presumably threatened a sense of self-worth, they gravitated toward their Facebook profiles. The researchers argued that this occurred because Facebook contains positive representations of valued aspects of the self, such as information about their education, political beliefs, religion, favorite media, and social connections. Viewing this positive information about the self repairs a sense of self- worth.

Alternatively, the MMM suggests that when a particular meaning framework is violated, people often affirm an unrelated meaning framework that shares no content with the violated meaning framework (Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Heine, 2010). For example, when participants were told they would read a classic adventure story for young boys, but were instead given an absurd Monty Python story, they subsequently punished a criminal more harshly than people expecting an absurd story (Proulx, Heine, & Vohs,

2010). Presumably, the absurd story threatened people’s understanding of adventure stories appropriate for children, and punishing a criminal allowed them to reaffirm their network of beliefs that suggest crime is wrong and that criminals should be punished.

As another example, Boucher, Bloch, and Pelletier (2016) asked participants to write about aspects of themselves, such as values and traits, that made them feel either the most certain or the most uncertain about themselves. Asking participants to write

28 about uncertain aspects of the self arguably threatened meaning frameworks about the self. Then participants read about a social hero (i.e., someone who provided information that led to a violent criminal’s arrest) and a criminal. They were asked to suggest a monetary reward amount for the social hero and a bail amount for the criminal. Boucher and colleagues found that those who wrote about self-uncertainty rewarded a social hero more money and set a higher bail amount for the criminal than those who had written about certain aspects of the self. The differences in reward and bail amounts were attributed to affirmation of “a system of socially agreed-upon consequences for good and bad actions” (p. 157).

Summary

In sum, existing jealousy research tends to identify jealousy as a compound emotion that occurs in response to perceiving a partner’s real or imagined involvement with a rival as threatening in some way. Scholars note that it is important to examine jealousy-related cognitions as well. The vast majority of jealousy research focuses on a partner’s current involvement with a rival, which is often referred to as reactive jealousy in unambiguous cases of a partner’s infidelity. There is a dearth of research on retroactive jealousy, which involves negative emotions stemming from information about a partner’s past romantic or sexual relationships that existed and ended before the current relationship began. Jealousy regarding a partner’s past challenges extant jealousy models that focus on a partner’s current or anticipated involvement with a rival. These models suggest that the current relationship’s existence, relational benefits, or self-esteem are threatened in jealousy-evoking situations.

29

Much like the extant jealousy models, the MMM suggests that negative affect occurs in response to perceiving some sort of threat. However, the model suggests that the perceived threat is to a meaning framework, or network of expectations regarding the self, the external world, and the self in relation to the external world. Prior theoretical speculation and research suggests expectations of specialness or uniqueness may be threatened by information about a partner’s involvement with a rival. This threat to a specialness meaning framework can occur irrespective of the timing of the partner’s involvement with a rival. Thus, the MMM may help explain cases of both reactive jealousy and retroactive jealousy.

30

Chapter 3. Study 1: Predicting Jealousy Experience

The purpose of the present study was to explore what exactly is threatened in cases of reactive and retroactive jealousy and to test meaning maintenance model predictions in the context of jealousy. To examine this topic, an experiment was conducted wherein a romantic partner’s involvement with a rival was manipulated.

Specifically, participants received information about a romantic partner’s current involvement with a rival, information about a partner’s past involvement with a rival, or no information about a rival. Then, threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, self-esteem, and a specialness meaning framework were measured along with jealousy, attachment dimensions, and specialness meaning framework factors.

Additionally, this study examined two different measures of affirmation in response to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival.

The following paragraphs first outline hypotheses related to threat appraisal in jealousy-evoking situations. Then potential moderators of the relationship between threat appraisal and jealousy are discussed. Namely, this study explored whether anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, and specialness meaning framework endorsement impact the relationship between jealousy and threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, self-esteem, and a specialness meaning framework. Finally,

31 predictions are made about affirmation of meaning frameworks in the face of perceived threat.

Threats

From the extant jealousy models reviewed in Chapter 2, three main types of threat are identified: threats to the relationship’s existence, threats to relational rewards, and threats to self-esteem (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White & Mullen, 1989).

Additionally, other scholars have speculated that jealousy results from a threat to expectations of specialness or uniqueness (e.g., Bringle and Buunk, 1991). The idea that jealousy stems from threatened expectations is consistent with the MMM (Heine et al.,

2006), which predicts that threats to networks of beliefs or expectations, called meaning frameworks, evoke aversive arousal.

The existing jealousy models suggest the source of any threat in a jealousy- evoking situation is a partner’s current or potential involvement with a rival, whether that involvement is real or imagined (e.g., White & Mullen, 1989). Although none of the jealousy models outlined in Chapter 2 directly address a partner’s past involvement with a rival, research shows a partner’s romantic or sexual history often evokes jealousy (e.g.,

Anderson et al., 2011; Frampton & Fox, 2018b). Thus, a partner’s past involvement with a rival must evoke some sort of threat as well:

H1: People who are exposed to information about their partner’s involvement

with a rival appraise more threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship

benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework than people not

exposed to information about a rival.

32

H2: People who are exposed to information about a rival experience more

jealousy than those not exposed to information about a rival.

H3: The more people appraise threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b)

relationship benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework, the

more jealousy they experience.

H4: Exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival has an

indirect effect on jealousy through appraisals of threat to a) the relationship’s

existence, b) relationship rewards, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning

framework.

Potential Moderators

There are several variables that should affect the degree to which people appraise information about a partner’s involvement with a rival as threatening in the first place.

One such factor is the beliefs and expectations that constitute a person’s meaning framework. The more people expect relationships to be special or unique, the more opportunities there are for new information to threaten these expectations:

H5: The relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s

involvement with a rival and threat to a specialness meaning framework will be

stronger the more people expect relationships to be special or unique.

It is less clear whether endorsement of a specialness meaning framework would impact the other types of threat examined in this study. However, it is possible that people who expect relationships to be unique or special are more likely to be vigilant for indications that their special relationship might end or that their unique benefits might be

33 given to a rival. Endorsement of a specialness meaning framework might also affect the appraisal of self-esteem threat if people’s self-esteem is tied to their relationship’s specialness.

RQ1: Does endorsement of a specialness meaning framework moderate the

relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with

a rival and threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, or self-

esteem?

Notably, the working models described in attachment theory are a type of meaning framework or knowledge structure. In this case, the working models describe a network of beliefs and expectations about the self’s worth and others’ responsiveness. It is possible that a specialness meaning framework is related to attachment working models, though previous studies report mixed findings regarding attachment as a predictor of other relational beliefs or schema (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Cyranowksi &

Andersen, 1998; Fletcher & Kininmonth, 1992).

RQ2: Are a) anxious and b) avoidant attachment related to a specialness meaning

framework, and if so, how?

Although it is known anxiously attached people interpret relationship events as confirmation that they are inadequate and that their partner will leave them (Simpson &

Rholes, 2012), and that anxious attachment predicts reactive jealousy (see Bevan, 2013, for a review), little attention has been paid to the specific types of threat anxious individuals perceive in jealousy-evoking situations. Additionally, research examining attachment and jealousy regarding the past is extremely limited. However, it is likely

34 anxious attachment impacts retroactive jealousy experiences as well given the tendency for anxious individuals to appraise information as threatening:

H6: The relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement

with a rival and threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relational benefits, c) self-

esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework will be stronger the more anxiously

attached people are.

H7: Anxious attachment has a positive indirect effect on jealousy through its impact

on threat appraisal.

However, people high in avoidant attachment are less interested in intimacy, are less concerned with rejection, and tend to withdraw from partners in stressful situations

(Collins, 1996; Peitromonaco & Barrett, 1997; Ren et al., 2017). Thus, they may be less likely to evaluate a partner’s current or past involvement with a rival as threatening. As a result, they would be less likely to experience either reactive or retroactive jealousy:

H8: The relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement

with a rival and a) the relationship’s existence, b) relational benefits, c) self-esteem,

and d) a specialness meaning framework will be weaker the more avoidantly attached

people are.

H9: Avoidant attachment has a negative indirect effect on jealousy through its impact

on threat appraisal.

Affirmation

The prediction about affirming an unrelated framework is said to be the “core, novel theoretical conceit of the MMM” (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012, p. 318). Therefore, it is

35 important for studies testing the MMM to measure affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework. Additionally, affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework is important to consider in a jealousy context especially because as Proulx and Inzlicht (2012) noted, “in the case of these affirmation behaviors, the source of the expectation/experience inconsistency may be avoided altogether” (p. 325). Thus, the MMM suggests that people may not always directly deal with the source of threat. Rather, they may reduce aversive arousal by avoiding the threatening information and focusing on something else, which is consistent with some findings regarding how people communicatively respond to jealousy (Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). Affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework is thought to temporarily reduce negative affect because it reaffirms people’s expectations about the world and allows them to retreat to familiar understandings (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). However, if people resume thinking about the threatening situation after they engage in affirmation, they are likely to experience aversive arousal again (Davis & Novoa, 2012; Proulx & Heine, 2010).

The MMM predicts that people who experience a meaning framework threat affirm an unrelated meaning framework (Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012).

Although studies using the MMM as their theoretical framework often find differences in affirmation between threat conditions and control conditions (see Proulx & Inzlicht,

2012, for a review), they rarely measure perceptions of threat to a meaning framework, perhaps because the threats in some of their studies are not consciously noted (e.g.,

Proulx & Heine, 2008). The MMM argues new information may threaten a meaning framework, people experience aversive arousal as a result of this threat, and then they

36 engage in affirmation as a palliative response (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012; Proulx, Inzlicht,

& Harmon-Jones, 2012). Because the MMM has not been tested in a romantic relationship context to my knowledge, this study provides an opportunity to test the prediction about affirmation in a new domain. See Figure 1 for a simplified depiction of the full model tested in this study.

H10: The more jealousy people experience, the more they affirm an unrelated

meaning framework.

H11: Appraisals of threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relational benefits,

c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework have indirect effects on

affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework through their effects on jealousy.

H12: Exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival has an

indirect effect on affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework such that

exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival impacts

appraisal of threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relational benefits, c) self-

esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework, which then impact jealousy,

which in turn impacts affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework.

Figure 1. Simplified Model of Jealousy Tested in Study 1

37

Method

Participants

With funding from the Time-sharing Experiments for the School of

Communication, 771 participants were recruited via SSI panels. All participants were

English-speaking with romantic relationship experience. A total of 71 participants dropped out of the study after consenting to participate, and 223 participants were booted from the study because they missed attention checks embedded in the questionnaire.

Another 26 participants were excluded from analyses because, although they passed the attention checks, they did not participate in the writing task described below (e.g., they wrote gibberish, they wrote remarks about the researcher’s university). Furthermore, responses to the writing prompts were compared to responses on the jealousy measure to check for inconsistencies. As a result, 14 participants assigned to the no rival condition were excluded because they explicitly described feeling “happy,” “completely comfortable and relaxed,” being in an “ideal” situation that they “like,” “enjoying the meal and one another’s company,” and having a “good time,” in the writing prompt without mentioning any sort of negative affect, yet they indicated extreme negative affect on the jealousy scale. Another participant assigned to the past rival condition was excluded for a similar reason: despite writing that he would not be bothered by the situation, he reported extreme negative affect on the jealousy scale. The current rival condition was also checked for similarly inconsistent responses, but none were found.

Some people wrote that they would not experience any negative affect, whereas others wrote that they would experience some level of negative affect, and their jealousy

38 measure responses generally matched their written sentiments. Lastly, one participant was excluded from analyses because he was assigned to the no rival condition, but he wrote that his actual romantic partner recently said that she was thinking about breaking up with him because she has feelings for another man, which confounded the condition assignment.

The exclusions left a total of 435 participants aged 18 to 67 (M = 52.35, SD =

11.98). Of these 435 participants, 159 identified as men, 269 as women, one as “confused questioning femalish tigress,” and six did not disclose their gender identity. Participants reported their race/ethnicity as White (n = 337), Black (n = 28), Asian (n = 26), Latino/a

(n = 17), American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 3), and mixed (n = 16). One participant wrote in Ashkenazi, and another seven participants did not disclose their race/ethnicity.

Regarding education level, participants reported they had some high school education but did not graduate (n = 9), a high school diploma (n = 91), some college education but no degree (n = 111), a two-year college degree (n = 60), a four-year college degree (n =

124), a master’s degree (n = 32), a doctorate (n = 4), or they did not disclose their education level (n = 4). Participants also indicated their current relationship status as single (n = 118), in an exclusive relationship (n = 32), in an exclusive polyamorous relationship (n = 4), in an (n = 3), engaged (n = 5), in a (n = 18), married or in a civil union (n = 235), or separated (n =7).

Some participants wrote in the “other” option that they were divorced (n =2) or widowed

(n =8), whereas another three participants did not disclose their relationship status.

Participants’ current relationship length ranged from 0 years to 48.75 years (M = 15.49

39 years, SD = 15.44). Lastly, participants reported their romantic and sexual orientations in the following non-mutually exclusive categories: heterosexual (n = 408), gay or lesbian

(n = 8), bisexual (n = 9), queer (n = 1), pansexual (n =1), asexual (n = 2), polyamorous (n

= 1), biromantic (n = 1), and questioning (n = 1). Other participants did not disclose their orientation (n = 4) or wrote in that they were celibate (n = 1) or a swinger (n = 1).

Procedure

All participants partook in the study online from a location of their choosing.

After consenting to participate in the study, participants filled out a questionnaire containing measures of a specialness meaning framework and attachment in random order. Then they were randomly assigned to a current rival (reactive jealousy), past rival

(retroactive jealousy), or no rival condition wherein they were asked to imagine they were in a hypothetical scenario. As in other research using hypothetical scenarios to manipulate relationship perceptions (e.g., Kim & Oliver, 2011), participants were told to concentrate on the assigned scenario, vividly imagine themselves in that situation, write about their thoughts and feelings regarding the scenario, and write about how that situation would affect their lives. Participants were told to spend at least three minutes on the hypothetical scenario task, and the “next” button did not appear on the screen until three minutes passed. After doing this hypothetical scenario writing task, participants filled out the threat measures, jealousy measure, and the manipulation check items in that order followed by the affirmation measures, relationship information, and demographic information. In total, the study took approximately 20 minutes.

40

Stimulus Materials

Jealousy scholars often use hypothetical scenarios to evoke jealousy (e.g., Cohen,

Bowman, & Borchert, 2014; Hansen, 1991; Muscanell, Guadagno, Rice, & Murphy,

2013; Russell & Harton, 2005; Rydell, McConnell, & Bringle., 2004; Sharpsteen, 1995), and the current study uses hypothetical scenarios modeled after Muscanell et al.’s (2013) scenario. Specifically, in this study, participants were asked to imagine they are in a serious, committed romantic relationship and that they are talking with their romantic partner over dinner. Then they were presented information about a current rival (to evoke reactive jealousy), a past rival (to evoke retroactive jealousy), or no rival. For the current rival (reactive jealousy) scenario, participants were told to imagine they are in a romantic relationship and are conversing with their romantic partner when their romantic partner tells them they are currently emotionally and sexually involved with another person. For the past rival (retroactive jealousy) scenario, participants were told to imagine they are in a romantic relationship and conversing with their romantic partner when their romantic partner tells them they were emotionally and sexually involved with another person in the past, but they are clearly no longer involved with that person. For the no rival scenario, participants were told to imagine they are in a romantic relationship and conversing with their romantic partner, but they did not receive any information about a rival. The wording of each hypothetical scenario was the same with the exception of the information about the timing of the rival relationship (in the jealousy conditions) or lack of information about a rival relationship (in the no jealousy condition). See Appendix A for the scenarios and writing task instructions.

41

Pretest. The hypothetical scenarios were pretested to ensure they were equally believable, that the partner’s perceived involvement with a rival was successfully manipulated, and that the current and past rival conditions evoked more jealousy than the no rival condition. Pretest participants with romantic relationship experience (n = 61) were recruited from undergraduate classes and given class credit in exchange for participation. Some participants missed attention checks embedded in the questionnaire

(n = 19) or dropped out of the pretest immediately after consenting to participate (n = 1).

These participants were excluded, leaving data from 41 participants for analyses. Each participant read each of the hypothetical scenarios presented in random order. After reading each scenario, they filled out items pertaining to their perceptions of the scenario.

Appendix B contains all the pretest items and their response options.

More specifically, for each of the scenarios, participants filled out an adapted version of DeSteno and Salovey’s (1996) jealousy measure. This measure is further described in the measures section below and in Appendix B. Cronbach’s α was .95 for current rival scenario, .97 for past rival scenario, and .995 for the no rival scenario.

Participants also indicated how believable the scenarios were by responding to

“this scenario could actually happen to someone” and “this scenario is believable.” Items about perceptions of the partner’s current and future involvement with a rival included:

“this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently romantically involved with someone else,” “this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently sexually involved with someone else,” “this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely become sexually involved with

42 someone else in the near future,” and “this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely become romantically involved with someone else in the near future.” For the current and past rival scenarios, participants also responded to “in this scenario, it was clear that my hypothetical partner’s relationship with the other person is over” and “in this scenario, it was clear that my hypothetical partner’s relationship with the other person is in the past.” Scores on items were averaged together after examining correlations (believability: r(39) = .38, p < .02 for current rival, r(39) =

.83, p < .001 for past rival, and r(39) = .33, p < .04 for no rival; current involvement: r(39) = .84, p < .001 for current rival, r(39) = .83, p < .001 for past rival, and r(39) = .76, p < .001 for no rival; future involvement: r(39) = .76, p < .001 for current rival, r(39) =

.79, p < .001 for past rival, and r(39) = .81, p < .001 for on rival; past involvement: r(39)

= .80, p < .001 for current rival and r(39) = .84, p < .001 for past rival).

Analyses were conducted to compare the believability, partner’s current involvement, partner’s future involvement, and jealousy evoked by the three hypothetical scenarios. The partner’s past involvement was also compared between the current rival

(reactive jealousy) and past rival (retroactive jealousy) scenarios. See Table 1 for all means and standard deviations.

Repeated measures ANOVAs with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections revealed that there was no significant difference between the scenarios in terms of believability,

F(1.71, 68.25) = 0.16, p = .82, partial η2 = .004. However, there were significant differences in perceptions of the partner’s current involvement with a rival, F(1.67,

66.73) = 54.43, p < .001, partial η2 = .58. Post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction

43 indicated that people perceived the partner to be currently involved with a rival more in the current rival scenario than in the past rival scenario (p < .001) or no rival scenario (p

< .001). The past rival scenario did not significantly differ from the no rival scenario (p =

.07).

A repeated measures ANOVA also revealed that the scenarios differed in perceptions of the partner’s future involvement with a rival, F(2, 80) = 70.35, p < .001, partial η2 = .64. Post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction indicated that people perceived the partner would most likely become involved with a rival in the future in the current rival scenario compared to the past rival scenario (p < .001) and the no rival scenario (p <

.001). The past rival scenario also significantly differed from the no rival scenario such that people were more likely to think the partner would become involved with someone else in the future in the past rival scenario compared to the no rival scenario (p = .001).

Additionally, a paired-samples t-test revealed that participants were more likely to think the partner was involved with a rival solely in the past in the past rival condition compared to the current rival condition, t(40) = 8.15, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.27.

Finally, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the scenarios differed in jealousy evocation as well, F(2, 80) = 178.73, p < .001, partial η2 = .82. Post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction indicated that people experienced more jealousy in the current rival scenario than in the past rival scenario (p < .001) and the no rival scenario (p

< .001). The past rival scenario also significantly differed from the no rival scenario such that more jealousy was experienced in response to information about a past rival (p <

.001).

44

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Stimuli Pretest

Current Rival Past Rival No Rival

Believability 6.40a (0.73) 6.46a (1.12) 6.49a (0.99)

Jealousy 4.55a (0.71) 2.10b (1.02) 1.29c (0.91)

Current involvement 5.50a (1.90) 2.40b (1.70) 1.66b (1.39)

Future involvement 5.68a (1.75) 2.83b (1.82) 1.59c (1.20)

Past involvement 2.60a (1.95) 5.88b (1.47) N/A Note. Means with standard deviations in parentheses; different subscripts across rows indicates significant differences at p ≤ .001.

Manipulation check. Due to the importance of perceptions of the partner’s involvement with a rival in distinguishing reactive jealousy and retroactive jealousy, stimuli were not only pretested, but participants also filled out a manipulation check concerning current and anticipated involvement with a rival. Namely, participants responded to two items pertaining to current involvement (“this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently romantically involved with someone else,”

“this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently sexually involved with someone else,” r(433) = .97, p < .001) and two items pertaining to anticipated future involvement (“this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely become sexually involved with someone else in the near future,”

“this scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely become romantically involved with someone else in the near future,” r(433) = .96, p < .001) on a

45

7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). See Appendix C for the items and a full response scale.

Measures

All measures used in this study can be found in Appendix C.

Jealousy. The hypothetical scenarios differed in information about a rival and were meant to evoke reactive jealousy or retroactive jealousy. Consistent with other jealousy typologies (e.g., Guerrero et al., 2004), the two types of jealousy refer to two different circumstances that evoke negative affect. In the case of reactive jealousy, the negative affect is in response to a partner’s current involvement with a rival. In the case of retroactive jealousy, the negative affect is in response to a partner’s past involvement with a rival. The negative affect or jealousy resulting from either condition was measured with an adapted version of DeSteno and Salovey’s (1996) jealousy measure. DeSteno and

Salovey’s measure asks participants to indicate to what extent they would feel suspicious, betrayed, worried, distrustful, jealous, rejected, hurt, anxious, angry, threatened, and sad in a jealousy-evoking situation. These adjectives were chosen because Parrot and Smith

(1993) found they discriminate jealousy experiences from envy. In this study,

“threatened” was left out of the measure because threat is treated as a cognition rather than an emotion. Likewise, suspiciousness and worry are related to cognitive dimensions of jealousy more so than emotional dimensions of jealousy (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).

Therefore, “threatened,” “suspicious,” and “worried” were replaced with additional adjectives from Parker’s (1997) jealousy measure.

46

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring and Promax rotation was conducted on all items to determine if there were different jealousy factors.

However, the EFA indicated that all jealousy items loaded on one factor that explained

85% of the variance. See Appendix D for the factor matrix. Scores on the jealousy items were averaged (Cronbach’s α = .98, M = 2.47, SD = 1.49).

Specialness meaning framework. To develop the specialness meaning framework measure, I examined other measures of romantic beliefs for items suggesting romantic or sexual relationships are special (e.g., Sprecher & Metts, 1989), reviewed prior scholarship that discussed specialness or uniqueness (e.g., Buunk & Bringle, 1987;

Vangelisti & Daly, 1997), and went over open-ended data from previous studies

(Frampton & Fox, 2018a, 2018b) to derive items. Some preliminary testing was done with initial items to determine and refine the 27 items for testing in the current study

(Frampton, 2018). An EFA with principal axis factoring and Promax rotation was conducted on all items. Items with weak loadings (< .50) on all factors or that crossloaded (i.e., had loadings at .32 or higher on two or more factors) were eliminated

(Costello & Osborne, 2005). Factors were retained if they had an eigenvalue above 1.00 and had at least three items (Kaiser, 1960; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The EFA revealed three factors that explained 52.40% of the variance: unique and special bond

(Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 6.00, SD = 0.75), ordinariness (Cronbach’s α = .82, M = 5.47,

SD = 1.07), and favorable comparisons (Cronbach’s α = .85, M = 5.21, SD = 1.26). Items and their factor loadings are presented in Appendix D.

47

Threats. This study measured threats to global self-esteem, the relationship’s existence, the relationship’s benefits, and the specialness meaning framework.

Participants were asked, “how much the scenario you just read about would threaten…” followed by items targeting self-esteem, the relationship’s existence, the relationship’s benefits, and the specialness meaning framework. Threat to self-esteem was measured by adapting and adding additional items to Rydell et al.’s (2004) item measuring threat to self-esteem, which read: how threatening is this to you personally [your sense of self- esteem]?” The current study asked participants to indicate how much their assigned hypothetical situations threatened “your sense of self-esteem,” “your feelings of self- worth,” “your positive thoughts about yourself,” “your satisfaction with yourself” “your self-respect,” and “your positive attitude toward yourself.” The additional items were derived from Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale.

Threats to the relationship’s existence and benefits were measured by adapting items from Worley and Samp’s (2014) measures of existence threat and quality threat, and Parker’s (1997) measure of threat to relationship. Worley and Samp (2014) measured existence threat with two items (“how threatening would this situation be to the continuation of your romantic relationship”, “how threatening would this situation be to the existence of your romantic relationship”). They also measured relationship quality or benefits threat with two items (“how threatening would this situation be to the quality of your romantic relationship,” “how threatening would this situation be to the benefits you receive from your romantic relationship”). Parker lumped threats to existence and benefits into one measure of relationship threat that asked participants to agree or

48 disagree with the following items: “our relationship is in danger,” “there is a good chance my relationship with my partner will end,” “the future of my relationship with my partner is promising,” “my relationship with my partner is in trouble,” “my relationship with my partner is falling apart,” “my relationship with my partner is rewarding,” “our relationship is unstable,” “I feel good about our relationship,” “our relationship is worthless,” and “I don’t think this situation hurts my relationship with my partner.”

Lastly, the items for threat to the specialness meaning framework were based on prior scholarship pertaining to specialness or uniqueness in relationships (e.g., Buunk &

Bringle, 1987; Vangelisti & Daly, 1997).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in Mplus version 8.2 to determine whether the threat items loaded on the types of threat they were intended to measure. Goodness of fit was evaluated using the standardized root mean square residual

(SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA), and the chi-square statistic. However, as noted by Kenny (2015), the chi- square statistic is most reliable for sample sizes ranging from 75 to 200 cases, and it is unreliable with more than 400 cases. Given there were 435 participants in this study, the

SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA were used as the primary determinants of acceptable fit. Fit was deemed acceptable if the SRMR was less than .08, the CFI was greater than .95, and the RMSEA was less than .08 (Bentler, 1988; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

The model was first tested using all 23 items assigned to their respective latent variable: self-esteem threat, existence threat, benefits threat, or specialness meaning framework threat. The CFA demonstrated that the model fit was acceptable: SRMR =

49

.02, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = .073 (90% CI = .067, .079), 2(224) = 743.78, p < .001.

However, the modification indices indicated that an item from the benefits threat variable

(“the positive outcomes (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from the relationship”) was skewing the model fit by loading onto all latent variables. The modification index for this item was 12.50 for self-esteem threat, 46.81 for existence threat, and 59.78 for specialness meaning framework threat. Three of the specialness meaning framework threat items were also skewing the model fit. Specifically, the modification index for “your beliefs about how special you are to your partner” was

19.25 for self-esteem threat, and the modification index for “your expectations about sharing unique experiences with your partner” was 10.32 for benefits threat. Additionally, the modification indices for “your expectations about the exclusivity of your partner’s romantic feelings” were 11.16 for existence threat and 5.10 for benefits threat.

Given the loadings and modification indices, these four threat items were removed and analyses were rerun. The model fit improved: SRMR = .01, CFI = 0.98,

RMSEA = .064 (90% CI = .057, .072), 2(146) = 408.46, p < .001. Therefore, the benefits threat item and the three specialness meaning framework threat items were not included in the final threat measures.

Scores were averaged across items to compute the final threat measures.

Cronbach’s α was .97 for self-esteem threat (M = 1.96, SD = 1.21), .99 for relationship existence threat (M = 2.65, SD = 1.70), .98 for relational benefits threat (M = 2.38, SD =

1.57), and .98 for specialness meaning framework threat (M = 2.62, SD = 1.59). Loadings for the final items are presented in Appendix D.

50

Affirmation. Most studies using the MMM as a theoretical lens measure affirmation by asking participants to make a social judgment after exposure to information that threatens their meaning framework. Specifically, these studies ask participants to read a hypothetical arrest report about a prostitute and to set the amount of bail between $0 and $999 (e.g., Proulx & Heine, 2008; Proulx et al., 2010; Randles,

Inzlicht, Proulx, Tullet, & Heine, 2015; Randles, Proulx, & Heine, 2011). Given prostitution and the jealousy-evoking scenarios in this study both involve sexual activity, the use of a prostitute in the measure of affirmation is not ideal. Furthermore, the MMM has been criticized for not explaining how meaning maintenance strategies relate to actual, common behaviors (e.g., Moser & Schroder, 2012). It is unlikely that many people have the chance to set bail for a prostitute. Thus, a more realistic affirmation measure would provide further evidence that people regularly engage in affirmation in response to a meaning framework violation.

There were two measures of affirmation in the current study, and the order in which they were presented to participants was randomized. Just as in Boucher et al.’s

(2016) study, participants were first asked to read a story about a social hero being rewarded. In this study, that story was ostensibly shared on a social networking site.

In one measure, participants were asked how likely it is they would “share this story on your own social media profile? If you do not have a social media profile, imagine that you do have one,” “share this story in a private message to a friend or family member,” “and tell others about this story.” They responded on a 7-point scale (1 = not likely at all and 7 = very likely). This particular measure was chosen because research

51 shows people frequently turn to social media to engage in self-affirmation (Toma &

Hancock, 2013). People also use social media for social affirmation, which is conceptualized as “expressing one’s group identity and building social capital” (Kende, van Zomeren, Ujhelyi, & Lantos, 2016, p. 455). Presumably, posting and sharing group- relevant information serves to bolster group identity. Furthermore, social media users often selectively share content that is congruent with their beliefs—especially if it is related to a social cause—and avoid sharing content that is incongruent with their beliefs

(Aruguete & Calvo, 2018; Lane & Cin, 2018). Altogether, the prior research indicates sharing social media content congruent with existing beliefs could be a means of reaffirming those beliefs. As in Boucher et al.’s (2016) study, participants presumably have an existing meaning framework concerning how good actions should be rewarded, meaning a story about a social hero being rewarded should be consistent with their beliefs. Thus, sharing a story about a social hero being rewarded should reaffirm an intact meaning framework. Cronbach’s α for this measure was .79 (M = 3.55, SD = 1.73).

To maintain consistency with prior studies testing the affirmation prediction of the MMM, an additional measure used a dollar amount. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate how much they would personally donate to help reward the social hero if they were given the opportunity to do so. The amounts reported ranged from $0 to

$10,000 (M = 297.56, SD = 1,242.55).

Attachment. Attachment dimensions were assessed using Wei, Russell,

Mallinckrodt, and Vogel’s (2007) short version of the Experiences in Close Relationship

Scale. This scale contains 6 items measuring anxious attachment (e.g., “I get frustrated if

52 romantic partners are not available when I need them,” “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner”) and six items measuring avoidant attachment (e.g., “I am nervous when partners get too close to me,” “I try to avoid getting too close to my partner”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s α for anxious attachment was .80. (M = 3.53 SD = 1.18), and Cronbach’s α for avoidant attachment was .81 (M = 2.48, SD = 0.94).

Results

Before testing the hypotheses, an analysis was conducted to determine whether the manipulation of the rivals in the hypothetical scenarios was effective. Then, attention was turned toward the hypotheses. Given the importance of the perceived threat variables in predicting jealousy, it was essential to examine their relationship with each other before conducting regressions using these variables as predictors. Therefore, I calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) to check for multicollinearity regarding the four threats.

The VIFs were high for relationship existence threat (13.06), relational benefits threat

(7.01), and specialness meaning framework threat (14.45). Self-esteem threat was at an acceptable level (1.92) (Menard, 1995; Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1989). An attempt was made to further refine the relationship existence, relational benefits, and specialness meaning framework threat measures based on the CFA modification indices, but the VIFs were only marginally improved after removing almost all the items (11.99, 6.62, and

13.17, respectively). Therefore, the threat measures described above were used for initial analyses to retain face validity. See Appendix E for a correlation matrix containing all of the main variables in this study.

53

Multicollinearity lowers the power of significance tests by inflating the standard errors of the regression coefficients. When predictor variables are highly correlated, it is difficult to separate out their effects on the dependent variable (Berry & Feldman, 1985;

Hayes, 2005). Thus, due to the high multicollinearity among the relationship existence, relational benefits, and specialness meaning framework threat variables, the regression coefficients for these threats presented in the analyses below should be examined with caution. As Berry and Feldman (1985) noted, sometimes “the most reasonable course when faced with high multicollinearity is to recognize its presence, but live with its consequences” (p. 49). It is possible that a large enough sample will overcome limitations on power (Darlington & Hayes, 2017; Hayes, 2005). However, other scholars suggest possible solutions include removing some of the highly correlated variables or combining them based on the results of a principal component or factor analysis (Allen, Titsworth, &

Hunt, 2009; Franke, 2011; Schroeder, Sjoquist, & Stephan, 1986). Therefore, additional analyses were conducted in an attempt to address the multicollinearity issue, though each of these methods of addressing multicollinearity have their own drawbacks (Arceneaux &

Huber, 2007; Berry & Feldman, 1985).

Manipulation Check

A MANOVA was conducted to determine whether the perception of the partner’s involvement with a third-party rival was successfully manipulated. It revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in perception of a partner’s involvement with a rival based on condition, F(4, 862) = 116.11, p < .001, Wilks’s Λ = 0.42, partial η2 = .35.

The conditions had a statistically significant effect on both perceptions of the partner’s

54 current involvement with a rival, F(2, 432) = 283.14, p < .001, partial η2 = .57, and perceptions of the partner’s future involvement with a rival, F(2, 432) = 215.29, p < .001, partial η2 = .50.

Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that, for perceptions of the partner’s current involvement with a rival, the current rival condition (M = 5.91, SD =1.84) differed significantly from the past rival condition (M = 2.07, SD =1.43) and the no rival condition (M = 2.19, SD = 1.48) at p < .001. Furthermore, the past rival condition did not significantly differ from the no rival condition (p = .82). Tukey HSD post hoc tests also revealed that, for perceptions of the partner’s future involvement with a rival, the current rival condition (M = 5.74, SD =1.86) differed significantly from the past rival condition

(M = 2.39, SD =1.60) and the no rival condition (M = 2.24, SD = 1.46) at p < .001. The past rival condition did not significantly differ from the no rival condition (p = .74).

These results indicate that the manipulation was successful, as people in the current rival condition were more likely to believe their partner was involved with a third-party rival now or would be in the future compared to those in the other conditions. Importantly, people in the past rival condition were no more likely to believe their partner was involved with a rival now or would be in the future compared to the control condition, indicating the rival was perceived to be solely in the past.

Hypothesis Tests

H1 predicted that people who are exposed to information about their partner’s involvement with a rival appraise more threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework than people

55 not exposed to information about a rival. A one-way MANOVA revealed there was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of threat based on condition, F(8, 858) =

148.56, p < .001, Wilks’s Λ = 0.18, partial η2 = .58. The conditions had a statistically significant effect on self-esteem threat, F(2, 432) = 125.74, p < .001, partial η2 = .37, relationship existence threat, F(2, 432) = 960.86, p < .001, partial η2 = .82, relational benefits threat, F(2, 432) = 525.05, p < .001, partial η2 = .71, and specialness meaning framework threat F(2, 432) = 658.29, p < .001, partial η2 = .75.

Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that the current rival condition differed significantly from the past rival condition and the no rival condition on every type of threat at p < .001. However, the past rival condition differed from the no rival condition only on specialness meaning framework threat (p = .008). See Table 2 for all means and standard deviations. These results indicate that H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d were supported in the case of current rivals (reactive jealousy), but only H1d was supported in the case of past rivals (retroactive jealousy).

H2 predicted that people exposed to information about a rival experience more jealousy that people that are not exposed to information about a rival. A one-way

ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in jealousy based on condition, F(2, 432) = 691.80, p < .001, partial η2 = .76. Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that the current rival condition differed significantly from the past rival condition and the no rival condition at p < .001 such that people in the current rival condition reported more jealousy than people in the other two conditions. The past rival condition differed from the no rival condition as well (p = .001) such that people in the

56 past rival condition reported more jealousy than people in the no rival condition. See

Table 2 for all means and standard deviations. These results indicate that H2 was supported in the case of both current rivals (reactive jealousy) and past rivals (retroactive jealousy).

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Differences in Threat and Jealousy by Condition

Current Rival Past Rival No Rival

Threat to self-esteem 2.90a (1.29) 1.43b (0.68) 1.34b (0.70)

Threat to relationship’s existence 4.61a (0.74) 1.52b (0.77) 1.36b (0.68)

Threat to relational benefits 4.06a (1.90) 1.37b (0.61) 1.32b (0.66)

Threat to specialness meaning framework 4.38a (0.85) 1.68b (0.82) 1.39c (0.67)

Jealousy 4.13a (0.77) 1.60b (0.77) 1.28c (0.61) Note. Means with standard deviations in parentheses; different subscripts across rows indicates significant differences at p ≤ .008.

H3 predicted that the more people appraise threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework, the more jealousy they experience. H4 predicted that exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival has an indirect effect on jealousy through appraisals of threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship rewards, c) self- esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework. To analyze H3 and H4, two dummy variables were created to indicate conditions: one dummy variable listed everyone in the current rival condition as “1” and everyone else as “0,” and the second dummy variable listed everyone in the past rival condition as “1” and everyone else as “0.” These dummy

57 variables were used as the independent variable in two separate versions of model 4 in

PROCESS macro version 3.3.

The first model had the current rival dummy variable as the independent variable, jealousy as the dependent variable, the four threats as the mediators, and the past rival dummy variable as a covariate. Results indicate that the overall model predicting jealousy was significant, F(6, 428) = 476.77, p < .001, R2 = .87. Specifically, relationship existence threat (B = 0.25, SE = 0.06, t = 4.03, p < .001), self-esteem threat (B = 0.28, SE

= 0.03, t = 9.26, p < .001), and specialness threat (B = 0.21, SE = 0.06, t = 3.29, p = .001) all positively predicted jealousy. However, relational benefits threat was not a significant predictor (B = -.02, SE = 0.04, t = -0.54, p = .59). There was a significant positive indirect effect of condition on jealousy through relationship existence threat (B = 0.83, SE = 0.29,

95% CI = 0.31, 1.43), self-esteem threat (B = 0.43, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.56), and specialness meaning framework threat (B = 0.62, SE = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 1.07), but not for relational benefits threat (B = -0.07, SE = 0.15, 95% CI = -0.35, 0.24). These results suggest that H3a, 3c, and 3d were supported, but H3b was not. Furthermore, H4a,

4c, and 4d were supported in the case of current rivals, but H4b was not.

The second model entered the past rival dummy variable as the independent variable, jealousy as the dependent variable, the four threats as the mediators, and the current rival dummy variable as a covariate. Results indicate that there was a significant positive indirect effect of condition on jealousy through specialness meaning framework threat (B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.003, 0.14). There was not a significant indirect effect through relationship existence threat (B = 0.04, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = -.002, 0.10),

58 self-esteem threat (B = 0.02, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = -0.02, 0.07), or relational benefits threat (B = -0.001, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.01, 0.01). Thus, H4d was supported in the case of past rivals, but H4a, 4b, and 4c were not.

H5 predicted that the relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival and threat to a specialness meaning framework would be stronger the more people expect relationships to be special or unique, and RQ1 asked whether endorsement of a specialness meaning framework would moderate the relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival and threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, or self-esteem. Likewise,

H6 predicted anxious attachment would moderate the relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival and threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework, whereas H8 predicted avoidant attachment would moderate the relationship between exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival and the four types of threat.

These hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression. Each threat was entered as a dependent variable. Then the dummy past rival condition was entered in the first block, and the dummy current rival condition was entered as an independent variable in the second block along with the three mean centered specialness meaning framework factors, mean centered anxious attachment, mean centered avoidant attachment, and the interaction terms (computed with mean centered variables) between current rival condition and anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, and the three

59 specialness meaning framework factors. These same models were also run with the dummy current rival condition in the first block and the dummy past rival condition in the second block along with its corresponding interaction terms. The variables were mean centered because in regression models including several predictors and interactions, tolerances can become too low if variables are not mean centered (Hayes, 2005).

Furthermore, one of the dummy variables was entered in the first block to control for its influence when examining the other predictors of in the second block (Hayes,

2005).

Results indicate that the model predicting specialness meaning framework threat

2 was significant for both the current rival, F(12, 422) = 125.77, p < .001, R adj = .78 and

2 the past rival conditions, F(12, 422) = 120.95, p < .001, R adj = .77. Furthermore, the interaction between condition and avoidant attachment was significant for both the current rival and past rival conditions. See Table 3 for regression coefficients. See

Appendix F for interaction plots of significant interactions.

60

Table 3

Regression Results Predicting Specialness Meaning Framework Threat

Current Rival Past Rival B SE t p B SE t p Condition dummy 3.02 0.09 33.16 < .001 0.27 0.10 2.87 .004 variable SMF1: Unique and 0.05 0.09 0.51 .61 .01 0.08 0.13 .90 close bond SMF2: 0.06 0.05 1.07 .29 .09 0.05 1.72 .09 Ordinariness SMF3: Favorable 0.04 0.05 0.87 .39 .01 0.04 0.31 .76 comparisons Anxious 0.15 0.05 3.25 .001 0.09 0.04 2.07 .04 attachment Avoidant 0.21 0.07 3.13 .002 -0.03 0.07 -0.41 .68 attachment Condition x SMF1 -0.003 0.15 -0.02 .98 0.15 0.17 0.87 .38 Condition x SMF2 0.09 0.09 1.05 .30 0.01 0.10 0.10 .92 Condition x SMF3 -0.07 0.08 -0.93 .35 0.02 0.09 0.22 .83 Condition x -0.07 0.07 -1.01 .32 0.10 0.08 1.26 .21 anxious attachment Condition x -0.35 0.11 -3.16 .002 0.33 0.11 2.87 .004 avoidant attachment

The model predicting relationship existence threat was significant for both the

2 current rival, F(12, 422) = 187.41, p < .001, R adj = .84 and the past rival conditions,

2 F(12, 422) = 175.62, p < .001, R adj = .83. The interaction between avoidant attachment and condition was significant for both the current rival and past rival conditions.

Furthermore, the interaction between condition and the ordinariness specialness meaning

61 framework factor was significant for the current rival condition. See Table 4 for regression coefficients. See Appendix F for interaction plots of significant interactions.

Table 4 Regression Results Predicting Relationship Existence Threat

Current Rival Past Rival B SE t p B SE t p Condition dummy 3.29 0.08 39.72 < .001 0.15 0.09 1.71 .09 variable SMF1: Unique and 0.07 0.09 0.79 .43 -.01 0.08 -0.18 .86 close bond SMF2: 0.01 0.05 0.10 .92 .08 0.05 1.83 .07 Ordinariness SMF3: Favorable 0.03 0.05 0.69 .49 .004 0.04 0.10 .92 comparisons Anxious 0.08 0.04 1.85 .07 0.03 0.04 0.69 .49 attachment Avoidant 0.31 0.06 5.08 < .001 0.10 0.06 1.55 .12 attachment Condition x SMF1 -0.08 0.13 -0.59 .56 0.16 0.15 1.07 .28 Condition x SMF2 0.18 0.08 2.25 .03 -0.05 0.09 -0.54 .59 Condition x SMF3 -0.06 0.07 -0.84 .40 0.04 0.08 0.49 .62 Condition x -0.03 0.07 -0.48 .63 0.11 0.08 1.49 .14 anxious attachment Condition x -0.36 0.10 -3.54 <.001 0.25 0.11 2.34 .02 avoidant attachment

The model predicting relational benefits threat was also significant for both the

2 current rival, F(12, 422) = 98.93, p < .001, R adj = .73 and the past rival conditions, F(12,

2 422) = 91.30, p < .001, R adj = .71. The interaction between condition and avoidant

62 attachment was significant for the current rival and past rival conditions. See Table 5 for regression coefficients. See Appendix F for interaction plots of significant interactions.

Table 5 Regression Results Predicting Relational Benefits Threat

Current Rival Past Rival B SE t p B SE t p Condition 2.77 0.10 28.18 < .001 0.04 0.10 0.39 .69 dummy variable SMF1: Unique 0.03 0.10 0.28 .78 0.003 0.09 0.03 .97 and close bond SMF2: -0.02 0.06 -0.29 .77 0.05 0.06 0.92 .36 Ordinariness SMF3: Favorable 0.02 0.05 0.38 .70 0.003 0.05 0.06 .95 comparisons Anxious 0.05 0.05 1.02 .31 0.06 0.05 1.37 .17 attachment Avoidant 0.23 0.07 3.27 .001 -0.06 0.07 -0.84 .40 attachment Condition x 0.03 0.16 0.18 .86 0.08 0.18 0.43 .67 SMF1 Condition x 0.13 0.09 1.33 .19 -0.08 0.10 -0.72 .48 SMF2 Condition x -0.04 0.08 -0.49 .63 0.04 0.09 0.47 .64 SMF3 Condition x 0.06 0.08 0.78 .44 0.01 0.09 0.06 .96 anxious attachment Condition x -0.50 0.12 -4.14 < .001 0.34 0.13 2.68 .01 avoidant attachment

Finally, the model predicting self-esteem threat was significant for both the

2 current rival, F(12, 422) = 30.81, p < .001, R adj = .45 and the past rival conditions, F(12, 63

2 422) = 28.76, p < .001, R adj = .43. The interaction between condition and the unique and close bond specialness meaning framework factor was significant for the past rival condition. Furthermore, the interaction between anxious attachment and condition, the interaction between the favorable comparisons specialness meaning framework factor and condition, and the interaction between avoidant attachment and condition were significant for the current rival condition. See Table 6 for regression coefficients. See

Appendix F for interaction plots of significant interactions.

64

Table 6 Regression Results Predicting Self-esteem Threat

Current Rival Past Rival B SE t p B SE t p Condition dummy 1.66 0.11 15.39 < .001 0.13 0.11 1.12 .27 variable SMF1: Unique 0.11 0.11 0.98 .33 -0.17 0.10 -1.67 .10 and close bond SMF2: -0.01 0.06 -0.21 .83 -0.05 0.06 -0.88 .38 Ordinariness SMF3: Favorable -0.01 0.06 -0.15 .88 0.13 0.05 2.39 .02 comparisons Anxious 0.12 0.06 2.12 .04 0.26 0.05 5.09 <.001 attachment Avoidant 0.18 0.08 2.33 .02 -0.04 0.08 -0.46 .65 attachment Condition x -0.29 0.17 -1.67 .10 0.44 0.20 2.24 .03 SMF1 Condition x -0.07 0.10 -0.66 .51 0.07 0.11 0.62 .54 SMF2 Condition x 0.21 0.09 2.35 .02 -0.17 0.10 -1.66 .10 SMF3 Condition x 0.27 0.09 3.13 .002 -0.08 0.10 -0.80 .42 anxious attachment Condition x -0.36 0.13 -2.69 .01 0.25 0.14 1.88 .06 avoidant attachment

H7 predicted that anxious attachment would have a positive indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on threat appraisal, whereas H9 predicted that avoidant attachment would have a negative indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on threat

65 appraisal. These hypotheses were tested using two versions of model 4 in PROCESS macro version 3.3. In one version, anxious attachment was entered as the independent variable, the threats were entered as the mediators, and jealousy was entered as the dependent variable. The same model was then run with avoidant attachment as the independent variable.

The results indicated that the model predicting jealousy using anxious attachment as the independent variable was significant, F(5, 429) = 492.96, p < .001, R2 = .85.

Anxious attachment had a positive indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on self- esteem threat (B = 0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.09). However, there was not a significant indirect effect through relationship existence threat (B = -0.03, SE = 0.03, 95%

CI = -0.09, 0.04), relational benefits threat (B = <0.001, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.01,

0.01), or specialness meaning framework threat (B = -0.005, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = -0.04,

0.03).

The model predicting jealousy using avoidant attachment as the independent variable was also significant, F(5, 429) = 507.73, p < .001, R2 = .86. Although avoidant attachment had a significant, negative direct effect on jealousy (B = -0.10, SE = 0.03, t = -

3.35, p < .001), there was not a significant indirect effect through relationship existence threat (B = -0.004, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.09, 0.08), relational benefits threat (B =

0.0004, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.01, 0.01), self-esteem threat (B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95%

CI = -0.01, 0.06), or specialness meaning framework threat (B = -0.01, SE = 0.02, 95%

CI = -0.06, 0.01).

66

RQ2 asked whether anxious and avoidant attachment are related to a specialness meaning framework. Pearson correlations indicated that there was a statistically significant negative relationship between anxious attachment and the ordinariness specialness meaning framework factor, r(433) = -0.22, p < .001, and a positive relationship between anxious attachment and the favorable comparisons factor, r(433) =

0.15, p = .002. These results suggest that people high in anxious attachment tended to expect their partners to make favorable comparisons between them and other rivals, but they also expected their partners to think of them as ordinary and for the relationship to feel replaceable.

Results indicate there was also a statistically significant negative relationship between avoidant attachment and the unique and close bond specialness meaning framework factor, r(433) = -0.52, p < .001, the ordinariness factor, r(433) = -0.53, p <

.001, and the favorable comparisons factor, r(433) = -0.28, p < .001. These results suggest that people higher in avoidant attachment tended not to expect their relationships to be unique or to feel closest to their partner, not to expect their partners to think of them as extraordinary, and not to expect their partners to make favorable comparisons of them to others.

H10 predicted that the more jealousy people experience, the more they affirm an unrelated meaning framework. Pearson correlations indicated there was a statistically significant small, positive relationship between jealousy and the sharing affirmation measure, r(429) = 0.12, p < .02, but not the money affirmation measure, r(430) = 0.03, p

67

= .52. See Table 7 for means and standard deviations on the affirmation measures by condition.

Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations for Affirmation Measures by Condition

Sharing Money Current rival 3.70 (1.78) 332.72 (1382.79) Past rival 3.49 (1.71) 305.10 (1227.52) No rival 3.39 (1.66) 243.12 (1059.20) Note. There were no significant differences in either affirmation measure across conditions.

Furthermore, H11 predicted that appraisals of threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship benefits, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework have indirect effects on affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework through their effects on jealousy. This hypothesis was tested using several versions of model 4 in PROCESS macro version 3.3. Each of the threats was entered as an independent variable, jealousy as a mediator, and an affirmation measure as the dependent variable. Models were run using both the sharing affirmation measure and the money affirmation measure. Results indicate that there were no significant indirect effects of the threats on either affirmation measure through jealousy. See Table 8.

68

Table 8

Indirect Effects of Threats on Affirmation Through Jealousy

Sharing Affirmation Money Affirmation B SE LLCI ULCI B SE LLCI ULCI Rel. Existence 0.16 .11 -0.06 0.37 23.76 45.68 -65.95 117.89 Rel. Benefits 0.16 0.08 -0.01 0.32 -12.36 40.31 -94.56 66.05 Self-esteem 0.04 0.08 -0.12 0.19 0.63 48.63 -92.26 99.87 Specialness MF 0.06 0.11 -0.16 0.27 53.08 59.15 -57.85 175.94

Finally, H12 predicted that exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival has an indirect effect on affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework such that exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival impacts appraisal of threat to a) the relationship’s existence, b) relationship rewards, c) self-esteem, and d) a specialness meaning framework, which then impact jealousy, which in turn impacts affirmation of an unrelated meaning framework. This hypothesis was tested using several iterations of model 6 in PROCESS macro version 3.3. The current rival condition dummy variable was entered as the independent variable predicting a threat, which in turn predicted jealousy, which then predicted one of the affirmation measures. The past rival condition dummy variable was entered as a covariate. This model was run for each of the threats and each of the affirmation measures. The same models were also run using the past rival condition dummy variable as the independent variable and the current rival dummy variable as the covariate. None of the indirect effects of condition on affirmation were significant using either affirmation variable or either condition dummy variable. See

69

Appendix G for path diagrams and Appendix H for tables of results for models predicting the affirmation measures.

Additional Analyses

When independent variables are highly correlated, it is often recommended that one or more of the variables be removed from the model or combined (Allen et al., 2009;

Franke, 2011; Schroeder et al., 1986). However, these solutions also have drawbacks, as

Berry and Feldman (1985) noted that combining separate predictors into one variable is only warranted if theory supports the idea that each of the original predictors are indicators of the same underlying theoretical concept. In this case, the relationship existence, relational benefits, and specialness meaning framework threat variables would be thought of as a broader “relationship threat” variable. Likewise, removing highly correlated predictor variables is problematic if those variables are key to the theory being tested, and their removal can bias regression coefficients (Arceneaux & Huber, 2007;

Barry & Feldman, 1985). Regardless, to address both of these possible solutions to the multicollinearity issue, I conducted additional analyses wherein I first combined the highly correlated threat variables into one “relationship threat” variable and another set of analyses wherein I examined the main threat variable of interest, specialness meaning framework threat.

I also examined whether there were differences in jealousy, relationship existence threat, relational benefits threat, self-esteem threat, and specialness meaning framework threat based on gender, current relationship status, and current relationship length. Given only one participant identified as something other than a man or woman and only six did

70 not disclose their gender identity, solely potential differences between men and women were examined. Men were coded as “1,” and women were coded as “2.” A one-way

MANOVA revealed that there were no differences in any of these variables based on gender, F(5, 422) = 1.61, p = .16, Wilks’s Λ = 0.98, partial η2 = .02. Relationship status was condensed and recoded as 1 (in a relationship) and 2 (not in a relationship).

Participants who wrote in something on the “other” response option or that indicated they were separated were excluded (n = 17). Another one-way MANOVA revealed that there were no differences in any of the variables based on the condensed version of current relationship status, F(4, 408) = 0.37, p = .83, Wilks’s Λ = 0.996, partial η2 = .004.

Furthermore, there was no significant relationship between relationship length and jealousy, r(416) = -0.04, p = .38, relationship existence threat, r(416) = -0.02, p = .76, relational benefits threat, r(416) = -0.03, p = .54, self-esteem threat, r(416) = -0.08, p =

.10, or specialness meaning framework threat, r(416) = -0.01, p = .85.

Analyses with a general relationship threat variable. A new relationship threat variable was created based on the results of an EFA with principal axis factoring and

Promax rotation conducted on all threat items. All items originally meant to measure relationship existence threat, relational benefits threat, and specialness meaning framework threat loaded on one factor, and the items meant to measure self-esteem threat loaded on a second factor. See Appendix I for items and their factor loadings. Therefore, all items originally meant to measure relationship existence threat, relational benefits threat, and specialness meaning framework threat were averaged to create the general

71 relationship threat variable. Cronbach’s α for this new measure was .99 (M = 2.56, SD =

1.58).

Again, H1 predicted that people who are exposed to information about their partner’s involvement with a rival appraise more threat than people not exposed to information about a rival. A one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in general relationship threat based on condition, F(2, 432) =

842.84, p < .001, η2 = .80. Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that the current rival condition (M = 4.36, SD = 0.80) differed significantly from the past rival condition (M =

1.56, SD = 0.70) and the no rival condition (M = 1.36, SD = 0.61) at p < .001. However, the past rival condition did not significantly differ from the no rival condition (p = .06).

The findings for the current rival condition are largely the same as the original analyses, but in the original analyses, the past rival condition differed from the no rival condition on specialness meaning framework threat. Thus, collapsing the threats into the general relationship threat variable obscured this difference between the past and no rival conditions.

H3 predicted that the more people appraise threat, the more jealousy they experience, whereas H4 predicted that exposure to information about a rival has an indirect effect on jealousy through threat appraisal. These hypotheses were tested using two versions of model 4 in PROCESS version 3.3. Both self-esteem threat and the general relationship threat variable were entered as mediators between one of the condition dummy variables and jealousy, with the other condition dummy variable entered as a covariate. The model predicting jealousy was significant, F(4, 430) = 693.69,

72 p < .001, R2 = .87. The general relationship threat variable positively predicted jealousy

(B = 0.43, SE = 0.04, t = 10.52, p < .001), as did self-esteem threat (B = 0.27, SE = 0.03, t

= 8.87, p < .001). Both the current rival condition (B = 1.30, SE = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.92,

1.70) and the past rival condition (B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.16) had an indirect effect on jealousy through general relationship threat. Moreover, the current rival condition (B = 0.42, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.56) had a significant indirect effect on jealousy through self-esteem threat, whereas the past rival condition did not (B = 0.02, SE

= 0.02, 95% CI = -0.02, 0.07).

The results regarding H3 are consistent with the original analyses, which found that all but the relational benefits threat positively predicted jealousy. The results for H4 are also mostly consistent with the original analyses. Original analyses found that the current rival condition had an indirect effect through all threats but the relational benefits threat. In this additional analysis, the current rival condition had an indirect effect through both the collapsed threat variable and self-esteem threat. For the past rival condition, the original analyses suggested that the only indirect effect was through specialness meaning framework threat. Here too the only indirect effect was through the collapsed relationship threat variable.

H11 predicted threat appraisal has an indirect effect on affirmation through its effect on jealousy, and H12 summarized the serial mediation suggested by other hypotheses. These hypotheses were tested using model 6 in PROCESS macro version

3.3. A condition dummy variable was entered as the independent variable, the other condition dummy variable as the covariate, general relationship threat as a mediator

73 impacting jealousy, and jealousy in turn impacting affirmation. Just as in the original analyses, neither the model predicting money affirmation, F(4, 427) = 0.16, p = .96, R2 =

.002, nor the model predicting sharing affirmation, F(4, 428) = 1.72, p = .15, R2 = .02, were statistically significant. See Figure 2 for a path diagram with coefficients and standard errors.

Figure 2 Model with General Relationship Threat Variable H5, H6, H8, and RQ1 all concerned specialness meaning framework endorsement, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment as moderators of the relationship between exposure to information about a rival and threat appraisal. The same hierarchical regression described above was conducted with the relationship threat variable as the dependent variable. The results indicate the models containing interactions

2 with both the current rival condition dummy variable, F(12, 422) = 163.01, p < .001, R adj

2 = .82, and the past rival condition dummy variable, F(12, 422) = 152.56, p < .001, R adj =

.81, were significant. The interaction between condition and avoidant attachment was significant for both the current rival condition and past rival condition. See Table 9 for coefficients and Appendix J for interaction plots. These results are consistent with the results of the original analyses, which found that avoidant attachment interacted with 74 both condition dummy variables for specialness meaning framework threat, relationship existence threat, and relational benefits threat.

Table 9 Regression Results Predicting General Relationship Threat

Current Rival Past Rival B SE t p B SE t p Condition dummy 3.03 0.08 37.26 < .001 0.18 0.09 2.12 .04 variable SMF1: Unique 0.05 0.08 0.53 .60 -0.01 0.08 -0.08 .93 and close bond SMF2: 0.02 0.05 0.33 .74 0.06 0.05 1.39 .17 Ordinariness SMF3: Favorable 0.03 0.04 0.77 .44 0.02 0.04 0.37 .72 comparisons Anxious 0.10 0.04 2.41 .02 0.07 0.04 1.67 .10 attachment Avoidant 0.24 0.06 4.03 < .001 -0.01 0.06 -0.18 .86 attachment Condition x - 0.13 -0.19 .85 0.13 0.15 0.86 .39 SMF1 0.03 Condition x 0.12 0.08 1.57 .12 -0.01 0.09 -0.10 .92 SMF2 Condition x - 0.07 -0.74 .46 0.02 0.08 0.29 .78 SMF3 0.05 Condition x - 0.07 -0.28 .78 0.08 0.07 1.06 .29 anxious 0.02 attachment Condition x - 0.10 -4.01 < .001 0.31 0.10 3.05 .002 avoidant 0.40 attachment

75

H7 and H9 also made predictions about anxious and avoidant attachment’s indirect effect on jealousy through their impact on threat appraisal. Consistent with the results of the original analyses, regressions conducted via model 4 in the PROCESS macro suggested that neither anxious attachment (B = -0.03, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = -0.12,

0.06) nor avoidant attachment (B = -0.04, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.15, 0.07) had a significant indirect effect on jealousy through the general relationship threat variable.

However, anxious attachment had a significant indirect effect on jealousy through self- esteem threat (B = 0.05 SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.08), though avoidant attachment did not (B = 0.02 SE = 0.02, 95% CI = -0.01, 0.06).

Analyses with just the specialness meaning framework threat variable.

Hypotheses 3, 4, 7, and 9 were also retested with just the specialness meaning framework threat variable as a mediator. Again, H3 predicted that the more people appraise threat, the more jealousy they experience, whereas H4 predicted that exposure to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival has an indirect effect on jealousy through threat appraisal. These hypotheses were retested using two versions of model 4 in

PROCESS (one for each dummy condition variable). Results indicate the model predicting jealousy was significant, F(3, 431) = 731.98, p < .001, R2 = .84. Just as in the original analyses, specialness meaning framework threat positively predicted jealousy (B

= 0.51, SE = 0.04, t = 13.93, p < .001). Both the current rival condition (B = 1.54, SE =

0.17, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.88) and past rival condition (B = 0.15, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.06,

0.25) dummy variables had significant indirect effects on jealousy through specialness

76 meaning framework threat, which was again consistent with the results of the original analyses.

H7 predicted that anxious attachment would have a positive indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on threat appraisal, whereas H9 predicted that avoidant attachment would have a negative indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on threat appraisal. These hypotheses were tested using two versions of model 4 in PROCESS macro version 3.3. In one version, anxious attachment was entered as the independent variable, specialness meaning framework threat was entered as the mediator, and jealousy was entered as the dependent variable. The same model was then run with avoidant attachment as the independent variable.

The results indicated that the model predicting jealousy using anxious attachment as the independent variable was significant, F(2, 432) = 847.75, p < .001, R2 = .80.

However, anxious attachment did not have a significant indirect effect on jealousy through specialness meaning framework threat (B = -0.02, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.03,

0.08). The model predicting jealousy using avoidant attachment as the independent variable was also significant, F(2, 432) = 847.18, p < .001, R2 = .80. Anxious attachment did not have a significant indirect effect on jealousy through specialness meaning framework threat either (B = -0.07, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.19, 0.07). These results are consistent with those from the original analyses.

Discussion

Existing jealousy models suggest that jealousy is a result of perceiving a partner’s involvement with a rival as threatening to the primary relationship’s existence, relational

77 benefits, or self-esteem (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; White & Mullen, 1989). These models were developed in the context of reactive jealousy, or jealousy stemming from a partner’s current involvement with a rival. As a result, they do little to explain jealousy stemming from a partner’s past involvement with a rival, or retroactive jealousy.

Conversely, the MMM is a broader threat model that suggests negative affect is a result of threat to networks of expectations called meaning frameworks. Jealousy scholars previously speculated that expectations of specialness or uniqueness are particularly likely to be threatened in jealousy-evoking situations, including jealousy stemming from a partner’s past (e.g., Buunk & Bringle, 1987). Therefore, a goal of the present study was to test predictions derived from the MMM regarding threats to a specialness meaning framework alongside of predictions derived from existing jealousy models. Participants were assigned to conditions wherein they received information about a current rival (to evoke reactive jealousy), information about a past rival (to evoke retroactive jealousy) or no information about a rival. Threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, self-esteem, and a specialness meaning framework were measured in addition to attachment dimensions, specialness meaning framework endorsement, jealousy, and affirmation.

Results suggest that, in comparison to a control condition, participants experienced more jealousy when they received information about a partner’s involvement with a rival. However, more extreme jealousy was reported in the case of a partner’s current involvement with a rival than a partner’s past involvement with a rival, perhaps indicating more severe threat. Both extant jealousy models and the MMM position the

78 perception of threat as a precursor of negative affect, but they differ in the types of threat they identify. Consistent with existing jealousy models that focus on a partner’s current involvement with a rival, participants in the current rival condition reported experiencing threats to the relationship’s existence and self-esteem. However, none of the threats identified in the current jealousy models were significant predictors of jealousy in the case of a partner’s past involvement with a rival. Rather, consistent with the MMM, the only threat that predicted retroactive jealousy experience was threat to a specialness meaning framework. Moreover, threat to a specialness meaning framework was also a predictor in cases of reactive jealousy. Therefore, keeping in mind the multicollinearity limitations, it appears initial analyses suggest the MMM can explain and predict both types of jealousy, whereas extant jealousy models are best-suited for explaining only reactive jealousy.

These findings make sense given the nature of the partner’s involvement with a rival in cases of retroactive jealousy. If people perceive their partner’s involvement with a rival is solely in the past, there is little reason to believe that prior relationship will supplant the current relationship as suggested in existing jealousy models. However, even a partner’s past activities can make the current relationship feel less special in some way if they “give rise to the feeling that the partner has shared certain previous intimacies and experiences with others” (Buunk & Bringle, 1987, p. 127). On the other hand, a partner’s current involvement with a rival is much more likely to evoke concern that the partner will end the primary relationship in favor of the rival relationship, as that relationship is still ongoing and developing. In addition to relationship existence threat, a partner’s

79 current involvement with a rival is also likely to evoke a threat to a sense of specialness, as expectations about the primary relationship’s exclusive domain are violated. In fact,

Bringle and Buunk (1991) suggested that a threat to a sense of specialness may be the only way to explain jealousy in response to some extramarital relationships. In particular, they argued that in situations where a partner intends to stay in the primary relationship and relational benefits have not decreased, jealousy may only be explained by the perceived meaning behind the partner’s involvement with a rival.

These results also provide additional evidence that retroactive jealousy is a different type of jealousy compared to reactive jealousy, as the different conditions evoked different threat appraisals. Importantly, participants reported experiencing jealousy in response to information about a partner’s past involvement with a rival despite feeling the partner was not currently involved with the rival nor was likely to become involved with the rival in the future. Thus, contrary to what is suggested by current jealousy models, perceptions of a partner’s current or future involvement with a rival are not necessary to evoke jealousy.

This study also examined the role of attachment in threat appraisal and jealousy.

Specifically, it was suggested that attachment may moderate the relationship between exposure to information about a rival and perception of different types of threat, and that it would have an indirect effect on jealousy through its impact on threat appraisal. Results indicate that as a whole, anxious attachment had a positive indirect effect on jealousy solely through self-esteem threat. The finding that anxious attachment did not have an indirect threat through relationship existence threat was somewhat surprising, as people

80 high in anxious attachment tend to be concerned about the loss of their relationships

(Murray et al., 2000; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). However, the fact that anxious attachment impacts jealousy through self-esteem threat makes sense given that the anxious attachment dimension identifies the degree to which people have a low sense of self-worth. People high in anxious attachment think poorly of themselves and tend to interpret relationship events as confirmation of their inadequacy (Simpson & Rholes,

2012). Therefore, finding out about a partner’s involvement with a rival may serve as a cue that their low self-esteem is warranted.

Moreover, avoidant attachment had a negative direct effect on jealousy, but there were no significant indirect effects of avoidant attachment on jealousy. This finding suggests that individuals high in avoidant attachment are overall less likely to experience jealousy regardless of perceptions of threat, perhaps because the avoidance dimension identifies the degree to which people distrust others and feel uncomfortable with closeness. People high in avoidant attachment are less likely to be concerned about relationships more generally (Ren et al., 2017). As a consequence, they may experience less of an emotional reaction to information about a partner’s involvement with a rival.

Though avoidant attachment may not have had an indirect effect on jealousy, it did interact with conditions to impact threat appraisal. In particular, people in the current rival condition that were also high in avoidant attachment appraised less of any type of threat compared to those low in avoidant attachment. This finding is intuitive, as people who do not value closeness or care about rejection are less likely to perceive threats

81 compared to those that are on the lookout for threats due to their concern about relationships and intimacy.

However, surprisingly, for those in the past rival condition, people high in avoidance appraised more threat to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, and a specialness meaning framework than those low in avoidant attachment. In other words, when people that tend to feel uncomfortable with closeness learned about a partner’s past romantic and sexual experiences, they felt their partner was more likely to end the relationship, felt that expectations of specialness were violated, and felt that relational benefits were in jeopardy compared to people that are more comfortable with closeness

(i.e., those low in avoidance). One possible explanation for this unexpected finding is that people low in avoidance thought the partner’s disclosure about their romantic history brought them closer together rather than indicated some sort of threat. As a result, they were more comfortable with the information and did not search for a reason that the information was alarming. Future research should explore why people high in avoidant attachment appraised more threat in the case of information about a past rival specifically.

Furthermore, it was suggested that attachment dimensions may be related to specialness meaning framework endorsement, as attachment dimensions are based on working models about self-worth and trust in others (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006).

Interestingly, anxious attachment was negatively related to the ordinariness specialness meaning framework factor, which addressed the degree to which people expected their partner to think of them as extraordinary or above-average. However, anxious attachment

82 was positively related to the favorable comparisons specialness meaning framework factor, which contained items such as “When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect my romantic partner to think I am better than other potential partners or past partners.” These findings can perhaps be explained by the fact that individuals with low self-esteem want to be regarded positively by their partners but tend to underestimate how positively their partners view them (Murray et al., 2000). In other words, these people want their partner to think of them favorably (and perhaps make favorable comparisons), but they tend to think their partner views them as ordinary or replaceable. The specialness meaning framework measure developed and used in the current study contained items that addressed how participants think relationships should be more generically in addition to items that addressed how relationships typically are for them personally. Future studies should parse out differences in hopeful or idealized expectations and expectations based on personal prior experiences. Future studies should also work to further validate this measure in addition to adapting it for use in non-romantic contexts such as or siblings.

Avoidant attachment was also negatively related to all three specialness meaning framework factors. This suggests that people high in avoidant attachment tend not to expect their relationships to be special or unique in any way. This finding seems consistent with the fact that avoidantly attached individuals do not value intimacy (Ren et al., 2017). It also aligns well with the idea that people high in avoidant attachment have negative views of their attachment figures (Simpson & Rholes, 2012). If people do not think much of a romantic partner, they are unlikely to believe the partner or the

83 relationship is as special or unique in any way. Furthermore, when in relationships, avoidant individuals actively distance themselves from their partners and seek to maintain control in the relationship (see Simpson & Rholes, 2012, for a review). The tendency to pull away from partners may be influenced by a specialness meaning framework as well; there is no need to be overly involved in any particular relationship if relationships and partners are all viewed as ordinary and replaceable.

This study also found that affirmation did not significantly differ by condition using either the traditional money-based affirmation measure or the exploratory sharing affirmation measure. Jealousy had only a small positive relationship with the sharing affirmation measure, and none of the threats had indirect effects on affirmation through jealousy. There are several possible explanations regarding the general lack of significant findings for affirmation. First, participants could have engaged in other forms of meaning maintenance during the writing task, which mitigated the need for affirmation. Indeed, several participants indicated they engaged in reframing of the jealousy-evoking situations in their written responses. For example, one woman in the current rival condition wrote “the positive side is that at least I hadn't married the jerk!” Another participant in the past rival condition stated “I would be a little jealous, but I would write it off as their past and get over it. Everyone has a past, just like I do.” In this response, it appears the participant reframed information about the partner’s past by recalling her own past. Likewise, another participant in the past rival condition wrote:

it is uncomfortable for the person hearing this information. One has to

acknowledge the uncomfortable feeling internally, and keep an open mind that

84

your has had other positive relationships in his / her life…It is

actually a good thing that people have had multiple positive relationships.

In this response, the participant moved from initially feeling that information about a partner’s past made her uncomfortable, to then feeling that it was actually good the partner has a past.

It is also possible that the manipulation was not strong enough. Imaging a scenario might not have quite the same effect as actually being in a situation that threatens a meaning framework, and most prior tests of the MMM involve real life manipulations (see Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012, for a review). People may have found it difficult to imagine being in these scenarios and to self-report their thoughts and emotions. Researchers examining jealousy in the future should consider using natural experiments or subtler priming (e.g., show participants articles that suggest most adults have at least one other special relationship besides their current relationship). Moreover, asking participants to think about the threatened meaning framework could have interfered with the affirmation measures, as some MMM studies suggest meaning framework threats are not consciously noted (Proulx & Heine, 2008).

Additionally, affirmation may not be a feasible meaning maintenance strategy in cases of jealousy. Proulx and Inzlicht (2012) noted that “certain violations of meaning frameworks to which we are most committed, and which are most essential in our everyday function, may not be dealt with so easily” (p. 331). If a partner’s involvement with a rival is disruptive to everyday functioning, it may be nearly impossible to ignore the threat. Even if people engage in affirmation, if they start thinking about the jealousy-

85 evoking situation again, they are likely to re-experience jealousy because the initial source of threat has not been addressed (Davis & Novoa, 2012; Proulx & Heine, 2010).

Affirmation may also be easier with some negative stories rather than positive stories. Most studies testing the MMM ask people to set a bail amount for a criminal

(e.g., Proulx & Heine, 2008; Proulx et al., 2010; Randles et al., 2015), whereas this study asked participants to donate reward money for a hero. Even though differences in affirmation were found in other studies using the social hero story (e.g., Boucher et al.,

2016), it is possible that people have a stronger network of beliefs about punishing criminals than they do about rewarding heroes. Thus, affirmation may be more effective in the case of the story about criminals. Nevertheless, the fact that the sharing affirmation measure had a weak positive relationship with jealousy is encouraging, as it suggests further adaptations of the sharing affirmation measure may be useful. Development of an affirmation measure that uses more realistic and common behaviors would help address some criticisms of the MMM.

However, other criticisms of the MMM are harder to address. In particular, the fact that a lack of affirmation can be attributed to the use of other meaning maintenance strategies, which in themselves can be enacted any number of ways, makes the meaning maintenance model difficult to falsify. It is also rather difficult to measure the full scope of a person’s meaning framework and to measure which parts of a broad meaning framework are threatened, making the model hard to test. Then again, similar criticisms have been directed toward the extant models of jealousy as well. For example, East and

Watts (1999) stated that White and Mullen’s (1989) model of jealousy “is probably best

86 viewed as a framework, rather than a theory that will turn out to be either true or false”

(p. 574). For any of these models, certain parts may be disprovable, but the models are difficult to falsify in their entirety. The benefit of the MMM lies in the parsimony surrounding the explanation of jealousy evocation. Rather than identifying several rounds of appraisal that at times overlap, pointing out a number of different threats, and naming a long list of biological, cultural, individual, relationship, and situational variables that can impact the jealousy process at many different points, the MMM simplifies jealousy to a result of a meaning framework violation. Indeed, the results of this study suggest that a meaning framework is violated in both types of jealousy, whereas predictions derived from the more complicated extant jealousy models did not hold up for retroactive jealousy.

The high multicollinearity among the threat variables is an obvious limitation in the present study. Without clear distinctions between the relationship existence, relational benefits, and specialness meaning framework threats, it is difficult to determine how each of these threats individually affect jealousy. The high correlations between these types of threats are not surprising because they likely overlap in most cases of jealousy, and especially in cases of reactive jealousy. For example, if Jesse thinks her relationship with her partner might end, she probably also thinks that the benefits she receives from the relationship are in danger. It would be difficult to maintain the same level of relational benefits without a relationship. Indeed, relationship existence threat and relational benefits threat are often lumped together under one “relationship threat” in jealousy research (e.g., Parker, 1997).

87

However, according to Bringle and Buunk (1985), it is possible for a person to perceive a threat to relational benefits without perceiving much of a threat to the relationship’s existence. They provided the example of extramarital wherein the jealous spouse knew their partner was not planning to end the , yet they were upset about the attention given to the rival. Thus, future research may be able to tease apart the differences in relational benefits and relationship existence with different hypothetical scenarios or with more naturalistic studies (e.g., recruitment of participants whose actual are currently having an affair).

Additionally, when a relationship’s existence or relational benefits are threatened, it is likely that a specialness meaning framework is threatened as well (Bringle & Buunk,

1991). It fact, it may be that a specialness meaning framework threat is a precursor to perceiving a threat to the relationship’s existence or relational benefits. For example, if people perceive that their partner is current romantically or sexually involved with someone else, they may first realize that they no longer have a unique bond with their partner, that they do not have exclusive activities with the partner, or that their partner thinks just as highly of someone else. The realization that a sense of specialness has been lost may then prompt concern that the partner will end the primary relationship in favor of the rival relationship or that benefits that were once exclusively given are now shared.

The idea that a specialness meaning framework threat may precede the appraisal of other types of threat in jealousy experiences echoes Bevan’s (2013) comments about relationship threat serving as the primary threat in jealousy experience. As she stated,

“jealousy may be more accurately depicted as primarily a relational threat, with specific

88 threats to self subsequently emerging as part of the cognitive component of the jealousy experience” (p. 6). However, due to the rapid nature of threat appraisal, it may be difficult for future studies to determine which threat was appraised first, or whether all were appraised simultaneously.

Regardless of the timing of the appraisal, future research should work to further separate threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, and a specialness meaning framework. Different, expanded measures of relationship existence threat, relational benefits threat, and specialness meaning framework threat could be used. It would be particularly beneficial to use a specialness meaning framework threat measure that corresponds to the specialness meaning framework factors identified in this study. It would also be helpful if future studies manipulated the perceptions of threat to determine possible differences. These studies could look to Sharpsteen’s (1995) manipulation of self-esteem and relationship threat for guidance.

Moreover, future research should extricate experiences of jealousy from experiences of other negative affective states. Specifically, in this study, several participants in the no rival condition reported negative affect despite being given no information about a rival. These participants suggested activities with romantic partners were dull (e.g., “I would think that it was just another boring week. It would be difficult for me to feign interest in what my partner was saying and frankly I would be anxious to return to my hobbies as soon as possible”) or that they lacked in interactions with others. For example, one participant wrote:

89

I have always been a quiet person and rarely get a word in edgewise. I had one

person many years ago that told a story about reeling in a fish and when you get it

it's small and disappointing, and he compared it to our conversation. I've now

been married to someone else for going on 35 years and I still don't feel like I get

a fair chance at speaking. It has happened my whole life, even with family

members.

Although these participants undoubtedly experienced negative affect and perhaps perceived some sort of threat in a few cases, their responses made it more difficult to disentangle effects of information about a rival specifically.

Finally, future studies should also consider additional variables that may moderate the relationship between exposure to information about a rival and perceptions of threat.

For example, studies show that people high in relationship contingent self-esteem tend to be hypervigilant for threats to their relationships, and hypervigilance for threats increases the likelihood of interpreting vague information as threatening and experiencing jealousy as a result (Knee, Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008). Indeed, initial findings suggest that relationship contingent self-esteem is related to both reactive and retroactive jealousy

(Frampton, 2018). Likewise, awareness of how a partner’s previous relationship ended or a partner’s current attitude toward exes may impact the degree of perceived threat and rumination. If it is apparent a partner feels negatively toward an ex or that a relationship ended badly, people may not perceive that ex-relationship as threatening as an ex- relationship in which their partner was clearly highly emotionally invested.

90

Chapter 4. Jealousy Expression

In addition to predicting jealousy experience, the extant jealousy models outlined in Chapter 2 identify various psychological or communicative responses to jealousy, and they are not the only models to do so (e.g., Bevan, 2013; Bryson, 1991). Many jealousy coping strategy, behavioral response, or expression typologies exist, and only a few of the most prominent typologies are reviewed here. Early jealousy research focused mainly on psychological and behavioral responses to jealousy. However, researchers slowly moved toward examining how jealousy is communicatively expressed in relationships as well

(Bevan, 2013).

Jealousy Coping Strategies

Researchers interested in how people respond to jealousy first identified various coping strategies, which are defined as “any of those cognitive and behavioral activities that result from a jealousy-evoking event that can be viewed as goal-directed attempts to change or influence the self, others (including the partner), the relationship, or the circumstances” (Buunk & Bringle, 1985, p. 249). For example, McIntosh (1988) included resolutional, redefinition/reassurance, /retaliation, and manipulation coping strategies in the Jealousy Coping Scale. Both Buunk (1982) and Salovey and Rodin

(1988) also examined how people cope with jealousy. Specifically, Buunk explored how people cope with their spouse’s extramarital relationships. Buunk found that they engage

91 in avoidance of the spouse, reappraisal of the situation (e.g., trying to convince themselves their jealousy is unreasonable), and open communication with the spouse and/or rival. Furthermore, Salovey and Rodin reported that people use self-reliance (e.g., refraining from feeling negative emotions, not giving up), self-bolstering (e.g., thinking about one’s good qualities), and selective ignoring (e.g., deciding the jealousy-evoking event is not important) in response to jealousy.

White and Mullen (1989) reviewed this existing literature on coping with jealousy and identified eight coping strategies that incorporate these previously identified responses, although they suggested their list is not an exhaustive typology. Their strategies include improving the relationship (e.g., inquiring more often about the partner’s satisfaction), interfering with the rival relationship (e.g., physical , inducing ), demanding commitment (e.g., proposing marriage), derogation (e.g., realizing the partner is no longer ideal), developing alternatives (e.g., getting more involved with work, finding a new partner), /avoidance (e.g., getting drunk, pretending to be unaffected), self-assessment (e.g., reading a book on jealousy, changing expectations about the relationship), and support/catharsis (e.g., commiserating with a friend, psychotherapy). They also identified “appraise challenge” (p. 53) as a potential ninth strategy, which refers to discovering there are challenges to personal or relationship growth that go beyond the jealousy-evoking situation. For example, Mark may realize he has poor communication skills and resolve to improve his skills, which likely helps him cope with jealousy in addition to other stressors. However, White and Mullen argue that

92 coping with jealousy is not the primary goal of the appraise challenge strategy, so it is often left out of discussions of their coping strategy typology (e.g., Bevan, 2013).

Hansen (1991) created a coping typology as well, and strategies were broadly categorized as either “direct action behaviors” or “intrapsychic forms of coping” (p. 220).

Direct action behaviors involve changing the situation by attacking or escaping from situations appraised as threatening. Intrapsychic behaviors involve reducing negative affect via cognitive means rather than by changing the situation itself. These types of coping are akin to the problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping outlined by

Lazarus (1991). Specifically, Hansen suggested that to change the situation, people either attempt to achieve psychological presence of the partner (e.g., convincing the partner to refrain from infidelity) or achieve physical absence of the partner (e.g., initiate divorce proceedings). Regarding intrapsychic behaviors, people can either change their perception of their partner’s behavior (e.g., denying that the partner is actually involved with a rival) or change perceptions of the relationship’s value (e.g., deciding not to care about the relationship so that the partner’s behaviors are not upsetting).

Furthermore, in an explication of dual-motivation theory, Bryson (1991) identified several “jealousy reactions” (p. 185) that presumably serve two goals: to preserve self-esteem and to maintain the relationship. Bryson conducted a principal components analysis on 45 jealousy reaction items to identify broader categories of reactions. These categories included reaction to (e.g., “spy on the partner”), emotional devastation (e.g., “cry when I’m alone”), (e.g., “threaten the other person”), impression management (e.g., “try to make my partner think I don’t care”),

93 reactive retribution (e.g., “flirt or go out with other people”), relationship improvement

(e.g., “try to make myself more attractive to my partner”), monitoring (e.g., “question my partner about his/her activities”), intropunitiveness (e.g., “blame myself”), and social support seeking (e.g., “talk to close friends about my feelings”). Notably, several of these reaction types contain items for thoughts and emotions in addition to behaviors, making it difficult to distinguish different components of the emotional process and identify what exactly is the response to jealousy. For example, the list of items for “reaction to betrayal” include “give my partner the cold shoulder” in addition to “feel angry toward my partner” (p. 185). Moreover, there is limited empirical support for most of the model’s predictions (see Bevan, 2013, for a review). Rich (1991) re-categorized some of the reactions identified by Bryson as either partner-enhancing or partner-attacking strategies.

Working from an evolutionary theory perspective, Buss and Shackelford (1997) also identified several potential mate retention tactics in response to anticipated infidelity in heterosexual relationships. However, their study found that perceived likelihood of a partner’s infidelity was related to intensity of mate retention efforts only for men.

Specifically, men that expected their to be unfaithful within the next year reported they used partner concealment (e.g., refused to take their partner to a party where other men were present), punished the partner (e.g., threatened to break up), and derogated rivals (e.g., pointed out flaws of another man).

94

Communicative Responses to Jealousy

Over the years, several researchers examined specifically communicative responses to jealousy. For example, Mathes, Phillips, Skowran, and Dick (1982) had confederates ask participants if they could take the participants’ romantic partner out on a date. They recorded the participants’ responses and rated them on how “threatened” the participants appeared to be and on whether participants agreed to the confederate asking out their partner. Then they showed that the ratings of the participants’ communication were correlated with a measure of jealousy. Moreover, Mullen and Martin (1994) identified jealous behaviors and strategies for coping with jealousy in a community sample of people that had experienced jealousy. Both jealous behaviors and coping strategies contained a few communicative responses. For example, jealous behaviors included actions such as “cross-questioning partners” and “phoning to ascertain the partner’s whereabouts” (p. 37), whereas coping strategies included activities such as confiding in friends or asking the partner for an explanation.

Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, and Andersen (1993) reviewed early research on jealousy coping strategies and identified different types of communicative reactions to jealousy: positive, negative, and avoidance. Positive reactions to jealousy, also called integrative reactions, involve communicating openly with the partner or rival and asking for explanations of the partner’s behavior without engaging in blaming. Negative reactions, also called distributive reactions, are aggressive and ultimately not helpful for the relationship or the jealous individual. These include reactions such as yelling, cursing,

95 nagging, blaming the partner, and making threats. Avoidant reactions involve evading dyadic interaction with the partner by being silent or denying jealous feelings.

Guerrero et al. (1995) later expanded the positive, negative, and avoidance typology to include a wider variety of communicative responses to jealousy. They defined a communicative response to jealousy as “a behavioral reaction to jealousy that carries communicative value and has the potential to fulfill individual and/or relational goals” (p. 272). In a series of studies, these scholars identified 11 communicative responses to jealousy that were grouped into two overarching categories: interactive and general behavior responses. Interactive responses are face-to-face responses that are partner-directed or the active avoidance of such communication (Guerrero et al., 1995).

Such responses include active distancing (e.g., physically pulling away from the partner), negative affect expression (e.g., crying in front of the partner), integrative communication

(e.g., explaining jealous feelings to the partner), distributive communication (e.g., cursing at the partner), avoidance/denial (e.g., pretending nothing is wrong), and violent communication or threats (e.g., using physical violence against the partner). General behavior responses are not necessarily face-to-face responses and often do not require a partner response (Guerrero et al., 1995). These responses include surveillance/restriction

(e.g., looking through the partner’s belongings for evidence of infidelity), compensatory restoration (e.g., trying to be more attractive than the rival), manipulation attempts (e.g., trying to make the partner feel guilty), rival contacts (e.g., telling the rival not to see the partner anymore), and violent behavior (e.g., throwing objects). Guerrero and Andersen

(1998) later added three more responses to the typology (signs of possession, derogation

96 of competitors, and relationship threats).

Although a lot of research was conducted using the original communicative responses to jealousy typology, several studies found that the factor structures of the subscales were not consistent (for a review, see Bevan, 2013). Subsequently, Guerrero et al. (2011) created a revised version of the communicative responses to jealousy scale.

The new scale consists of 11 responses grouped into four overarching categories: destructive, constructive, rival-focused, and avoidant. According to Guerrero et al.

(2011), destructive responses include negative communication (e.g., acting rude toward the partner), violent communication (e.g., shoving the partner), and counter-jealousy induction (e.g., talking about others with whom the jealousy individual could potentially form a new relationship), whereas constructive responses include integrative communication (e.g., calmly questioning the partner) and compensatory restoration (e.g., telling the partner how much they mean to the jealous individual). Surveillance (e.g., following the partner), signs of possession (e.g., making sure rivals know the partner is taken), rival contact (e.g., discussing issues with the rival), and derogation of the rival

(e.g., pointing out the rival’s bad qualities) are the rival-focused responses. Finally, avoidant responses include silence (e.g., becoming quiet and not saying much) and denial

(e.g., acting like nobody is jealous).

Bevan (2013) extensively reviewed research on the communicative responses to jealousy typology and subsequently proposed jealousy expression profile theory. This theory places the four superordinate response categories proposed by Guerrero et al.

(2011) into “profiles” that identify factors impacting whether that response will occur in a

97 jealousy-evoking situation. Specifically, Bevan predicts that constructive jealousy expression is more likely if jealous individuals are female, have high relationship satisfaction and investment, have the goal of maintaining their relationship, are experiencing emotional (i.e., reactive) jealousy, and feel fear. Avoidant jealousy expression is more likely if jealous individuals are in an early relationship stage, are experiencing either cognitive (i.e., suspicious) or emotional jealousy, and ruminate on the jealousy. Destructive responses are more likely if jealous people are dissatisfied with their relationship; desire to restore equity via retaliation; are experiencing either cognitive or emotional jealousy; ruminate on the jealousy; and feel anger, , or disgust.

Lastly, rival-focused responses are also more likely if jealous people are experiencing either cognitive or emotional jealousy; ruminate on the jealousy; and feel anger, hostility, or disgust. The theory proposes that when a particular characteristic appears in multiple profiles, “its presence in a jealousy situation increases the likelihood that individuals will use one or more of those responses when expressing their jealousy” (Bevan, 2013, p.

156).

Summary

In sum, existing jealousy scholarship identifies many ways that people respond to their feelings of jealousy. Early jealousy research explored coping strategies, but more recent research describes specifically communicative responses to jealousy. These responses are broadly categorized as destructive, constructive, avoidant, and rival- focused responses, and there are several factors that influence whether one response will be employed versus another.

98

Chapter 5. Study 2: Retroactive Jealousy Expression

Study 1 examined jealousy experience, whereas the present study explores jealousy expression. Specifically, this study consists of a survey and qualitative analysis of written descriptions of retroactive jealousy experiences. It builds on Study 1 by presenting initial trends regarding the relationship between three of the meaning maintenance strategies identified in the MMM (Heine et al., 2006) and the communicative responses to jealousy identified in one of the extant models of jealousy

(Guerrero & Andersen, 1998). Thus, this study lays the foundation for future work that further examines how the MMM can be integrated with existing jealousy models.

Furthermore, the present study explores communicative responses to retroactive jealousy specifically and distinguishes face-to-face communicative responses to jealousy from mediated communicative responses to jealousy. The exploration of responses to jealousy stemming from information about a partner’s past and the distinction between communication channels addresses some gaps in the existing literature on jealousy expression.

Bevan (2013) identified several limitations of typologies that focus on cognitive responses to jealousy. First, she suggested that psychological reactions are difficult to separate from other thoughts and actions in the jealousy episode. Therefore, it is tough to tell what is a response to jealousy and what is part of appraisal of the jealousy-evoking

99 situation. Second, she argued that some existing jealousy coping strategy typologies do not focus on communication enough or include a complete list of the ways people express their jealousy to their partners or the rivals. Lastly, she stated that the inclusion of cognitive coping strategies prevents researchers from focusing “on the jealousy situation’s fundamentally interpersonal nature” (p. 25). Bevan argued that Guerrero et al.’s typology is the most comprehensive jealousy expression typology to date, which is why it was used as the foundation of her jealousy expression profiles.

However, Guerrero et al.’s (2011) typology has its own limitations. First, the psychological responses identified in much of the extant jealousy response literature are not directly addressed by Guerrero and colleagues’ work. Guerrero et al.’s (1995, 2011) communicative responses to jealousy typology also does not acknowledge the communication that occurs with people outside the primary relationship or rival relationship, such as when individuals experiencing jealousy confide in friends.

Furthermore, just as extant jealousy models do not predict retroactive jealousy experience, they also do not account for retroactive jealousy expression. To my knowledge, the communicative responses to jealousy typology has not been examined in relation to jealousy stemming from a partner’s past involvement with a rival. According to White and Mullen (1989), jealousy responses will differ greatly depending on the specific nature of the threat. Thus, researchers should not assume the responses identified for reactive jealousy are the same as those that occur for retroactive jealousy. The current study aims to explore how people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy specifically, and to identify any communicative responses to retroactive jealousy that are

100 not included in the existing typology:

RQ1: How do people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy?

Mediated Communicative Responses to Jealousy

Additionally, Guerrero et al.’s (1995) original explication of the communicative responses to jealousy typology indicated a large number of the responses were partner- directed, face-to-face responses, leaving little room for mediated communicative responses to jealousy. The one exception to this lack of information about mediated responses is the one item that asks whether people constantly called their partner as a form of surveillance. Although Guerrero et al. (2011) did not make direct claims about the face-to-face context when discussing their revised measure, many of the items are still the same and do not specify whether the responses to jealousy can occur in mediated contexts.

People might be particularly likely to engage in communicative responses to jealousy via communication technologies, rather than face-to-face, due to the technologies’ perceived affordances. Affordances are features or attributes of technology that enable specific uses (Gibson, 1979). Scholars have identified several affordances of communication technologies (see Fox & McEwan, 2017, for a review). For example, social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook often involve network association, meaning they show the connections between individuals and make social networks visible (Fox & Moreland, 2015; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Combined with the persistence and visibility of social information, it is relatively easy for people to engage in surveillance and gather information about their partner’s or a rival’s activities.

101

Communication technologies also often involve asynchronous communication (i.e., delays between message receipt and response) and afford editability (i.e., the ability to revise messages before sending), which can allow for more control in communicative responses (Fox & McEwan, 2017; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Such affordances may be particularly helpful if a jealous individual is attempting to control their jealousy and respond to a partner in a calm fashion. Perceptions of anonymity, or the concealment of personal identity, often result in disinhibited behavior (Lea & Spears, 1991). Thus, technologies that afford anonymity may make aggressive responses to jealousy more likely than they would be in face-to-face contexts where a person’s identity is known.

Communication technologies are also highly accessible with the increase in mobile devices. This accessibility makes it easier to contact a rival or partner at any time without the need to be co-present as in face-to-face contexts (Fox & McEwan, 2017).

A few studies examine how people respond to jealousy evoked by SNS content, such as a partner’s flirtatious posts on a rival’s profile, but these studies do not clarify whether the responses occur via mediated or face-to-face communication (e.g. Cohen,

Bowman, & Borchert, 2014; Hoffman & DeGroot, 2014). Regardless, prior jealousy studies suggest it is possible some of the communicative responses to jealousy are conducted via mediated channels. For example, several studies show that jealousy is associated with online surveillance of a romantic partner (e.g., Dainton & Stokes, 2015;

Marshall et al., 2013; Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009, 2014; Utz & Beukeboom,

2011). Research also shows people start arguments with their partners via SNSs over issues such as keeping in touch with an ex (Cionea, Piercy, & Carpenter, 2017), or they

102 confront the rival via SNSs (Hudson et al., 2015). Some people also turn to SNSs to gather information that allows them to derogate rivals (Frampton & Fox, 2018b), whereas others add potential new partners as “friends” on SNSs in response to feeling jealous

(Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2014), which suggests that people may strategically use SNSs for counter-jealousy induction.

A few other studies have examined how relationship maintenance behaviors conducted via SNSs are related to jealousy. For example, Carpenter (2016) examined the relationship between online relational maintenance behaviors and jealousy, and much like

Dainton and Stokes (2015), he found that jealous individuals are particularly likely to engage in response-seeking, which was conceptualized as “using Facebook with the goal of getting a response from the partner by posting status updates to attract attention and commenting on the partner’s status updates” (Carpenter, 2016, p. 6). However, it is unclear how response-seeking is related to Guerrero et al.’s (2011) communicative responses to jealousy typology, or why these particular relational maintenance behaviors are related to jealousy.

Despite the evidence that several communicative responses to jealousy may occur via mediated communication, little research directly examines the full range of ways people might respond to jealousy via communication technologies. As noted above, the majority of studies that examine how people respond to jealousy via mediated channels solely investigate jealousy’s relationship with online surveillance (e.g., Muise et al.,

2014). However, in an unpublished master’s thesis, Cole (2010) adapted Guerrero and

Andersen’s (1998) version of the communicative responses to jealousy measure to

103

“assess feelings of uncertainty, suspicion, and distrust” (p. 25) on SNSs. It is unclear why communicative responses to jealousy were used to measure feelings of uncertainty, as 1) the typology is meant to address behavioral responses, not feelings, and 2) the typology measures responses to jealousy, which are not necessarily the same as responses to uncertainty. Regardless, Cole adapted some of Guerrero and Andersen’s responses for a

SNS context and grouped them into either antisocial behaviors (e.g. “directly threaten rival through messages, posts or chat,” “block partner from seeing your profile,”

“message rival, post on rival’s wall, etc.,” “criticize partner through status updates or wall posts,” “delete Facebook account to avoid partner”) or territorial behaviors (e.g., “post to a partner’s wall messages indicating you are in a relationship,” “check up on partner’s page,” “look through partner’s pictures,” “add a profile picture of you and your partner”).

Both antisocial and territorial behaviors were positively associated with Facebook-related jealousy.

Bevan (2017) lamented that there is a lack of research concerning SNS-specific jealousy expression beyond surveillance, and she called for future research to examine several different types of jealousy expression on SNSs. Bevan (2013) also argued that researchers should expand the communicative responses to jealousy typology to other communication technologies such as text messaging, email, or online video chatting as well. This study is a first attempt at exploring a wider range of mediated communicative responses to jealousy. In this case, I will examine mediated communicative responses to retroactive jealousy in particular. This study will hopefully serve as a starting point for future research that examines specific affordances that enable mediated communicative

104 responses to jealousy and distinguishes between different technologies that people use to express jealousy.

RQ2: How do people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy via

communication technologies specifically, and which communication technologies

are used for expressing retroactive jealousy?

Integrating Meaning Maintenance Strategies

Communicative responses to jealousy often serve cognitive functions, as Guerrero and Andersen (1998) noted. Thus, it is possible that certain communicative responses to jealousy facilitate cognitive responses to jealousy and vice versa. Study 1 argued that jealousy is a response to threatened meaning frameworks. If this is so, then the meaning maintenance attempts outlined in the MMM (Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012) are important to consider when identifying jealousy responses. Again, the MMM posits that there are five strategies people use for meaning maintenance: assimilation (i.e., reappraise the threat so that the experience is consistent with expectations), accommodation (i.e., change beliefs and expectations so that they are consistent with experiences), affirmation (i.e., bolster an intact meaning framework), abstraction (i.e., finding random patterns in the environment), and assembly (i.e., constructing an entirely new meaning framework). The MMM has been criticized for not explaining how meaning maintenance strategies relate to actual behaviors (Moser & Schroder, 2012).

Thus, this study attempts to identify how certain communicative behaviors facilitate some of the MMM strategies in a retroactive jealousy context.

105

Prior research provides evidence that people often engage in meaning maintenance strategies in response to jealousy. Specifically, people try to assimilate the threatening information about a partner’s involvement with a rival to their currently held beliefs and expectations (Buunk, 1982; Frampton & Fox, 2018b; White & Mullen, 1989), which might be done by derogating the rival (Guerrero et al., 2011; White & Mullen,

1989). Jealous people also assess their beliefs and expectations about the relationship with the intent to change them, which reflects the meaning maintenance strategy of accommodation (White & Mullen, 1989).

On a broader level, research suggests people construct relationship accounts to make sense of negative events in relationships that are inconsistent with existing knowledge (Fletcher & Fitness, 1993; Harvey, Orbuch, & Weber, 1992; Honeycutt &

Sheldon, 2018), which echoes White and Mullen’s (1989) argument that people often try to guess their partner’s motives and make attributions for the partner’s behavior when they experience jealousy. Relationship accounts are defined as “story-like constructions that contain a plot or story line, characters, a time sequence, attributions, and other forms of expression such as affect” (Harvey et al., 1992, p. 3). People communicate their accounts to others as part of the sense-making process, and input from others can shape the accounts (Harvey et al., 1992; Harvey, Orbuch, & Weber, 1990). Harvey et al. (1990) suggested that account-making helps people change their beliefs about themselves and the relationship, and creates new expectations for future relationships, which demonstrates the notion of accommodation.

106

Likewise, people experiencing jealousy engage in affirmation by concentrating on their good qualities rather than the jealousy-evoking situation (Salovey & Rodin, 1988).

White and Mullen (1989) also outlined several cases of pathological jealousy wherein jealous people irrationally clung to random patterns in the environment (e.g., synchronized flashing Christmas lights), which is an example of abstraction. Although cases of abstraction in the face of jealousy exist, the documented instances of abstraction are often associated with an underlying mental illness such as obsessive compulsive disorder or schizophrenia (White & Mullen, 1989). More “normal” cases of jealousy may be less likely to lead to abstraction. Similarly, it is unlikely that people will abandon all beliefs about romantic relationships and assemble entirely new meaning frameworks.

Given the rarity of the abstraction and assembly strategies, I focus on the three original meaning maintenance strategies outlined by Heine et al. (2006):

RQ3: Are communicative responses to jealousy related to affirmation,

accommodation, or assimilation, and if so, how?

Method

Participants

A total of 189 participants were recruited from a popular press retroactive jealousy email listserv. All participants were English-speaking adults who self-reported that they have experienced retroactive jealousy. Some participants dropped out of the study immediately after accessing it (n = 107), during the writing task (n = 1), immediately after the writing task (n = 3), or while filling out the communicative responses to jealousy measures (n = 1).

107

A few other participants were excluded because their descriptions did not qualify as an instance of retroactive jealousy. Instead, they described a partner’s experience of suspicious jealousy (n = 1), described their own experience of suspicious jealousy (n =

2), indicated they thought their partner was still currently romantically or sexually involved with an ex-partner (n = 5), described some combination of reactive and suspicious jealousy (n = 2), indicated ex-partners were currently trying to win their partner back (n = 4), or indicated they thought their partners would leave them to rekindle a relationship with an ex-partner in the future (n = 2). Another participant was excluded because he was bothered by his partner’s activities with other men after they had started dating but before they were exclusive. He also described identifying other men his partner should be with instead of him when he goes out in public with her. Although interesting, this participant did not describe the target type of jealousy.

Some of the remaining 61 participants missed one of the two attention checks embedded in the survey (n = 6). No participants missed both attention checks. Of the six who missed attention checks, five of them selected “strongly disagree” instead of

“strongly agree” on the second attention check, suggesting they perhaps skimmed the item too quickly. I retained the six participants who missed attention checks because of the low number of participants in the study and because their qualitative data still provided good insight into retroactive jealousy experiences.

Participants were aged 19 to 83 (M = 38.25, SD = 14.16) They reported that they identified as men (n = 39) or women (n = 21), or did not disclose their gender identity (n

= 1). Participants reported their nationality as American (n = 25), British (n = 11),

108

Canadian (n = 3), Scottish (n = 3), Australian (n = 2), German (n = 1), New Zealander (n

= 1), Romanian (n = 1), Irish (n = 1), South African (n = 1), Filipino (n = 1), Iranian (n =

1), Costa Rican (n = 1), Finnish (n = 1), Norwegian (n = 1), Puerto Rican (n = 1), Indian

(n = 1), Swedish (n = 1), or were both German and Brazilian (n = 1). One participant wrote in “white” for their nationality, and another two participants did not disclose their nationality.

Participants also indicated they were single and dating, but it was not serious (n =

1), in an exclusive dating relationship with one person (n = 21), in an open relationship (n

= 1), engaged (n = 8), in a domestic partnership (n = 3), or married/in a civil union (n =

25). Another participant wrote in that they were in an “on/off relationship,” and one other wrote in “living together with intention to get married and have children together.” For those in a current relationship, the relationship’s length ranged from 0.25 years to 47.83 years (M = 8.79, SD = 11.95). Lastly, participants reported that they were heterosexual (n

= 56), bisexual (n = 1), heterosexual and questioning (n = 1), or did not disclose their (n = 3).

Procedure

Data was collected online from a location of participants’ choosing. After consenting to participate in the study, participants were asked to do the following:

please describe in detail a time you felt upset or bothered by a romantic partner’s

past romantic or sexual experiences that occurred before your relationship began.

To be clear, we are interested in a time you felt upset or bothered by a partner’s

past romantic or sexual involvement with an ex-partner when you knew your

109

partner was no longer involved with the ex at the time you felt upset. Please also

specifically describe how you reacted to feeling upset or bothered. For example,

you might write about what you did when you felt upset or bothered, how you

coped with the feeling, and how you communicated with your partner or others

about the feeling both in person and via communication technologies.

The “next” button did not appear until participants had spent 5 minutes on the writing task page.

After spending at least five minutes on the writing task, participants indicated whether their jealousy was evoked via an online, offline, or other source. They also filled out several items asking about the situation they described. To ensure participants described retroactive jealousy specifically, a few items asked participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with the following statements: “in the situation you described above, your partner was still sexually or romantically involved with his or her ex-partner(s),” “in the situation you described above, you believed your partner would leave you for the ex-partner(s) in the future,” “in the situation you described above, your partner’s ex-partner(s) was(were) actively trying to win your partner back,” and “in the situation you described above, you believed your partner’s ex-partner(s) would try to become romantically or sexually involved with your partner in the future.”

The written responses of participants who indicated any level of agreement with any of the above statements were extensively examined. Some participants did in fact describe cases of reactive jealousy or suspicious jealousy as described in the

110

“participants” section. However, others (n = 5) wrote about several instances of jealousy within the same response, sometimes reflecting on a number of relationships they had over the years. These participants typically bracketed off the experiences and corresponding responses to jealousy with numbered or bulleted paragraphs, or they signaled in writing that they were going to discuss a different jealousy event in the following sentences (e.g., “Another time…”). Some of these jealousy experiences they described were clearly cases of retroactive jealousy, whereas others perhaps reflected reactive or suspicious jealousy. In these situations, it would be difficult to respond to the items asking about a singular situation. For these participants, the section of the response clearly about retroactive jealousy was retained for coding, and the descriptions about the other possible types of jealousy were removed. Because these participants separated out their different jealousy experiences, it was relatively easy to figure out which responses corresponded with retroactive jealousy and which were to be removed as part of other jealousy episodes.

Furthermore, I decided to disregard responses on the item asking about a rival actively trying to win the partner back in the future if participants indicated they thought their partner would not leave them for a rival in the future and that they did not perceive a current rival. This decision was made because people can be uncertain about how a rival might behave in the future while being very certain about a partner’s current and future commitment to the primary relationship and lack of involvement with rivals.

After answering the questions about the situation they described, participants filled out two measures of communicative responses to jealousy which were presented in

111 random order. One communicative responses to jealousy scale measured the frequency of responses conducted face-to-face, and the other measured the frequency of responses conducted via communication technologies. Participants also indicated how frequently they used various communication technologies to respond to jealousy. After filling out the communicative responses to jealousy measures, participants filled out measures for affirmation, accommodation, and assimilation. Lastly, they responded to relationship and demographic items. See Appendix K for all survey questions.

Measures

Communicative responses to jealousy. Communicative responses to jealousy were measured with adapted versions of Guerrero et al.’s (2011) communicative responses to jealousy scale. The original scale contains 52 items measuring the 11 responses Guerrero and colleagues identified: negative communication, rival contact, rival derogation, violent communication, counter-jealousy induction, surveillance, signs of possession, compensatory restoration, integrative communication, silence, and denial.

In the present study, items containing the word “rival” (e.g., “called the rival names”) will feature “partner’s ex” or “ex-partner” in place of “rival” (e.g., “called the ex-partner names”) to specify responses to retroactive jealousy. Furthermore, items that pertain to reactive jealousy more so than retroactive jealousy were removed (e.g., “showed my partner extra affection when rivals were around”). The surveillance subscale was also extensively revised, as the original subscale was built on responses to suspicion about a partner’s infidelity (e.g., “tried to determine my partner’s whereabouts,” “tried to find out what my partner was doing when s/he wasn’t with me,” “spied on or followed my

112 partner”). In the present study, surveillance is analogous to information gathering about a partner’s past, and the items reflect this difference.

Participants filled out two communicative responses to jealousy measures. One was for responses done in person, and the other was for responses done via communication technologies. Each measure asked participants to respond to: “when I felt jealous in response to my partner’s past, I…” followed by a list of behaviors. Response options were on a 7-point scale (1 = never and 7 = always or almost always). See

Appendix K for both measures.

In this study, I looked at all 11 communicative responses to jealousy identified by

Guerrero et al. (2011) in addition to the four overarching categories of responses. For the face-to-face responses, Cronbach’s α was .91 for negative communication (M = 3.77, SD

= 1.41), .43 for rival contact (M = 1.43, SD = 0.82), .96 for rival derogation (M = 3.41,

SD = 2.01), .88 for violent communication (M = 1.24, SD = 0.66), .80 for counter- jealousy induction (M = 2.12, SD = 1.19), .80 for surveillance (M = 4.90, SD = 1.51), .94 for compensatory restoration (M = 4.42, SD = 1.56), .91 for integrative communication

(M = 4.75, SD = 1.27), .89 for silence (M = 4.12, SD = 1.61), and .75 for denial (M =

3.27, SD = 1.32). Additionally, the signs of possession measure contained only two items, so the correlation between the two items was examined before averaging responses, r(59)

= .60, p < .001, M = 1.75, SD = 1.37.

For the mediated responses, Cronbach’s α was .90 for negative communication

(M = 2.78, SD = 1.36), .32 for rival contact (M = 1.59, SD = 0.81), .96 for rival derogation (M = 2.29, SD = 1.84), .79 for counter-jealousy induction (M = 1.58, SD =

113

0.95), .89 for surveillance (M = 4.61, SD = 1.82), .89 for compensatory restoration (M =

3.96, SD = 1.55), .92 for integrative communication (M = 3.67, SD = 1.64), .76 for silence (M = 2.74, SD = 1.41), and .74 for denial (M = 2.75, SD = 1.28). Again, the signs of possession subscale contained only two items, so the correlation between the items was examined before averaging scores, r(57) = .77, p < .001, M = 2.22, SD = 1.19, and there was only one item for violent communication given the lack of physical contact in mediated contexts (M = 1.08, SD = 0.33).

Due to the low reliability of the rival contact subscale in both face-to-face and mediated forms of communication, this subscale was not included in analyses or in the formation of the four overarching types of communicative responses to jealousy: destructive, constructive, rival-focused, and avoidant. To construct the broad categories, the individual communicative responses to jealousy (with the exception of rival contacts) were combined according to Guerrero et al.’s (2011) classification system. Namely, negative communication, violent communication, and counter-jealousy induction formed destructive communication. Integrative communication and compensatory restoration formed constructive communication. Surveillance, signs of possession, and rival derogation formed rival-focused communication. Lastly, silence and denial formed avoidant communication. See Table 10 for means and standard deviations on these broader categories of threat.

114

Table 10 Means with Standard Deviations in Parentheses for Broad Response Categories

Face-to-face Mediated Destructive 2.74 (0.93) 2.37 (1.09) Constructive 4.57 (1.20) 3.83 (1.40) Rival-focused 3.53 (1.36) 2.85 (1.37) Avoidant 3.69 (1.11) 2.73 (1.14)

Types of technology. Participants were asked “How often did you use the following types of communication technology for the responses you indicated above?”

Items included voice calls via my cell phone, voice calls via my landline phone, voice calls via the internet, text messages, email, videoconferencing, Instagram, Facebook,

Twitter, Snapchat, and an “other” item where they could write in a different form of technology. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (always or almost always). An additional response option was labeled “I did not respond to jealousy via communication technology in any way” for those who did not indicate they used communication technology in their prior responses. This option was also coded as 1 given it was equivalent to the option of “never” for a particular technology.

Meaning maintenance strategies. The current study measures whether people attempt to engage in assimilation, accommodation, and/or affirmation in response to retroactive jealousy. Items for each type of meaning maintenance strategy were developed based on Proulx and Inzlicht’s (2012) descriptions of the strategies, and participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).

115

See Appendix K for all items and a full response scale. Cronbach’s α was .72 for assimilation (M = 4.75, SD = 1.30), .77 for accommodation (M = 4.29, SD = 1.34), and

.88 for affirmation (M = 4.73, SD = 1.59).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Participants’ written responses were analyzed; these responses’ word counts ranged from 48 to 1,594 words (M = 319.48, SD = 320.23). The first cycle of coding consisted of initial coding (Saldaña, 2013), which is sometimes called open coding

(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Saldaña (2013) stated that initial coding involves “breaking down qualitative data into discrete parts, closely examining them, and comparing them for similarities and differences” (p. 100). Saldaña also noted that initial coding can involve process coding, which consists of identifying actions in the data. Process coding is particularly appropriate in situations where there is “ongoing action/interaction/emotion taken in response to situations, or problems, often with the purpose of reaching a goal or handling a problem” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, pp. 96-97).

By engaging in process coding in the cycle of initial coding, actions that could potentially reflect a communicative response to jealousy were labeled. Throughout this cycle of coding, a constant-comparative method was used to identify and refine categories (Corbin

& Strauss, 2008). Then, in a second round of analysis, axial coding was implemented to reorganize the data so that the most representative categories were selected (Saldaña,

2013).

116

Preliminary Findings

Qualitative Analysis

RQ1 asked how people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy. Due to the fact responses conducted via communication technologies are addressed by RQ2, the analysis for this research question focused mainly on face-to-face responses. Findings from the qualitative analysis indicated that most participants tended to communicate jealousy multiple ways over the course of time. For example, one male participant wrote:

“I grow distant and try to bottle it up, then unfortunately I tend to lash out.” Another also expressed, “I coped with it at first by trying to ignore it, then I discussed it with her at length.” It was rare for participants to indicate they only expressed jealousy one way.

Almost every participant mentioned asking their partners for more details about past relationships in response to retroactive jealousy (e.g., “I asked for more detail hoping that it would give me some kind of peace”). Many described asking questions as an

“uncontrollable need” and noted the repetitive nature of the questioning (e.g., “I would constantly question her over and over and over again”). As one participant wrote, “I started getting mental images of him and his ex together and feeling this compulsion to ask questions - feeling that if I ask this question, just one more, then I'll feel resolved and it won't bother me anymore.” In many cases, this questioning seemed related to reassurance-seeking. Several participants described seeking reassurance from their partners with direct requests (e.g., “I would also threaten to leave her if I did not hear what I wanted to hear from her”; “periodically I had an emotional meltdown and needed him to reassure me that he was more attracted to me than them, I was more special, etc.”)

117 or indirectly (e.g., “[I] asked him a lot of questions regarding his ex hoping he would tell me something negative about her to release my anxiety, and my worries”;

“asking questions/making comments to try and illicit [sic] responses from him along the lines of ‘it was awful/never should have done it/hated every minute’”; “I told him how I felt about it and how worried I was and I think I wanted reassurance…I’d get anxious/obsessive then tell them and wanted them to say how much BETTER I was etc.”).

Many participants reported derogating partners and their pasts as well (e.g., “spent the conversation snapping at my partner and criticising him and his previous life choices”; “I turn very cold towards her and often make demeaning comments”; “I said many negative things to my wife from she was easy, loose, and a slut”). As one woman wrote:

After he tells me anything and my jealousy kicks in, I get very mean. I criticize

him and call him things like ‘disgusting’. Not because he is, but because I want

him to feel bad about sleeping with people besides me (even though this is before

I met him).

Sometimes participants derogated the exes alongside of the partner (e.g., “I engaged in a fight with him, telling him that they both are stupid”). Along the same lines, several participants described more general arguing about their partner’s past (e.g., “In the beginning of the relationship we would debate/argue about it regularly. The fights were very combative”; “I would just vividly imagine the scenes and then lash out on him all the time. Ending in screaming arguments.”)

118

Furthermore, a few participants were able to calmly discuss feelings of jealousy with their partner face-to-face (e.g., “I did talk with my partner over this and come to an agreement that we were both in the wrong”; “Every now and then I talk to my wife about it”; “We did, afterwards have a positive conversation where I agreed I would get a counselor to deal with my feelings”). Still several other participants reported ignoring their partners or going silent (e.g., “I became very quiet, reserved and reclusive for weeks”; “I will ignore her and won't make any physical contact with her and push away when she tries to initiate”; “I would stop talking to him, I would go through depressive periods, I would question things and I would marriage”).

A couple participants also described discussing their jealousy with close friends

(e.g., “[I] talked with a close friend for comfort”; “Instead of continuing to communicate with her about it, I chose to limit my discussions about the subject to my therapist, and occasionally one of my best friends”). One other suggested she discussed the issue with her parents:

I also talked to my parents about it, who encouraged me to have for

him and to focus on the fact that the relationship is over and how terribly it ended,

rather than focusing on any good or love that was there before it dissolved.

RQ2 asked how people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy via communication technologies specifically and asked about which communication technologies are used for expressing retroactive jealousy. Findings from the qualitative data analysis revealed that many participants reported using social networking sites to search for information about a partner’s past relationships or exes (e.g., “[I] kept on

119 searching for information regarding her on different platforms (linkedin, other social media”; “snooping online and trying to work out exactly what the situation might have been like”; “I would get extremely insecure and start stalking ever [sic] social media acct

[sic] of hers that I could get my hands on”). The use of social networking sites for information seeking was especially likely if the person did not feel comfortable discussing the emotion with the partner. For example, one woman remarked: “I didn’t say anything to my about it. I ended up looking at old photos of him & his ex on

Facebook.” One participant reported removing digital reminders of her partner’s deceased wife herself (“I figured out his password on Instagram and deleted the comments, unliked all the pictures, and unfollowed the deceased ex and her siblings”), whereas a few others asked their partner to remove digital remnants (e.g., “I've gotten to the point to where I've asked my boyfriend to untag himself in all of their pictures together, even though they are already stained in my memory.”)

One participant reported texting about retroactive jealousy with his partner due to long distance limiting face-to-face communication: “At the time when this happened my partner and I lived in different cities, so a lot of our communication was over text which didn’t help.” Two participants indicated they wrote to their partners (“I found writing was a better medium to convey my feelings to my wife, as being an introvert it was easier to relay my emotions”). A couple participants tried to communicate their jealousy to their partners by offering them popular press articles about the topic (e.g., “I have tried discussing it with my partner by showing him an article written by someone else on the topic”), which were sometimes sent via the internet (“I told my after about

120 three days after my first RJ [retroactive jealousy] attack. I wrote about what it was and sent her a link too so she could read by herself”). Lastly, a few participants also reported trying to distract themselves with communication technology (e.g., “It will eat me up until I do something to distract myself like watching TV or reading a book”; “I usually just get up and clear my mind or play game on computer”).

The most often used technology was text messaging (M = 4.56, SD = 2.12), followed by voice calls via a cell phone (M = 3.64, SD = 2.15), Facebook (M = 2.26, SD

= 1.94), email (M = 1.98, SD = 1.50), voice calls via the internet (M = 1.92, SD = 1.75), voice calls via a landline phone (M = 1.84, SD = 1.73), videoconferencing (M = 1.77, SD

= 1.49), Instagram (M = 1.49, SD = 1.26), Twitter (M = 1.16, SD = 0.82), and Snapchat

(M = 1.11, SD = 0.64). A few participants also wrote in that they used other types of technology as well, but they did not specify which technology they used (n = 4). Five others wrote in that they used Whatsapp always or almost always (n = 3) or often (n = 2).

Some participants also wrote in that they always or almost always used Facebook messenger (n = 1) or often used written notes (n = 1). Lastly, one participant reported using a virtual reality app called Bigscreen very often.

Communicative Responses to Jealousy Measures

Analyses for RQ1 and RQ2 were also conducted based on the face-to-face and mediated communicative responses to jealousy measures. Both the broad response categories and the more specific responses were examined. I looked at differences between communication channels and differences between the different types responses.

121

Comparisons of face-to-face and mediated responses. Constructive communicative responses to jealousy occurred more often face-to-face (M = 4.57, SD =

1.20) than via communication technology (M = 3.83, SD = 1.40), t(60) = 4.66, p < .001,

Cohen’s d = .60. Destructive communicative responses to jealousy also occurred more often face-to-face (M = 2.74, SD = 0.93) than via communication technology (M = 2.37,

SD = 1.09), t(60) = 3.40, p = .001, Cohen’s d = .44. The same goes for face-to-face (M =

3.53, SD = 1.36) and mediated (M = 2.85, SD = 1.37) rival-focused responses, t(60) =

5.06, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .65, and for face-to-face (M = 3.69, SD = 1.11) and mediated

(M = 2.73, SD = 1.14) avoidant responses, t(60) = 6.88, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .88.

When looking at the specific responses, violent communication, t(60) = 2.00, p =

.05, Cohen’s d = .26), negative communication, t(60) = 6.45, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .83, rival derogation, t(60) = 5.62, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .72, counter jealousy induction, t(60)

= 4.86, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .62, silence, t(59) = 8.03, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.04, denial, t(60) = 3.00, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .38, compensatory restoration, t(60) = 3.10, p <

.01, Cohen’s d = .40, and integrative communication, t(60) = 5.10, p < .001, Cohen’s d =

.65, occurred face-to-face more often than via communication technology. However, signs of possession occurred via communication technology more often than face-to-face, t(59) = -2.50, p < .02, Cohen’s d = .32. There was not a significant difference in communication channel for surveillance, t(60) = 1.71, p = .09, Cohen’s d = .22.

See Tables 11 and 12 for all means and standard deviations.

122

Comparisons of response types. Repeated measures ANOVAs with

Greenhouse-Geisser corrections revealed that there were significant differences in average frequency of the types of communicative responses to jealousy for both mediated responses, F(2.38, 142.61) = 29.86, p < .001, partial η2 = .33 and face-to-face responses,

F(2.30, 138.25) = 30.86, p < .001, partial η2 = .34. Pairwise comparisons using

Bonferroni corrections indicated that for both mediated and face-to-face responses, people reported using destructive responses least frequently (p < .001 for all face-to-face comparisons and p ≤. 02 for all mediated comparisons) and constructive responses the most frequently (p ≤ .002 for all comparisons). Avoidant and rival-focused responses did not significantly differ in their average frequency (p = 1.00 for both mediated and face- to-face responses).

Regarding specific responses, repeated measures ANOVAs with Greenhouse-

Geisser corrections also revealed that there were significant differences in average frequency of the specific types of communicative responses to jealousy for both mediated responses, F(5.93, 350.04) = 55.01, p < .001, partial η2 = .48 and face-to-face responses,

F(5.30, 317.97) = 57.56, p < .001, partial η2 = .49. Pairwise comparisons using

Bonferroni corrections were examined. See Tables 11 and 12, respectively.

123

Table 11 Comparisons of Specific Mediated Responses

M SD

Surveillance 4.65a 1.81

Compensatory restoration 3.99ab 1.54

Integrative communication 3.72b 1.61

Negative communication 2.80c 1.36

Denial 2.78cd 1.28

Silence 2.74cd 1.41

Rival derogation 2.30cde 1.85

Signs of possession 2.22d 1.19

Counter-jealousy induction 1.59e 0.95

Violent communication 1.08f 0.33

Note. Different subscripts indicate significant differences at p < .05

Table 12 Comparisons of Specific Face-to-face Responses

M SD

Surveillance 4.90a 1.51

Integrative communication 4.75a 1.27

Compensatory restoration 4.42ab 1.56

Silence 4.12ab 1.61

Negative communication 3.77bc 1.41

Rival derogation 3.41bc 2.01

Denial 3.27c 1.32

Counter-jealousy induction 2.12d 1.19

Signs of possession 1.75de 1.37

Violent communication 1.24e 0.66

Note. Different subscripts indicate significant differences at p < .05

124

Finally, RQ3 asked whether communicative responses to jealousy are related to affirmation, accommodation, or assimilation. The small sample size limited the power to detect effects. Thus, the findings presented here merely represent trends. Results indicated that affirmation was negatively related to mediated rival-focused communicative responses to jealousy, r(59) = -.30, p = .02. None of the other meaning maintenance strategies had a significant relationship with any of the other communicative responses to jealousy. See Table 13 for a correlation matrix.

125

Table 13 Correlation Matrix for the Four Broad Response Types and MMM Strategies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. F2F destructive 1 2. F2F constructive -0.02 1 3. F2F rival-focused .70*** .26* 1 4. F2F avoidant .31** -.18 .01 1 5. Mediated destructive .66*** -.01 .53*** .23 1 6. Mediated -0.06 .56*** .24 -.23 .40*** 1 constructive 7. Mediated rival- .39** .22 .71*** -.03 .67*** .60*** 1 focused 8. Mediated avoidant .31** -.01 .13 .53*** .66*** .34** .38** 1 9. Assimilation -.19 .18 -.16 -.18 -.19 .06 -.16 -.09 1 10. Accommodation .14 .23 < .001 -.04 .05 .13 -.15 .02 .50*** 1 11. Affirmation -.13 .04 -.22 .08 -.17 -.06 -.30 .09 .40** .37** Note. ***p ≤ .001, **p < .02, *p < .05

126

Discussion

Existing jealousy literature identifies several ways people express jealousy involving a current rival, but little attention has been paid to how people express retroactive jealousy specifically. Thus, one goal of Study 2 was to explore how people express retroactive jealousy. Furthermore, although a typology of communicative responses to jealousy exists, it does little to distinguish face-to-face responses from mediated responses. Affordances likely make communication technologies more appealing channels for enacting several of the communicative responses to jealousy than face-to-face communication. For example, SNSs are prime channels for surveillance given the persistence, visibility, and accessibility of information about a partner’s past and the lack of visibility of the snooping. On SNSs, jealous individuals are merely a few clicks away from surreptitiously viewing pictures, videos, and posts about their partner’s past relationships. Gathering such information without communication technologies may be difficult or nearly impossible if partners are unwilling to disclose information about their past in face-to-face settings. Even then, partners may sugar-coat the information about their past. As a result, some retroactive jealousy sufferers prefer the information on

SNSs due to its perceived authenticity (Frampton & Fox, 2018b). Along the same lines, texting or email afford editability and asynchronous communication, which make it easier for a jealous individual to control their responses to partners, perhaps preventing derogation that would have otherwise occurred in a face-to-face context. This study is a first attempt at identifying mediated communicative responses to jealousy and responding

127 to Bevan’s (2013) call to expand the communicative responses to jealousy typology to a wide range of communication technologies.

Finally, the current study builds on Study 1 by presenting initial trends surrounding the relationships between three of the meaning maintenance strategies identified in the MMM and the communicative responses to jealousy typology. Thus, this study lays the foundation for future work that further examines how the MMM can be integrated with existing jealousy models.

RQ1 asked how people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy. The qualitative data suggested that people responded to retroactive jealousy by asking for more details about a partner’s past, seeking reassurance either directly or indirectly, derogating the partner and/or the rival, engaging in arguments, calmly discussing feelings with the partner, ignoring the partner, or going silent. Many of these responses are consistent with those identified in the communicative responses to jealousy typology.

Specifically, engaging in arguments with a partner, derogating a partner, and ignoring the partner are all listed as forms of negative communication in Guerrero et al.’s (2011) typology. Calmly discussing feelings is also listed under integrative communication, and rival derogation is identified as its own response in the original typology. Moreover,

Guerrero et al. listed “gave my partner the silent treatment” as a form of negative communication, but then had another response called “silence.” Participants in this study indicated they became silent and spoke less to their partners, but it is unclear exactly which of Guerrero et al.’s responses best addresses silence in retroactive jealousy cases.

There were also important differences in the existing typology and this study’s

128 findings. First, the original typology lists “calmly questioned my partner” under integrative communication. Participants in this study indicated questioning was anything but calm. The intensity in questioning may be an artifact of the sample that was used, though studies using other samples also reported participants felt a need to know about partners’ pasts (e.g., Frampton & Fox, 2018b). Regardless, for retroactive jealousy, it may be important to determine the nature of the questioning, as participants indicated they often had a seemingly endless series of questions that annoyed or frustrated their partners and led to negative relationship outcomes rather than the positive relationship outcomes frequently associated with Guerrero et al.’s (2011) integrative response.

Furthermore, this study found that participants sought reassurance with varying degrees of subtlety. Some participants directly asked the partner to reassure them, whereas others engaged in questioning in the of eliciting desired responses about being more special than ex-partners. Reassurance-seeking does not seem to be directly addressed in Guerrero et al.’s typology even though it probably also occurs in response to reactive jealousy. Importantly, the directness of the request for reassurance may affect the partner’s reaction to the response and subsequent relationship outcomes. Therefore, future studies should examine the directness of reassurance requests. Future research should also explore different motives for questioning the partner. Some participants engaged in questioning as a form of information seeking, whereas others did it to manipulate their partner into reassuring them. Different motivations likely drive different types of questions. Relational and individual impacts are probably due in part to these differences in questions and the degree to which the jealous individual’s initial goals are

129 met.

Additionally, Guerrero et al. (1995) developed their scale with a focus on general behavioral responses and communication directed specifically toward a partner or rival.

However, there are other ways people can express jealousy that fit the definition of “a behavioral reaction to jealousy that carries communicative value and has the potential to fulfill individual and/or relational goals” (Guerrero et al., 1995, p. 272). In particular, participants in this study suggested they talked with close others about their jealousy, often after realizing they irritated or upset their partners with their jealousy expression.

This discussion with close others allowed them to still express their jealousy, try to makes sense of it, and avoid further upsetting their partner with their emotional disclosures. Future research could explore the degree to which communication with people outside the relationship helps mitigate jealousy. Future research could also compare the intensity and cyclical nature of questioning in reactive and retroactive jealousy episodes.

The communicative responses to jealousy measure used in this study may be more reflective of “questioning” than the original scale. The measure used in this study differed from the original typology in that it conceptualized surveillance as information seeking rather than a form of suspicious snooping on the partner’s current activities. Given the high degree of surveillance as information seeking expressed in the present study and in prior studies on retroactive jealousy (e.g., Frampton & Fox, 2018b), jealousy scholars should consider expanding the surveillance subscale to include more general information seeking or should consider adding information seeking as a separate subscale.

130

The findings in regard to both the face-to-face and mediated forms of the communicative responses to jealousy measure were generally promising. On average, participants reported at least occasionally or often engaging in the two constructive responses to jealousy both in person and via media. These responses tend to have more favorable relational outcomes than other responses (Bevan, 2013). However, participants in this study may just be especially likely to engage in more constructive responses. After all, they voluntarily joined a listserv about retroactive jealousy and how to overcome it and likely read tips on healthier forms of coping with jealousy.

On average, participants also reported infrequently engaging in two destructive responses: violent communication and counter-jealousy induction. The fact that there was little violent communication either face-to-face or via communication technologies is consistent with existing literature on communicative responses to jealousy (see Bevan,

2013, for a review). Violence is a rather extreme reaction to jealousy with large relational, and sometime legal, consequences. However, as Bevan (2013) noted, violent communication may be underreported in jealousy studies due to social desirability concerns. That said, two participants did indicate their jealousy progressed to the point that they thought about suicide in the written descriptions. Perhaps future measures of communicative responses to jealousy should include items about self-harm in addition to items about harming the partner, although the instances reported here may be rather extreme cases of retroactive jealousy.

The low average frequency of counter-jealousy induction may be caused by an assumption that partners would not be able to experience retroactive jealousy. Thus, it

131 would be useless to try and evoke it in the partner. Initial evidence for this idea can be found in the written descriptions of retroactive jealousy. Several participants indicated their partner struggled to understand their jealousy or was not bothered by their own previous sexual experiences (e.g., “I have been with far more partners than she has in the past, and she is not so bothered by it, in fact, she hardly ever enquires into it”).

Moreover, the fact that people reported almost never engaging in signs of possession either face-to-face or via technology makes sense given the nature of the rival in retroactive jealousy. There is little reason to let a rival know the partner is taken or that the partner is in a new relationship if rivals are not perceived to be actively trying to win the partner back. As a result, signs of possession may only be relevant in cases of reactive or suspicious jealousy.

RQ2 asked about mediated communicative responses to retroactive jealousy specifically. As described above, for both mediated and face-to-face responses, surveillance, integrative communication, and compensatory restoration were the three most frequently used responses on average, whereas violent communication, signs of possession, and counter-jealousy induction were the three least used responses on average.

However, findings from the qualitative data provided further insight about mediated responses. The written descriptions indicated participants sought more information about a partner’s past or ex-partner via SNSs, engaged in or requested relational artifact purging from SNSs, used texting to discuss their feelings, wrote letters or sent their partners articles about retroactive jealousy to explain their feelings, and used

132 media for distraction or avoidance. The finding that people used SNSs for information seeking about a partner’s past relationships or partners was consistent with prior research

(Frampton & Fox, 2018b; Fox & Moreland, 2015). Although this study did not directly ask about perceived affordances, participants seemed to recognize they enabled information seeking (e.g., “looking at her Facebook profile, old posts and pictures would be available in a click of a button”).

Some participants suggested that social media affordances were entirely to blame for experiencing retroactive jealousy in the first place. In particular, one woman stated that she would not have experienced retroactive jealousy stemming from information obtained solely face-to-face. She wrote:

Knowing and talking briefly about your past isn’t ever anything that bothers me,

because you just expect people to have a past. It isn’t until you get to be official

Facebook or Instagram friends that I start seeing every documented moment with

their past and it makes me feel horrible because the pictures are still there. They

look happy, they are usually on some deserted island or sharing a fun moment

with each other that maybe we haven’t experienced yet. And I just start

comparing. Comparing me to her, comparing our relationship to his past

relationship.

From this quote, it appears that some people feel the visual content about a partner’s past on social media is more threatening than verbal information obtained face-to-face, providing further evidence that SNSs may be playing a large role in both retroactive jealousy experience and expression (Frampton & Fox, 2018b).

133

In fact, participants in the current study described a response to jealousy specifically conducted in response to social media content. In particular, several participants indicated they asked their partner to remove digital remnants of an ex- relationship or reported that they removed such content themselves. This act is perhaps similar to discarding or burning a box of memorabilia from a prior relationship. However, rather than purging information hidden away in a box, deleting information from a profile also hides it from a broader network, sending a larger message about the past relationship being inconsequential or in the past due to network association and lower levels of privacy. As suggested by Bevan (2017), future research could explore SNS-specific responses to jealousy and explore whether these responses vary for different types of digital remnants of past relationships on SNSs. Future research could also examine communicative responses to jealousy alongside of jealousy triggers more generally, not just in the context of mediated responses and triggers.

Moving beyond SNSs, some participants reported writing to their partners about their jealousy. Writing is fundamentally different than engaging in a face-to-face conversation with a partner about jealousy due to affordances, yet it is not clearly distinguished from face-to-face communication in the original communicative responses to jealousy typology. Writing out feelings provides the jealous individual a chance to reflect on and revise comments before sending them to a partner (i.e., it affords editability and asynchronous communication), whereas a face-to-face conversation requires more immediate back-and-forth responses. Future research should explore individual and relationship factors, such as extraversion, that impact whether people choose to write

134 about their jealousy or speak about it.

Though perhaps an unlikely response in other samples, participants in this study also described sending articles about retroactive jealousy to their partners. This communicative response to jealousy is probably unique to retroactive jealousy. It appears that there may be a lack of understanding about and familiarity with retroactive jealousy, as these particular participants felt the need to inform their partners about the emotion.

This is much less likely to happen in cases of reactive jealousy, as people generally expect people to feel upset about a partner’s current involvement with a rival and understand why they might be upset. A lack of awareness concerning retroactive jealousy may impact the content of conversations and the goals for communicating about the emotion regardless of channel. Specifically, it is likely participants spend much longer trying to explain and justify their feelings to their partner in cases of retroactive jealousy than reactive jealousy. Future studies could compare conversations about reactive jealousy to those about retroactive jealousy to determine if the content of the conversations vary. Researchers could also ask participants what they aim to accomplish by discussing each type of jealousy with their partner. I suspect the goal of mutual understanding is quite strong in retroactive jealousy experiences.

Furthermore, consistent with mood management theory (Zillmann, 1988), participants reported using media as a form of distraction from their jealousy. Intuitively, distraction seems like a form of avoidance, but the original communicative responses to jealousy measure only included silence and denial under the broad category avoidance.

The findings from this study suggest future scholarship should potentially add distraction

135 as an additional subtype of avoidance. On the surface, avoidance seems to facilitate affirmation as described by the MMM. Disengaging from the jealousy-evoking situation and from the partner might allow jealous individuals to focus on an intact meaning framework used for affirmation. Yet, this study only found a significant negative relationship between rival-focused, mediated communication and affirmation. People motivated to focus on other valued things outside of the relationship were less likely to report saying negative things about a partner’s ex via communication technologies.

Future research should probe why this effect occurred specifically for mediated forms of communication. However, an obvious limitation of this study is the small sample size which limited power in quantitative analyses. The recruitment for this study is ongoing, meaning the limitation may be rectified in the future and the idea that avoidance is related to affirmation can be retested.

Future work should also further test the relationships between other meaning maintenance strategies and communicative responses to jealousy. The strategies of assimilation and accommodation are not unique to the MMM and are common responses to perceived threat (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). It is likely that some communicative responses to jealousy are behavioral manifestations of these psychological motivations.

For example, participants reported asking their partner for reassurance that they were more special than ex-partners, which seems like an attempt to assimilate information about past partners and mitigate a threat to a specialness meaning framework. Similarly, findings from this study and prior research (e.g., Frampton & Fox, 2018b) suggest that people may engage in downward social comparisons to a partner’s exes. Rival derogation

136 can be seen as a form of reappraising or assimilating threat (White & Mullen, 1989). Two meaning maintenance strategies, abstraction and assembly, were not measured in this study. Future research should also examine these strategies in response to jealousy. Out of the two strategies, abstraction may be especially pertinent considering existing research suggests that people engage in more pattern perception (e.g., identifying images in noise, perceiving conspiracies, endorsing superstitions) when they lack control

(Whitson & Galinksy, 2008).

The number of participants in the sample was not the only limitation related to sampling. This study also recruited participants who self-reported experiencing retroactive jealousy and voluntarily sought more information about the emotion. Thus, their jealousy experiences and expression are likely not representative of the larger population. Other communicative responses to jealousy are probably more common in other populations. Future studies need to recruit other participants to determine if responses differ. Likewise, although an advantage of this study was a nationally diverse sample, there were not enough people from each nationality to make cultural comparisons. Researchers could conduct cross-cultural retroactive jealousy studies in the future to determine whether retroactive jealousy experience and expression vary by culture.

Another limitation of the current study is that it only explored mediated communicative responses to retroactive jealousy, so it is difficult to tell if any of the responses identified are unique to retroactive jealousy experiences. A more direct comparison of mediated communicative responses to retroactive jealousy and mediated

137 communicative responses to reactive jealousy is needed. Relatedly, five participants in this study wrote about multiple jealousy episodes, some of which did not clearly reflect retroactive jealousy. Then they filled out only one set of the communicative responses to jealousy measures. Thus, for these five participants, the communicative responses to jealousy measures may not be the most accurate assessments of responses to retroactive jealousy specifically.

The writing prompt used in this study also used terms such as “upset” and

“bothered” rather than “jealous” when asking participants to describe their experiences, whereas the communicative responses to jealousy measures used the term “jealousy” in the instructions. Although using terms such as “upset” is common when asking participants about jealousy experiences (e.g., Bringle, 1995; Buunk, 1997; Buss et al.,

1992), it is possible that participants thought the terms “bothered” and “upset” referred to other negative emotions. Thus, the responses identified in the written descriptions may have differed from the communicative responses to jealousy measures because of differences in the explicit use of the term “jealousy.” However, participants were told that the study was specifically about retroactive jealousy in the recruitment information, the consent form, and the initial instructions.

Finally, on average, participants in this study suggested they frequently used technologies such as texting, cell phone calls, Facebook, and sometimes Whatsapp for mediated communicative responses to jealousy. Although this study identified these preferred technologies, it did not examine why participants preferred them. There are a number of reasons why participants might use one communication technology over

138 another. First, certain technologies may be more popular in one geographic area than another. Participants may just use the technology they are most familiar with and that most of their friends, family, and romantic partners use. Indeed, prior studies from the

Pew Research Center found that most adults in the United States currently use Facebook, and at least 20% use Instagram or Whatsapp (Perrin & Anderson, 2019). Facebook and

Whatsapp are also the most popular social media platforms in other countries such as

Columbia, Lebanon, Mexico, and Venezuela (Silver et al., 2019). Additionally, 95% of

U.S. teens said they had access to a smartphone at home (Anderson & Jiang, 2018), and most adults from countries such as Vietnam, Columbia, Kenya, India, and Mexico indicated that they owned a mobile phone (Silver et al., 2019). Thus, the use of cell phones and social media for jealousy expression in this study aligns with current technology use data.

Second, the technologies likely differ in their perceived affordances. For example, text messaging allows for editability and asynchronous responses, whereas a voice call over a cell phone does not. It is imperative that future work attempting to explain why people prefer certain technologies over others to express jealousy measure perceived affordances of the technologies.

Lastly, relationship factors may impact the choice of communication technology as well. For example, Caughlin and Sharabi’s (2013) communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships suggests that the closer partners are, the more likely they are to integrate different modes of communication and the less difficulty they have in doing so. In other words, the closer partners are, the more likely they are to use

139 multiple communication channels when discussing issues with their partner. On the other hand, people in less intimate and close relationships tend to engage in mode segmentation

(i.e., they limit their communication to one channel), and they are particularly likely to use a mediated form of communication (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013).

140

Chapter 6. General Discussion

Together, the studies presented here examined jealousy experience and expression, which are both parts of a jealousy episode (White & Mullen, 1989).

Specifically, Study 1 examined jealousy experience by testing predictions about threat derived from the MMM (Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012) and extant jealousy models in cases of both reactive and retroactive jealousy. Namely, three threats identified in existing jealousy models (threats to the relationship’s existence, relational benefits, and self-esteem) were examined alongside of threat to a specialness meaning framework.

Additionally, this study introduced a new measure of specialness meaning framework endorsement, suggested attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973) may also provide some insight into jealousy experiences, and tested the MMM’s prediction that people affirm an intact and unrelated meaning framework in the face of meaning framework threat (Proulx

& Inzlicht, 2012). In this study, participants were randomly placed into a condition where they received information about a current rival (to evoke reactive jealousy), information about a past rival (to evoke retroactive jealousy), or no information about a rival (which presumably would not evoke jealousy). Then they filled out measures of perceived threat, jealousy, and affirmation.

Study 2 presented preliminary findings regarding communicative responses to retroactive jealousy. Participants were recruited from a retroactive jealousy listserv and

141 wrote descriptions of their jealousy experiences and responses in addition to filling out measures of both face-to-face and mediated communicative responses to jealousy. As an initial attempt to bridge the gap between the meaning maintenance model and extant models of jealousy, three meaning maintenance strategies were also measured and examined in relation to the broad communicative responses to jealousy.

As a whole, the results of these studies suggest that retroactive jealousy is a distinct type of jealousy that warrants further investigation. First, in both studies, participants reported experiencing jealousy despite knowing their partner’s relationship with the ex-partner was solely in the past. In these studies, people suggested they did not think their partner was currently involved with a rival, nor did they think that their partner would become involved with a rival in the future. This finding is contrary to extant jealousy models that predict jealousy occurs in response to a perceiving a partner’s current or future involvement with a rival (e.g., White & Mullen, 1989).

These studies also suggest that retroactive jealousy may differ from reactive jealousy in more than just the temporal aspect of the partner’s involvement. Although the results of Study 1 imply that reactive jealousy may be a more intense form of jealousy than retroactive jealousy, retroactive jealousy may actually be composed of a different set of basic emotions than those of reactive jealousy. For example, reactive jealousy may encompass anger, fear, and sadness (Sharpsteen, 1991), but retroactive jealousy may be a blend of emotions such as sadness, disgust, and . Indeed, multiple participants indicated they felt disgust in response to information about their partner’s past (e.g., “I found myself disgusted thinking about them together”; “I felt disgusted by my partner”).

142

Other participants listed a number of emotions related to their jealousy. For instance, one male wrote that his retroactive jealousy was “a combination of anger, sadness, disgust and disbelief,” whereas still another wrote that his jealousy involved “, anger, and .” The jealousy measure used in Study 1 is typically used for jealousy involving a current rival, so it is possible the list of emotions it contains does not fully cover all basic emotions experienced in retroactive jealousy. Future research should examine which basic emotions distinguish retroactive jealousy experiences from reactive jealousy experiences and determine if these emotions are associated with different arousal levels or intensities.

Additionally, though limited by multicollinearity, Study 1 found that several different types of threat were perceived in cases of reactive jealousy, whereas only specialness meaning framework threat was perceived in cases of retroactive jealousy.

Thus, this study provides initial evidence that the different types of jealousy involve differences in the types of threat perceived. Though people are likely to think their partner will end their relationship to be with a rival in cases of reactive jealousy, they appear to think less likely to think so in cases of retroactive jealousy. However, people appraised a threat to a specialness meaning framework in response to both information about current rival and information about a past rival. Thus, one appeal of the MMM in the context of jealousy is that it simplifies predictions about jealousy experience. Rather than identifying several types of threat, it suggests one core type of threat is the root of jealousy. It also appears to explain more types of jealousy than existing jealousy models.

Moving forward, jealousy scholars need to disentangle threat to the relationship’s

143 existence, threat to relational rewards, and threat to a specialness meaning framework to further explore their unique effects on jealousy. Manipulating the types of threat or conducting more naturalistic studies may be particularly fruitful avenues of research.

Though the MMM may be helpful in establishing the importance of a specialness meaning framework threat in jealousy experiences, Study 1 also pointed toward the

MMM’s limitations as a model. One major limitation is that the model appears to lack falsifiability. Though differences in affirmation—one of the core tenants of the MMM— were not found between jealousy conditions, this lack of significant finding could be attributed to participants engaging in other meaning maintenance strategies. This limitation is not unique to the MMM, as other jealousy models face similar criticisms

(East & Watts, 1999). Jealousy scholars should work to build falsifiable and testable jealousy theories. If scholars continue to use the MMM to explain jealousy, importance should be placed on developing concrete predictions about how and why certain meaning maintenance strategies will be enacted.

The MMM has also been criticized for not explaining how meaning maintenance strategies relate to actual behaviors (Moser & Schroder, 2012). Thus, merging MMM strategies with communicative responses to jealousy may help address some criticisms of the MMM. Study 2 was a first attempt at exploring how MMM strategies are possibly related to communicative responses to jealousy, though the small sample size limited power to find effects. Future studies should further explore the initial trends presented here.

144

Moreover, Study 2 identified communicative responses to retroactive jealousy and distinguished between face-to-face and mediated responses. Though initial responses to retroactive jealousy were identified, this study did not compare retroactive jealousy responses to reactive jealousy responses. Emotion scholars suggest that different basic emotions have varied motivational properties (e.g., Izard et al., 1993). Thus, if there is a difference in basic emotions between the two types of jealousy, this might result in distinct motivations or communicative response functions. Variation in motivations or response functions would then presumably lead to differences in actual responses to jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998). As addressed in Study 2, future research should examine differences between responses to reactive jealousy and retroactive jealousy as well.

Future work should also further explore what sorts of information result in the different kinds of threat appraisal. Due to affordances such as persistence, visibility, and network association, social media content regarding rivals appears to be a common trigger of various types of threat perceptions, including threats to a specialness meaning framework (Frampton & Fox, 2018b). Jealousy scholars should examine how these affordances contribute not only to jealousy experience, but also to jealousy expression.

Study 2 identified several ways people communicatively respond to jealousy via communication technologies, and more work needs to examine why some people choose to communicate through some technologies over others. Future research needs to investigate the impact of these channel choices on the relationship as a whole and on individual partners as well.

145

Moreover, the results of Study 1 appear to further clarify some findings regarding attachment and jealousy in existing literature. Specifically, anxious attachment tends to be positively related to reactive jealousy (see Bevan, 2013, for a review). The results of

Study 1 suggested that anxious attachment’s effect on jealousy may largely be due to confirmation of anxious individuals’ low self-image, as anxious attachment had an indirect effect on jealousy only through self-esteem threat. At the same time, this study’s findings echoed existing literature on anxiously attached people’s ambivalent perceptions of relationships (see Simpson & Rholes, 2012, for a review). People with high anxious attachment had conflicting expectations of specialness for their relationships. Future research should further examine the tension between anxious individuals’ hopeful views of their relationships yet negative views of themselves to see how it contributes to jealousy and threat appraisal. On the other hand, people high in avoidant attachment tend to distance themselves from relationship partners (Simpson & Rholes, 2012). The results of this study suggest that perhaps one reason avoidant individuals do so is because they tend to view romantic partners and relationships as ordinary, replaceable, and nothing special.

Finally, the two studies presented here examined jealousy in romantic relationships specifically. However, it is possible to experience jealousy in other types of relationships such as friendships (Casper & Card, 2010), (e.g., Kolak & Volling,

2011), graduate advisors and advisees (Salovey & Rothman, 1991), and coworkers

(Buunk et al., 2010). Future research should explore whether retroactive jealousy is common in these other types of relationships as well. For example, do graduate students

146 regularly experience retroactive jealousy in response to information about their advisor’s prior advisees? Future research should also investigate the extent to which perceived specialness meaning framework threat explains jealousy in other types of relationships too. For example, perceived threat to the existence of the relationship may be very unlikely in relationships between parents and siblings. Jealous individuals probably do not think their parents will put them up for in favor of a relationship with a ; it seems much more plausible that people perceive that their relationship with a is less special or unique due to a rival sibling relationship. Likewise, future studies should examine face-to-face and mediated communicative responses to both reactive and retroactive jealousy in non-romantic contexts, as responses can differ depending on the type of relationship (see Bevan, 2013, for a review).

Conclusion

In sum, two studies were conducted to further explore jealousy, particularly retroactive jealousy. The first study experimentally tested predictions about threats derived from extant jealousy models and the MMM. Results from this study provide tentative support of the idea that threats to a specialness meaning framework explain multiple types of jealousy, and may be the only type of threat perceived in cases of retroactive jealousy. The second study presented preliminary findings regarding how people communicatively respond to retroactive jealousy both face-to-face and via communication technologies. Taken together, these studies provide solid groundwork for a research program examining the role of communication in both the experience and expression of retroactive jealousy.

147

References

Abrahamson, I., Hussain, R., Khan, A., & Schofield, M. J. (2012). What helps couples

rebuild their relationship after infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1491-

1519. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11424257

Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy

experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9, 93-103. doi:

10.1080/08934219609367642

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of

attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. K. (2009). Quantitative research in communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and

subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624. doi:

10.2307/353949

Andersen, P. A. (1993). Cognitive schemata in personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),

Individuals in relationships (pp. 1-29). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

148

Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Retrieved

from the Pew Research Center website: https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/

teens-social-media-technology-2018/

Anderson, M., Kunkel, A., & Dennis, M. R. (2011). “Let’s (not) talk about that”:

Bridging the past sexual experiences taboo to build healthy romantic

relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 381-391. doi:

10.1080/00224499.2010.482215

Arceneaux, K., & Huber, G. A. (2007). What to do (and not to do) with multicollinearity

in state politics research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7, 81-101. doi:

10.1177/153244000700700105

Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising

working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment

security. Personality and Review, 22, 71-96. doi:

10.1177/1088868317705257

Aruguete, N., & Calvo, E. (2018). Time to #protest: Selective exposure, cascading

activation, and framing in social media. Journal of Communication, 68, 480-502.

doi: 10.1093/joc/jqy007

Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness: Exploring the good (reactive)

and bad (suspicious) sides of romantic jealousy. SAGE Open, 1-16. doi:

10.1177/2158244013476054

149

Barelds, D., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy

and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 14, 176-188. doi: 10.1002/cpp.532

Barker, R. L. (1987). The green-eyed marriage: Surviving jealous relationships. New

York, NY: Free Press.

Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of

emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 20-46. doi:

10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_2

Bauerle, S. Y., Amirkhan, J. H., & Hupka, R. B. (2002). An attribution theory analysis of

romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 297-319. doi:

10.1023/A:102287110 4307

Bentler, P. M. (1988). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Ben-Zeév, A. (2013, December 2). Can jealousy be retroactive? Psychology Today.

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-

love/201312/can-jealousy-be-retroactive

Berger, C. R., & Palomares, N. A. (2011). Knowledge structures and social interaction. In

M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal

communication (4th ed., pp. 169-200). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. (1985). In M. S. Lewis-Beck (Series Ed.), Quantitative

Applications in the Social Sciences Series: Multiple regression in practice.

Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

150

Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the

investment model. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 42-67. doi:

10.1080/10417940701815626

Bevan, J. L. (2013). The communication of jealousy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Bevan, J. L. (2017). Liking, creeping, and password sharing: Romantic jealousy

experience and expression on social media. In N. M. Punyanunt-Carter & J. S.

Wrench (Eds.), The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships (pp.

160-185). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Bevan, J. L., & Samter, W. (2004). Toward a broader conceptualization of jealousy in

close relationships: Two exploratory studies. Communication Studies, 55, 14-28.

doi: 10.1080/10510970409388603

Boucher, H. C., Bloch, T., & Pelletier, A. (2016). Fluid compensation following threats

to self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 15, 152-172. doi:

10.1080/15298868.2015.1094405

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P.

Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103–131). New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

151

Bringle, R. G. (1995). Sexual jealousy in the relationships of homosexual and

heterosexual men: 1980 and 1992. Personal Relationships, 2, 313-325. doi:

10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00095.x

Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1985). Jealousy and social behavior: A review of person,

relationship, and situational determinants. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Self, situations, and

social behavior (pp. 241-264). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1991). Extradyadic relationships and sexual jealousy. In

K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135 –

153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.

Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).

Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Bryson, J. B. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178–207). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous : Why jealousy is as necessary as love and

sex. New York, NY: Free Press.

Buss, D. M. (2013). Sexual jealousy. Psychological Topics, 22, 155-182. Retrieved from

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/159877

Buss, D.M., Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in

jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–

255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x

152

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention

tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346-

361. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.72.2.346

Buunk, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open . Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 357-372.

doi: 10.1007/BF01257944

Buunk, B. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship to self-esteem,

dependency, and reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 310-

316. doi: 10.1177/0146167282082019

Buunk, B. P. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoretical

perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 148–

177). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various

types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997-1006. doi:

10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00136-0

Buunk, A. P., aan’t Goor, J., & Castro Solano, A. (2010). Intrasexual at

work: Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics in

work settings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 671-684. doi:

10.1177/0265407510368964

Buunk, B., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S.

Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration

(pp. 123-147). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

153

Caldwell, J. E., Swan, S. C., Allen, C. T., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. L. (2009). Why I

hit him: Women’s reasons for intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment and Trauma, 18, 672-697. doi: 10.1080/10926770903231783

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to sexual versus

emotional infidelity: Men and women are more similar than different. Psychology

of Women Quarterly, 36, 25-37. Doi: doi/10.1177/0361684311414537

Carpenter, C. J. (2016). Romantic jealousy on Facebook: Causes and outcomes.

International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies,

6(1), 1-16. doi: 10.4018/IJICST.2016010101

Casper, D. M., & Card, N. K. (2010). “We were best friends, but…”: Two studies of

antipathetic relationships emerging from broken friendships. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 25, 499-526. doi: 10.1177/0743558410366596

Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). A communicative interdependence perspective

of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated

interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63, 873-893. doi:

10.1111/jcom.12046

Cionea, I. A., Piercy, C. W., & Carpenter, C. J. (2017). A profile of arguing behaviors on

Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 438-449. doi:

10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.009

Clanton, G. (1981). Frontiers of jealousy research. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 259-273. doi:

10.1007/BF01257940

Cohen, E. L., Bowman, N. D., & Borchert, K. (2014). Private flirts, public friends:

154

Understanding romantic jealousy responses to an ambiguous social network site

message as a function of message access exclusivity. Computers in Human

Behavior, 35, 535-541. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.050

Cole, M. (2010). Jealousy and attachment 2.0: The role of attachment in the expression

and experience of jealousy on Facebook (Master’s thesis, University of Central

Florida). Retrieved from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article

=5402&context=etd

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation,

emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-

832. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.4.810

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship

quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-

663. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644

Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships.

Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631– 652. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.1107

0 7 .163459

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:

Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved from

https://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf

155

Cyranowksi, J. M., & Andersen, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic

attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364-1379. doi:

10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1364

Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students’ romantic relationships on Facebook:

Linking the for maintenance to Facebook maintenance activity and

the experience of jealousy. Communication Quarterly, 63, 365-383. doi:

10.1080/01463373.2015.1058283

Darlington, R. B., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression analysis and linear models:

Concepts, applications, and implementation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Davis, C. G., & Novoa, D. C. (2012). How far to generalize?: Meaning violations and

fluid compensation in the laboratory and in the world. Psychological Inquiry, 23,

336-338. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.721339 de Souza, A. A. L., Verderane, M. P., Taira, J. T., & Otta, E. (2006). Emotional and

sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample.

Psychological Reports, 98, 529-535. doi: 10.2466/PR0.98.2.529-535 de Weerth, C., & Kalma, A. P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual

jealousy: A sex role reversal?. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265-279. doi:

10.1002/1098-2337(1993)19:4<265::AID-AB2480190403>3.0.CO;2-P

DeLamater, J. (1991). Emotions and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.),

Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in

jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of

156

Personal and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-1116. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.83.5.1103

DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Jealousy and the characteristics of one’s rival: A

self-evaluation maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 22, 920-932. doi: 10.1177/0146167296229006

Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ current Facebook

friends; beware the ones they add! Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483-488.

doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.032

Du, S., Tao, Y., & Martinez, A. M. (2014, April). Compound expressions of

emotion. In D. J. Heeger (Ed.), PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 111, 1454-1462. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322355111

East, M. P., & Watts, F. N. (1999). Jealousy and envy. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power

(Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 569-588). New York, NY: Wiley.

Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York, NY: Holt Paperbacks.

Ellis, C., & Weinstein, E. (1986). Jealousy and the social psychology of emotional

experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 337-357. doi:

10.1177/0265407586033006

Fehr, B. (1993). How do I love thee? Let me consult my prototype. In S. Duck (Ed.),

Individuals in relationships (pp. 87-120). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fitness, J. (1993). Knowledge structures and explanations in

intimate relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 121-

143). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

157

Fletcher, G. J., & Kininmonth, L. A. (1992). Measuring relationship beliefs: An

individual

differences scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 371-397. doi:

10.1016/0092-6566(92)90066-D

Fletcher, G. J. O., Overall, N. C., & Friesen, M. D. (2006). Social cognition in intimate

relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook

of personal relationships (pp. 353-368). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72

Fox, J., & Frampton, J. (2017). Social media stressors in developing romantic

relationships. In N. M. Punyanunt-Carter & J. S. Wrench (Eds.), The impact of

social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 181-196). Lanham, MD:

Lexington.

Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The

perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication

Monographs, 84, 298-318. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418

Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An

exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook

use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083

158

Frampton, J. R. (2018, November). Jealousy as a response to threatened meaning

frameworks: Using the meaning maintenance model to predict jealousy

experience in romantic relationships. Paper presented at the 104th Annual

National Communication Association Convention, Salt Lake City, UT.

Frampton, J. R., & Fox, J. (2018a, July). An exploration of the antecedents of retroactive

romantic jealousy. Poster presented at the International Association for

Relationship Research Conference, Fort Collins, CO.

Frampton, J. R., & Fox, J. (2018b). Social media’s role in romantic partners’ retroactive

jealousy: Social comparison, uncertainty, and information seeking. Social Media

+ Society, 4(3), 1-12. doi: 10.1177/2056305118800317

Franke, G. R. (2011). Multicollinearity. In J. N. Sheth, N. K. Malhotra (Series Eds.), &

W. A. Kamakura (Volume Ed.), Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing:

Vol. 2. Marketing research (pp. 197-198). Chicester, United Kingdom: Wiley

Gatzeva, M., & Paik, J. (2011). Emotional and physical satisfaction in noncohabitating,

cohabitating, and marital relationships: The importance of jealous conflict.

Journal of Sex Research, 48, 29-42. doi: 10.1080/00224490903370602

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA:

Houghlin Mifflin.

Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of

romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273-291. doi:10.1111/j.1475-

6811.1998.tb00172.x

159

Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998). Jealousy experience and expression in

romantic relationships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of

communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp.

155-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V. (1995).

Coping with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring

communicative responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of

Communication, 59, 270-304. doi: 10.1080/10570319509374523

Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., Jorgensen, P. F., & Andersen, P. A. (1993). Hers or his? Sex

differences in the experience and communication of jealousy in close

relationships. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication in evolving

interpersonal relationships (pp. 109–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The communicative responses

to jealousy scale: Revision, empirical validation, and associations with relational

satisfaction. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 223-249. doi:

10.1080/19312458.2011.596993

Guerrero, L. K., Spitzberg, B. H., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2004). Sexual and Emotional

Jealousy. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of

sexuality in close relationships (pp. 311-345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hansen, G. L. (1985). Perceived threats and marital jealousy. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 48, 262-268. doi: 10.2307/3033686

160

Hansen, G. L. (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration with

family stress theory. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy

(pp. 211-230). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Summerell, E. (2017). On the importance of

both dimensional and discrete models of emotion. Behavioral Sciences, 7(4), 1-

16. doi: 10.3390/bs7040066

Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report

data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102-128. doi:

10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128

Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., & Weber, A. L. (1990). A social psychological model of

account-making in response to severe stress. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 9, 191-207. doi: 10.1177/0261927X9093002

Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., & Weber, A. L. (1992). Introduction: Convergence of the

attribution and accounts concepts in the study of close relationships. In J. H.

Harvey, T. L. Orbuch, & A. L. Weber (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close

relationships (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.52.3.511

161

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the

coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,

88-110. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR1002_1

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form.

Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 15, 147-159. doi:

10.1177/0265407598152001

Hoffman, T. K., & DeGroot, J. M. (2014). Communicative responses to perceived

Facebook jealousy. Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association

of North Dakota, 27, 15-22. Retrieved from

https://sites.google.com/site/cstandv2/publications/journal

Honeycutt, J. M., & Sheldon, P. (2018). Scripts and communication for relationships (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hudson, M. B., Nicolas, S. C., Howser, M. E., Lipsett, K. E., Robinson, I. W., Pope, L.

J., …Friedman, D. R. (2015). Examining how gender and emoticons influence

Facebook jealousy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 87-

92. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0129

Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social

construction?. Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 24-59. doi:

10.1177/106939719603000102

Izard, C. E., Libero, D. Z., Putnam, P., & Haynes, O. M. (1993). Stability of emotion

experiences and their relations to traits of personality. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 64, 847-860. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.847

162

Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Holbrook, C., … Quirin, M.

(2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. In J. M. Olson & M. P.

Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 219-286).

Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. doi:

10.1177/001316446002000116

Kende, A., van Zomeren, M., Ujhelyi, A., & Lantos, N. A. (2016). The social affirmation

use of social media as a motivator of collective action. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 46, 453-469. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12375

Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. In Structural equation modeling. Retrieved

March 11, 2019 from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm

Kim, J., & Oliver, M. B. (2011). What combination of message characteristics determines

hedonic and counter-hedonic preferences? An examination of the interplay

between valence and semantic . Media Psychology, 14, 121-143. doi:

10.1080/15213269.2011.573462

Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent

self-esteem and the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 608-627. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.95.3.608

163

Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships:

Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 7, 41-55. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3

Knobloch, L. K. (2015). The relational turbulence model: Communicating during times

of transition. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories

interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 377-388). Los

Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of relationship

development and attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal

Relationships, 8, 205-224. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00036.x

Kolak, A. M., & Volling, B.L. (2011). Sibling jealousy in early childhood: Longitudinal

links to sibling relationship quality. Infant and Childhood Development, 20, 213-

226. doi: 10.1002/icd.690

Lane, D. S., & Cin, S. D. (2018). Sharing beyond slacktivism: The effect of socially

observable prosocial media sharing on subsequent offline helping behavior.

Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1523-1540. doi:

10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340496

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). and the coping process. New York, NY:

McGraw Hill.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American , 46, 819-834. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and

164

group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283–

301. doi:10.1016/ 0020-7373(91)90045-9

Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as

predictors of Facebook‐related jealousy and surveillance in romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 20, 1-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2011.01393.x

Mathes, E. W. (1991). A cognitive theory of jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The

psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 52-78). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mathes, E. W. (2005). Relationship between short-term sexual strategies and sexual

jealousy. Psychological Reports, 96, 29-35. doi: 10.2466/pr0.96.1.29-35

Mathes, E. W., Phillips, J. T., Skowran, J., & Dick, W. E., III. (1982). Behavioral

correlates of the interpersonal jealousy scale. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 42, 1227-1231. doi: 10.1177/001316448204200432

McIntosh, E. G. (1988). Development of a scale to assess jealous behaviors. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 67, 554. doi: 10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.554

Menard, S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). What’s

inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-based

script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 615-633. doi: 10.1037/a0015649

165

Miller, A. L., Volling, B. L., & McElwain, N. L. (2000). Sibling jealousy in a triadic

context with and . Social Development, 9, 433-457. doi:

10.1111/1467-9507.00137

Moser, J. S., & Schroder, H. S. (2012). Making sense of it all? Cognitive and behavioral

mechanisms needing clarification in the meaning maintenance model.

Psychological Inquiry, 23, 367-373. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.721338

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever

wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 441-444. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0263

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2014). “Creeping” or just information

seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on

Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21, 35-50. doi: 10.1111/pere.12014

Mullen, P. E. & Martin, J. L. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of

Psychiatry, 164, 35-43. doi: 10.1192/bjp.164.1.35

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt

security: how perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-498. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.78.3.478

Muscanell, N. L., Guadagno, R. E., Rice, L., & Murphy, S. (2013). Don’t it make my

brown eyes green? An analysis of Facebook use and romantic jealousy.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 16, 237-242. doi:

10.1089/cyber.2012.0411

166

Nadler, A., & Dotan, I. (1992). Commitment and rival attractiveness: Their effects on

male and female reactions to jealousy arousing situations. Sex Roles, 26, 293-310.

doi: 10.1007/BF00289913

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models.

Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Parker, R. G. (1997). The influence of sexual infidelity, verbal intimacy, and gender upon

primary appraisal processes in romantic jealousy. Women’s Studies in

Communication, 20(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162398

Parker, J. G., Kruse, S. A., & Aikins, J. W. (2010). When friends have other friends:

Friendship jealousy in childhood and early adolescence. In S. L. Hart & M.

Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary

approaches (pp. 516-546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of jealousy and envy. In P. Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and

jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920. doi:

10.1037//0022-3514.64.6.906

Paul, L., Foss, M. A., & Galloway, J. (1993). Sexual jealousy in young women and men:

Aggressive responsiveness to partner and rival. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 401–

420. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337

167

Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex differences in

emotional but not sexual jealousy at the automatic level of cognitive processing.

European Journal of Personality, 22, 3-30. doi: 10.1002/per.654

Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2019). Share of U.S. adults using social media, including

Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. Retrieved from the Pew Research

Center website: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-

adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/

Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196. doi: 10.1177/026540758900600203

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily

social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409-1423.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1409

Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter:

Affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection.

Psychological Science, 19, 1294 –1300. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02238.x

Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2010). The frog in Kierkegaard’s beer: Finding meaning in the

threat-compensation literature. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4,

889-905. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00304.x

Proulx, T., Heine, S. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny?

Meaning affirmation after exposure to absurdist literature, humor, and art.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 817-829. doi:

10.1177/0146167210369896

168

Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding

meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 317-335. doi:

10.1080/1047840X.2012.702372

Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistently

compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 16, 285-291. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002

Randles, D., Inzlicht, M., Proulx, T., Tullet, A. M., & Heine, S. J. (2015). Is dissonance

reduction a special case of fluid compensation? Evidence that dissonant

cognitions cause compensatory affirmation and abstraction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 697-710. doi: 10.1037/a0038933

Randles, D., Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-

conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 246–249. doi:

10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.020

Ren, D., Arriaga, X. B., & Mahan, E. R. (2017). Attachment insecurity and perceived

importance of relational features. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

34, 446-466. doi:10.1177/0265407516640604

Rich, J. (1991). A two-factor measure of jealous responses. Psychological Reports, 68,

999-1007. doi: 10.2466/PR0.68.3.999-1007

Robards, B., & Lincoln, S. (2016). Making it “Facebook official”: Reflecting on romantic

relationships through sustained Facebook use. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1-10.

doi: 10.1177/2056305116672890

169

Roberts, K. A. (2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former

romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against

Women, 11, 89-114. doi: 10.1177/1077801204271096

Roma, P., Spacca, A., Pompili, M., Lester, D., Tatarelli, R., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S.

(2012). The epidemiology of homicide-suicide in Italy: A newspaper study from

1985 to 2008. Forensic Science International, 214, 1-5. doi:

10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.022

Roseman, I. J., & Evdokas, A. (2004). Appraisals cause experienced emotions:

Experimental evidence. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1-28. doi:

10.1080/02699930244000390

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of

the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Russell, E. B., & Harton, H. C. (2005). The “other factors”: Using individual and

relationship characteristics to predict sexual and emotional jealousy. Current

Psychology, 24, 242-257. doi: 10.1007/s12144-005-1026-5

Rydell, R. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2007). Differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy.

Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 1099-1114. doi:

10.2224/sbp.2007.35.8.1099

170

Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Bringle, R. G. (2004). Jealousy and commitment:

Perceived threat and the effect of relationship alternatives. Personal

Relationships, 11, 451-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00092.x

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1988). Coping with envy and jealousy. Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, 7, 15-33. doi:10.1521/jscp.1988.7.1.15

Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. J. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and society. In P. Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 271-286). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Schacter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of

emotional states. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399. doi: 10.1037/h0046234

Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component

process model. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1307-1351. doi:

10.1080/02699930902928969

Schroeder, L. D., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stephan, P. E. (1986). In M. S. Lewis-Beck (Series

Ed.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series: Understanding

regression analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Sharpsteen, D. J. (1991). The organization of jealousy knowledge: Romantic jealousy as

a blended emotion. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.

31–51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

171

Sharpsteen, D. J. (1995). The effects of relationship and self-esteem threats on the

likelihood of romantic jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,

80–101. doi: 10.1177/0265407595121006

Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic

attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.627

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodymanics,

and relationship functioning. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The

Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 251-271). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Silver, L., Smith, A., Johnson, C., Taylor, K., Jiang, J., Anderson, M., & Rainie, L.

(2019). Mobile connectivity in emerging economies. Retrieved from the Pew

Research Center website: https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/03/07/mobile-

connectivity-in-emerging-economies/

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.59.5.971

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and

romantic relationships. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279-329). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

172

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An

attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899-

914. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899

Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational

turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and

communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research,

42, 507-532. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12091

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the “Romantic Beliefs Scale” and

examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 6, 387-411. doi: 10.1177/0265407589064001

Staske, S. A. (1999). Creating relational ties in talk: The collaborative construction of

relational jealousy. Symbolic Interaction, 22, 213–246. doi:

10.1525/si.1999.22.3.213

Stockill, Z. (2013). Overcoming retroactive jealousy: A guide to getting over your

partner’s past and finding peace. (n.p.): RetroactiveJealousy.com.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Theiss, J. A., & Solomon , D. H. (2006). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel

modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in

romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human

Communication Research, 32, 469-503. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use.

173

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 321-331. doi:

10.1177/0146167212474694

Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the

affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In C. T. Salmon

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 36, pp. 143–189). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic

relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship . Journal of

Computer‐Mediated Communication, 16, 511-527. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2011.01552.x

Vangelisti, A. L., & Daly, J. A. (1997). Gender differences in standards for romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 203-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-

6811.1997.tb00140.x

Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in

Close Relationship Scale (ECR) – short form: Reliability, validity, and factor

structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204. doi:

10.1080/00223890701268041

White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 295-310.

doi: 10.1007/BF00992549

White, G. L. (1991). Self, relationship, friends, and family: Some applications of systems

theory to romantic jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and

envy (pp. 231-251). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

174

White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern

perception. Science, 322, 115-117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845

Worley, T., R., & Samp, J. (2014). characteristics, threat appraisals, and

varieties of jealousy about romantic partners’ friendships. Interpersona, 8, 231-

244. doi: 10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.169

Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American

Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327–340. doi:10.1177/000276488031003005

175

Appendix A. Hypothetical Scenarios and Writing Task Instructions

Current Rival (Reactive Jealousy)

Please imagine that you are in a serious, committed romantic relationship. Imagine you are eating dinner with your romantic partner, and you are both talking about interesting things that happened this week. While talking, your partner states that he or she is having an affair with someone else. Your partner tells you that he or she is sexually involved with the other person and that other person. You know their relationship started after your relationship started. Your partner says several positive things about that other person he or she is currently involved with.

Past Rival (Retroactive Jealousy)

Please imagine that you are in a serious, committed romantic relationship. Imagine you are eating dinner with your romantic partner, and you are both talking about interesting things that happened this week. While talking, your partner states that he or she stumbled across a photograph of an ex-lover. Your partner tells you that he or she was sexually involved with the other person and loved that other person in the past. You know that your partner is no longer in contact with the ex and does not plan to contact him or her in the future. You know their relationship ended before your relationship started. Your

176 partner says several positive things about that other person he or she was involved with in the past.

No Rival

Please imagine that you are in a serious, committed romantic relationship. Imagine you are eating dinner with your romantic partner, and you are both talking about interesting things that happened this week.

Writing Instructions

Please concentrate on the scenario you just read and vividly imagine yourself in that situation.

Now, please write about what you would think in that situation, what you would feel in that situation, and how that situation would affect your life and hypothetical relationship.

The "next" button will not appear on the screen until you have spent at least three minutes writing.

177

Appendix B. Study 1 Pretest Measures

Each of these measures were presented randomly after each of the hypothetical scenarios.

Jealousy

We are interested in how you would feel in the scenario you just read. Please indicate to what degree you would feel…

[Randomized]

1. Upset

2. Bothered

3. Negative

4. Betrayed

5. Distrustful

6. Jealous

7. Rejected

8. Hurt

9. Anxious

10. Angry

11. Sad

Response options: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very, 5 = extremely

178

Perceptions of the Scenario

We are interested in learning more about your thoughts concerning the scenario you just read. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning the scenario you just read:

[Randomized; Items 5 and 6 under “Partner’s Involvement Manipulation” were not included after the No Rival scenario because they do not make sense with that prompt.]

Believability

1. This scenario could actually happen to someone.

2. This scenario is believable.

Partner’s Involvement Manipulation

1. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently

romantically involved with someone else.

2. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently

sexually involved with someone else.

3. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely

become sexually involved with someone else in the near future.

4. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely

become romantically involved with someone else in the near future.

5. In this scenario, it was clear that my hypothetical partner’s relationship with the

other person is over.

6. In this scenario, it was clear that my hypothetical partner’s relationship with the

other person is in the past.

179

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree; 5= slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Threat

We are interested in how the scenario you just read might affect you or your relationship if you were in that scenario.

Some of the following items ask about how the scenario might affect the "future,"

"continuation," or "existence" of your romantic relationship. For these questions, we are asking whether you think YOUR PARTNER would likely end or continue your relationship if you both were in this situation, not whether you would break up with your partner.

Some of the following items also ask about how the scenario might affect “benefits,”

“rewards,” or “perks” you receive from your relationship. When we use these terms, we mean positive things you gain from being in the relationship such as companionship, fulfillment of sexual needs, attention, gifts, etc.

Please indicate how much the scenario you just read about would threaten…

[Randomized]

Self-esteem

1. your sense of self-esteem

2. your feelings of self-worth 180

3. your positive thoughts about yourself

4. your satisfaction with yourself

5. your self-respect

6. your positive attitude toward yourself

Relationship’s Existence

1. the continuation of your romantic relationship

2. the existence of your romantic relationship

3. the future of your romantic relationship

4. the stability of your romantic relationship

Relational Benefits

1. the benefits (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive from your romantic

relationship

2. the rewards (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive from your

relationship

3. the advantages (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from your

romantic relationship

4. the perks (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from your romantic

relationship

5. the positive outcomes (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from the

relationship

Specialness Meaning Framework

1. your expectations about the relationship’s specialness

181

2. your expectations about the relationship’s uniqueness

3. your beliefs about how special you are to your partner

4. your beliefs about the exclusivity of certain activities you do with your partner

5. your beliefs about the uniqueness of certain activities you do with your partner

6. your expectations about the exclusivity of your partner’s romantic feelings

7. your expectations about the uniqueness of your partner’s romantic feelings

8. your expectations about sharing unique experiences with your partner

Response options: 1 = not at all threatened, 2 = slightly threatened, 3 = moderately threatened, 4 = very threatened, 5 = severely threatened

182

Appendix C. Study 1 Measures

Attachment

The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree with it.

[Randomized]

Avoidance

1. I want to get close my partner, but I keep pulling back.

2. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.

3. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.

4. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. (R)

5. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. (R)

6. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance. (R)

Anxiety

1. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.

2. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.

3. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.

4. I do not often worry about being abandoned. (R) 183

5. I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like.

6. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them.

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree; 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Specialness Meaning Framework

We are interested in how you generally think about romantic relationships and romantic partners, not just how you think about a current relationship or partner. Please indicate the extent to which you generally agree or disagree with the following statements about romantic relationships and romantic partners:

[Randomized]

1. When in a romantic relationship, certain experiences should be shared only with

one’s romantic partner.

2. When in a romantic relationship, certain activities (e.g., sexual activity) should be

done only with one’s romantic partner.

3. When in a romantic relationship, some thoughts and feelings should be reserved

exclusively for one’s romantic partner.

4. When I am in a romantic relationship, I like to think the relationship is special.

5. When I am in a romantic relationship, I like to think the relationship is unique.

6. When people are in romantic relationships, their romantic partner should be the

most special person in their lives.

7. I expect my current or future romantic partner to think I am the most amazing

person they have ever been with.

184

8. A person will have only one real love.

9. Once I experience “true love,” I could never experience it again, to the same

degree, with another person.

10. It is possible to truly love more than one romantic partner in one’s lifetime. (r)

11. When I am in a romantic relationship, I do not expect activities with my romantic

partner to feel special or personal. (r)

12. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect my romantic partner to feel closest

to me.

13. The best relationships are those where both partners feel special to each other.

14. When I am in a relationship, I expect my romantic partner to feel a stronger

emotional connection to me than he or she feels for other people.

15. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect my romantic partner to think I am

better than other potential partners or past partners.

16. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect the relationship to be better than

other potential romantic relationships or past relationships.

17. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect certain aspects of the relationship

to feel exclusive.

18. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect to be my partner’s “one and only.”

19. When I am in a romantic relationship, I do not expect my romantic partner to

think of me as special or unique. (r)

20. Romantic partners should share unique experiences.

185

21. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect my romantic partner to enjoy

doing certain activities more with me than with other people.

22. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect it to be different from other

relationships.

23. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect the relationship to feel replaceable.

(r)

24. When I am in a romantic relationship, I expect the relationship to feel ordinary. (r)

25. I expect my current or future romantic partner to think I am ordinary or average.

(r)

26. People in romantic relationships should be more intimate with each other than

they are with other people outside the relationship.

27. It is okay for people to think of their romantic partners as “just another number”

in a list of partners. (r)

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree; 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Manipulation Check

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning the scenario you just read:

[Randomized]

1. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently

romantically involved with someone else.

186

2. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner is currently

sexually involved with someone else.

3. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely

become sexually involved with someone else in the near future.

4. This scenario made me think my hypothetical romantic partner will most likely

become romantically involved with someone else in the near future.

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree; 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Jealousy

We are interested in how you would feel in the scenario you just read. Please indicate to what degree you would feel…

[Randomized]

1. Upset

2. Bothered

3. Negative

4. Betrayed

5. Distrustful

6. Jealous

7. Rejected

8. Hurt

9. Anxious

10. Angry

187

11. Sad

Response options: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very, 5 = extremely

Threat

We are interested in how the scenario you just read might affect you or your relationship if you were in that scenario.

Some of the following items ask about how the scenario might affect the "future,"

"continuation," or "existence" of your romantic relationship. For these questions, we are asking whether you think YOUR PARTNER would likely end or continue your relationship if you both were in this situation, not whether you would break up with your partner.

Some of the following items also ask about how the scenario might affect “benefits,”

“rewards,” or “perks” you receive from your relationship. When we use these terms, we mean positive things you gain from being in the relationship such as companionship, fulfillment of sexual needs, attention, gifts, etc.

Please indicate how much the scenario you just read about would threaten…

[Randomized]

Self-esteem

1. your sense of self-esteem

2. your feelings of self-worth

188

3. your positive thoughts about yourself

4. your satisfaction with yourself

5. your self-respect

6. your positive attitude toward yourself.

Relationship’s Existence

1. the continuation of your romantic relationship

2. the existence of your romantic relationship

3. the future of your romantic relationship

4. the stability of your romantic relationship

Relational Benefits

1. the benefits (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive from your romantic

relationship

2. the rewards (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive from your

relationship

3. the advantages (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from your

romantic relationship

4. the perks (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from your romantic

relationship

5. the positive outcomes (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from the

relationship

Specialness Meaning Framework

1. your expectations about the relationship’s specialness

189

2. your expectations about the relationship’s uniqueness

3. your beliefs about how special you are to your partner

4. your beliefs about the exclusivity of certain activities you do with your partner

5. your beliefs about the uniqueness of certain activities you do with your partner

6. your expectations about the exclusivity of your partner’s romantic feelings

7. your expectations about the uniqueness of your partner’s romantic feelings

8. your expectations about sharing unique experiences with your partner

Response options: 1 = not at all threatened, 2 = slightly threatened, 3 = moderately threatened, 4 = very threatened, 5 = severely threatened

Affirmation

A series of brutal muggings occurred in the area this weekend. Several of the victims suffered grave injuries, and some nearly died. The mugger was not apprehended by police until the person who lived next door to the criminal called a crime hotline because they believed their neighbor was the mugger. The person called the hotline even though they were afraid of what the violent criminal would do if he found out that they had turned him in. The police department wants to reward the neighbor for calling in the tip.

[Randomized]

Sharing

1. How likely is it that you would share this story on your own social media profile?

If you do not have a social media profile, imagine that you do have one.

2. How likely is it that you would share this story in a private message to a friend or

family member?

190

3. How likely is it that you would tell others about this story?

Response options: 1 = not likely, 2 = somewhat unlikely, 3 = slightly unlikely, 4 = neither likely or unlikely, 5 = slightly likely, 6 = somewhat likely, 7 = very likely

Monetary Reward

The reward for tips leading to an arrest is usually between $50 and $10,000.

If you had the opportunity to donate money to help fund the reward for the person that called in the tip, how much would you donate (in U.S. dollars)?

[open-ended response]

Relationship and Demographic Items

What is your current relationship status? (Choose one).

a) Single, not dating

b) Single, dating, but nothing serious

c) Single, dating someone, potentially serious but not exclusive

d) In an exclusive dating relationship with one person (you have a

boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other)

e) In an exclusive/closed polyamorous relationship

f) In an open relationship

g) Engaged

h) Domestic Partnership

i) Married/Civil union

j) Separated

191

k) Other: ______

If you are currently in a romantic relationship, how long have you been in that relationship (in years and months)? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, please type “0” for both years and months.

[open-ended response] years and [open-ended response] months

Age

[open-ended response]

Gender identity (Check all that apply)

a) Man

Woman

b) Transgender

c) Genderqueer, genderfluid, or nonbinary

d) Other: ______

Race/Ethnicity (Check all that apply):

a) Caucasian/European/White

b) African/African-American/Black

c) American Indian

d) Asian/Asian-American

e) Caucasian/European/White

f) Central Asian/Central Asian-American (e.g., Indian, Pakistani)

g) Latino/a 192

h) Middle Eastern/Middle Eastern-American

i) Pacific Islander

j) Other: ______

Education Level

a) Did not attend high school

b) Some high school, but did not graduate

c) High school diploma

d) Some college

e) 2-year college degree

f) 4-year college degree

g) Master’s degree

h) Ph.D., M.D., or J. D.

Please check all terms by which you identify yourself. If you feel any terms are missing, please feel free to add your own.

a) Heterosexual/straight

b) Gay

c) Lesbian

d) Bisexual

e) Queer

f) Pansexual

g) Asexual

193

h) Polyamorous

i) Biromantic

j) Panromantic

k) Questioning

l) Other: ______

If you have any questions or comments about this survey, please enter them here:

[open-ended response]

194

Appendix D. EFAs and CFA Tables for Study 1 Measures

Table 14 Jealousy Factor Matrix

Item Loading Upset .97 Hurt .97 Angry .95 Sad .95 Distrustful .94 Betrayed .94 Bothered .94 Rejected .93 Negative .93 Anxious .82 Jealous .72

195

Table 15 Factor Loadings for Romantic Relationship Specialness Meaning Framework Items

Items 1 2 3 4 5 Eigenvalue 9.73 2.79 1.63 1.35 1.03 % of Variance 36.04 10.33 6.03 5.01 3.81 1. Romantic partners should share unique .82 -.001 -.05 -.05 -.18 experiences.

2. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .78 .02 .10 .02 -.22 like to think the relationship is unique.

3. When in a romantic relationship, certain .78 .04 -.15 .04 .09 experiences should be shared only with one’s romantic partner.

4. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .74 .12 .02 .05 -.06 like to think the relationship is special.

5. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .71 .07 .06 .004 -.16 expect it to be different from other relationships.

6. People in romantic relationships should .70 -.02 -.10 -.07 .14 be more intimate with each other than they are with other people outside the relationship.

7. The best relationships are those where .61 .13 -.05 -.03 .12 both partners feel special to each other.

8. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .58 -.04 .23 -.03 .11 expect my romantic partner to feel closest to me. 9. When in a romantic relationship, some .58 .05 -.11 -.01 .24 thoughts and feelings should be reserved exclusively for one’s romantic partner.

Continued

196

Table 15 Continued 10. When I am in a relationship, I expect my .58 -.11 .18 -.06 .08 romantic partner to feel a stronger emotional connection to me than he or she feels for other people.

11. When people are in romantic .51 -.02 .19 .07 .06 relationships, their romantic partner should be the most special person in their lives.

12. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .45 -.12 .18 -.03 .10 expect my romantic partner to enjoy doing certain activities more with me than with other people.

13. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .45 .13 .09 -.09 .21 expect certain aspects of the relationship to feel exclusive.

14. I expect my current or future romantic .002 .69 .08 -.02 -.06 partner to think I am ordinary or average. (r)

15. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .12 .69 -.13 .04 -.10 expect the relationship to feel ordinary. (r)

16. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .07 .68 -.04 -.03 -.03 do not expect activities with my romantic partner to feel special or personal. (r)

17. When I am in a romantic relationship, I -.04 .66 .11 -.004 -.02 do not expect my romantic partner to think of me as special or unique. (r)

18. It is okay for people to think of their .09 .58 -.08 .06 .13 romantic partners as “just another number” in a list of partners. (r)

Continued

197

Table 15 Continued

19. When I am in a romantic relationship, I -.09 .57 .07 -.01 .13 expect the relationship to feel replaceable. (r)

20. I expect my current or future romantic .07 .02 .80 .03 -.07 partner to think I am the most amazing person they have ever been with.

21. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .08 -.03 .79 -.05 .03 expect my romantic partner to think I am better than other potential partners or past partners.

22. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .09 .06 .68 .08 .03 expect the relationship to be better than other potential romantic relationships or past relationships.

23. A person will have only one real love. .17 -.11 -.09 .81 .01

24. Once I experience “true love,” I could .11 -.08 .05 .68 -.02 never experience it again, to the same degree, with another person.

25. It is possible to truly love more than one -.39 .21 .10 .61 .06 romantic partner in one’s lifetime. (r)

26. When in a romantic relationship, certain .01 .03 -.02 .01 .77 activities (e.g., sexual activity) should be done only with one’s romantic partner.

27. When I am in a romantic relationship, I .19 -.05 .02 .05 .63 expect to be my partner’s “one and only.” Note. Items in italics are not included in the final measure; Factor 1 = Unique and close bond, Factor 2 = Ordinariness, Factor 3 = Favorable comparisons

198

Table 16 CFA Loadings for Threat Measures

Items Estimate S.E. p Self-esteem threat your sense of self-esteem 1.00 0.00 your feelings of self-worth 0.98 .03 <.001 your positive thoughts about yourself 0.94 .03 <.001 your satisfaction with yourself 0.95 .03 <.001 your self-respect 0.93 .03 <.001 your positive attitude toward yourself 0.97 .13 <.001 Existence threat the continuation of your romantic relationship 1.00 0.00 the existence of your romantic relationship 0.99 .02 <.001 the future of your romantic relationship 0.98 .02 <.001 the stability of your romantic relationship 0.99 .02 <.001 Benefits threat the benefits (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) 1.00 0.00 you receive from your romantic relationship the rewards (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) 0.99 .02 <.001 you receive from your relationship the advantages (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) 0.98 .02 <.001 you obtain from your romantic relationship the perks (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you 0.98 .02 <.001 obtain from your romantic relationship Specialness threat your expectations about the relationship’s specialness 1.00 0.00 your expectations about the relationship’s uniqueness 0.97 .02 <.001 Continued

199

Table 16 Continued

your beliefs about the exclusivity of certain activities 0.98 .02 <.001 you do with your partner your beliefs about the uniqueness of certain activities 0.95 .02 <.001 you do with your partner your expectations about the uniqueness of your 0.98 .02 <.001 partner’s romantic feelings Note. The first item in each scale was used as the indicator variable. This table contains unstandardized coefficients.

200

Appendix E. Correlation Matrix for Study 1 Variables

Table 17 Correlation Matrix for Study 1 Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1. Jealousy 1 2. Avoidant attachment -.06 1 3. Anxious attachment .01 .41*** 1 4. Specialness MF: unique & .10* -.52*** -.02 1 close bond 5. Specialness MF: Ordinariness .08 -.53*** -.22*** .49*** 1 6. Specialness MF: favorable .11* -.28*** .15** .61*** .28*** 1 comparisons 7. Self-esteem threat .74*** .07 .18*** .02 -.04 .09 1 8. Rel. existence threat .91*** -.004 -.04 .03 .05 .02 .68*** 1 9. Rel. benefits threat .85*** -.04 -.05 .04 .05 .02 .67*** .91*** 1 10. Specialness MF threat .89*** -.05 -.02 .07 .09 .05 .68*** .96*** .92*** 1 11. Affirmation: sharing .12* -.06 .16** .12* -.02 .17*** .13** .09 .08 .11* 1 12. Affirmation: money .03 -.01 .07 .07 -.08 .04 .04 .03 .04 .02 .13** Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 201

Appendix F. Interaction Plots for Study 1

Figure 3. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict Specialness MF Threat

202

Figure 4. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict Specialness MF Threat

Figure 5. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict Relationship Existence Threat

203

Figure 6. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework Factor: Unique and Close Bond and Current Rival Condition to Predict Relationship Existence Threat

Figure 7. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict Relationship Existence Threat

204

Figure 8. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict Relational Benefits Threat

Figure 9. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict Relational Benefits Threat

205

Figure 10. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat

Figure 11. Interaction between Anxious Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat

206

Figure 12. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework: Favorable Comparisons and Current Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat

Figure 13. Interaction between Specialness Meaning Framework: Unique and Close Bond and Past Rival Condition to Predict Self-esteem Threat

207

Appendix G. Path Diagrams for H12

Figure 14. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relationship Existence Threat

Figure 15. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relational Benefits Threat

208

Figure 16. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Self-Esteem Threat

Figure 17. Path Diagram for Current Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Specialness Meaning Framework Threat

Figure 18. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relationship Existence Threat

209

Figure 19. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Relational Benefits Threat

Figure 20. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Self-Esteem Threat

Figure 21. Path Diagram for Past Rival’s Effect on Affirmation Through Specialness Meaning Framework Threat

210

Appendix H. Regression Results for H12

Table 18 Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Relationship Existence Threat

Money Affirmation Sharing Affirmation B SE t p B SE t p

Current rival dummy -25.06 322.36 -0.08 .94 -0.31 0.44 -0.69 .49 variable Past rival dummy 52.54 155.31 0.34 .74 0.02 0.21 0.13 .89 variable Relationship existence 8.68 99.13 0.09 .93 -0.01 0.14 -0.06 .96 threat Jealousy 31.04 99.47 0.31 .76 0.23 0.14 1.69 .09

Table 19 Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Relational Benefits Threat

Money Affirmation Sharing Affirmation B SE t p B SE t p

Current rival dummy -96.10 296.75 -0.32 0.75 -0.27 0.41 -0.66 .51 variable Past rival dummy 59.43 155.41 0.38 .70 0.02 0.21 0.11 .91 variable Relational benefits 64.47 79.21 0.81 .42 -0.04 0.11 -0.34 .74 threat Jealousy 3.25 91.58 0.04 .97 0.24 0.13 1.95 .052

211

Table 20 Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Self-esteem Threat

Money Affirmation Sharing Affirmation B SE t p B SE t p

Current rival dummy 9.86 279.99 0.04 .97 -0.25 0.38 -0.66 .51 variable Past rival dummy variable 58.57 155.60 0.38 .71 0.05 0.21 0.22 .82

Self-esteem threat 42.91 74.05 0.58 .56 0.14 0.10 1.39 .17 Jealousy 5.16 97.98 0.05 .96 0.13 0.13 0.94 .35

Table 21 Regression Predicting Affirmation Through Specialness Meaning Framework Threat

Money Affirmation Sharing Affirmation B SE t p B SE t p

Current rival dummy 41.54 301.56 0.14 .89 -0.49 0.41 -1.18 .24 variable Past rival dummy variable 56.44 155.53 0.36 .72 0.02 0.21 0.07 .94

Specialness meaning -40.67 91.32 -0.45 .66 0.13 0.13 1.08 .28 framework threat

Jealousy 60.40 99.03 0.61 .54 0.15 0.14 1.08 .28

212

Appendix I. EFA for Study 1 Additional Analyses

Table 22 EFA for Study 1 Additional Analyses with One Relationship Threat Factor and One Self- esteem Threat Factor

Items 1 2 Eigenvalue 18.22 2.29 % of Variance 79.20 9.97 Relationship threat the stability of your romantic relationship .96 0.00 the continuation of your romantic relationship .95 .001 your expectations about the relationship’s uniqueness .95 -.01 your beliefs about the uniqueness of certain activities you do .95 -.02 with your partner your expectations about sharing unique experiences with your .94 .01 partner your expectations about the exclusivity of your partner’s .94 .02 romantic feelings your expectations about the relationship’s specialness .93 .04 your beliefs about the exclusivity of certain activities you do .93 .01 with your partner the existence of your romantic relationship .93 .05 the rewards (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive .93 .002 from your relationship the future of your romantic relationship .92 .03 the advantages (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain .92 .02 from your romantic relationship Continued

213

Table 22 Continued the benefits (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you receive .91 .02 from your romantic relationship your expectations about the uniqueness of your partner’s .91 .05 romantic feelings the positive outcomes (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you .89 .07 obtain from the relationship the perks (e.g., companionship, attention, gifts) you obtain from .86 .08 your romantic relationship your beliefs about how special you are to your partner .86 .12 Self-esteem threat your positive attitude toward yourself .003 .94 your satisfaction with yourself .005 .93 your feelings of self-worth your .02 .92 positive thoughts about yourself .04 .89 your self-respect .03 .88 your sense of self-esteem .06 .88

214

Appendix J. Interaction Plots for Additional Analyses

Figure 22. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Current Rival Condition to Predict General Relationship Threat

Figure 23. Interaction between Avoidant Attachment and Past Rival Condition to Predict General Relationship Threat 215

Appendix K. Study 2 Questions

Writing Prompt

Please describe in detail a time you felt upset or bothered by a romantic partner’s past romantic or sexual experiences that occurred before your relationship began. To be clear, we are interested in a time you felt upset or bothered by your partner’s past romantic or sexual involvement with an ex-partner when you knew your partner was no longer involved with the ex at the time you felt upset.

Please also specifically describe how you reacted to feeling upset or bothered. For example, you might write about what you did when you felt upset or bothered, how you coped with the feeling, and how you communicated with your partner or others about the feeling both in person and via communication technologies.

Please note that the "next" button will not appear until you have spent at least 5 minutes writing on this page.

[open-ended response]

Retroactive Jealousy Check

We would like to know more about your thoughts in relation to the situation you described above. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements: 216

[Randomized]

1. In the situation you described above, your partner was still sexually or

romantically involved with his or her ex-partner(s)

2. In the situation you described above, you believed your partner would leave you

for the ex-partner(s) in the future

3. In the situation you described above, your partner’s ex-partner(s) was(were)

actively trying to win your partner back

4. In the situation you described above, you believed your partner’s ex-partner(s)

would try to become romantically or sexually involved with your partner in the

future.

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Jealousy Trigger

In the situation you described above, what triggered your retroactive jealousy?

[Randomized with the exception of “other,” which was left as the last question]

a) Something I saw online.

b) Something I saw in person.

c) Something my partner said online.

d) Something my partner said in person.

e) Something I just thought about on my own.

f) Other: ______

217

Communicative Responses to Jealousy

We are interested in learning more about what you generally did in response to feeling bothered or upset about your partner’s romantic or sexual history. In the following sets of questions, we will ask you about how you responded face-to-face and via mediated forms of communication (e.g., phones, social media, video chatting). We will ask about the face-to-face and mediated forms of communication separately.

[In-person and Mediated Blocks Were Randomized]

In-person Communicative Responses to Jealousy

We would like to learn a little more about how you respond to feeling upset by a partner’s past romantic or sexual experiences. Please indicate whether you have done the following behaviors in person (i.e., face-to-face and without the use of communication technologies such as social networking sites, phone calls, video chatting, email, or texting) when you experienced jealousy concerning your partner’s past. Please be as honest as possible when answering the statements.

When I felt jealous in response to my partner’s past, I…

[Randomized]

Negative communication

1. Made hurtful or mean comments to my partner

2. Gave my partner cold or dirty looks

3. Acted rude toward my partner

218

4. Quarreled or argued with my partner

5. Gave my partner the “silent treatment”

6. Let my partner know I was upset

7. Let my partner know I was mad

8. Was less affectionate toward my partner

9. Physically pulled away from my partner

Rival contact

1. Confronted the ex-partner

2. Discussed issues with the ex-partner

3. Talked to the ex-partner

Rival derogation

1. Made negative comments about my partner’s ex

2. Said mean things about my partner’s ex

3. Pointed out the ex-partner’s bad qualities

4. Called the ex-partner names

5. Tried to convince my partner that their ex is no good

Violent communication

1. Used physical force with my partner

2. Became physically violent

3. Pushed, shoved, or hit my partner

4. Threatened to harm my partner

5. Hit or threw objects

219

Counter-jealousy induction

1. Talked about my own exes to make my partner jealous

2. Tried to make my partner feel jealous too

3. Acted like I was interested in someone else

Surveillance/information gathering

1. Tried to gather more information about my partner’s ex

2. Tried to find out what my partner was doing in the past when they weren’t with

me

3. Looked through my partner’s belongings for evidence of their past relationships

Signs of possession

1. Made sure the exes knew my partner is “taken”

2. Let exes know that my partner and I are in a relationship

Compensatory restoration

1. Spent more time with my partner than usual

2. Tried to be the “best” partner possible

3. Tried to show my partner that I love her/him

4. Told my partner how much I care for her/him

5. Told my partner how much she or he means to me

6. Increased affection toward my partner

Integrative communication

1. Tried to talk to my partner to reach an understanding

2. Discussed the situation with my partner

220

3. Calmly questioned my partner

4. Explained my feelings to my partner

5. Shared my jealous feelings with my partner

Silence

1. Became silent

2. Got quiet and didn’t say much

3. Stopped talking

Denial

1. Pretended nothing was wrong

2. Acted like I wasn’t jealous

3. Denied feeling jealous

Response options: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = seldom, 4 = occasionally, 5 = often, 6 = very often, 7 = always or almost always

Mediated Communicative Responses to Jealousy

We would like to learn a little more about how you respond to feeling upset by a partner’s past romantic or sexual experiences. Please indicate whether you have done the following behaviors via mediated forms of communication (i.e., you used technology such as social networking sites, phone calls, video chatting, email, or texting and did

NOT do these behaviors face-to-face) when you experienced jealousy concerning your partner’s past. Please be as honest as possible when answering the statements.

When I felt jealous in response to my partner’s past, I…

221

[Randomized]

Negative Communication

1. Made hurtful or mean comments to my partner via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Gave my partner cold or dirty looks via pictures of my own face, emoticons, or

emojis

3. Acted rude toward my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

4. Quarreled or argued with my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

5. Gave my partner the “silent treatment” by ignoring his or her messages, emails,

posts, or calls

6. Blocked my partner’s calls, texts, emails, or social media profile

7. Let my partner know I was upset via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

8. Let my partner know I was mad via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

9. Was less affectionate toward my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

Rival Contact

1. Confronted the ex-partner via mediated communication (e.g., social media, phone

calls, texting, email)

222

2. Discussed issues with the ex-partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Talked to or messaged the ex-partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

Rival Derogation

1. Made negative comments about my partner’s ex via mediated communication

(e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Said mean things about my partner’s ex via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Pointed out the ex-partner’s bad qualities via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

4. Called the ex-partner names via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

5. Tried to convince my partner that their ex is no good via mediated communication

(e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

Violent Communication

1. Threatened to harm my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

Counter-jealousy Induction

1. Talked, messaged, or posted about my own exes to make my partner jealous via

mediated communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Tried to make my partner feel jealous too via mediated communication (e.g.,

223

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Acted like I was interested in someone else via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

Surveillance/Information Gathering

1. Tried to gather more information about my partner’s ex via mediated

communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Tried to find out what my partner was doing in the past when they weren’t with

me via mediated communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Looked through my partner’s online information or profiles for evidence of their

past relationships via mediated communication (e.g., social media, phone calls,

texting, email)

Signs of Possession

1. Made sure the exes knew my partner is “taken” via mediated communication

(e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Let exes know that my partner and I are in a relationship via mediated

communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

Compensatory Restoration

1. Spent more time talking to or messaging my partner than usual via mediated

communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Tried to be the “best” partner possible via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Tried to show my partner that I love her/him via mediated communication (e.g.,

224

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

4. Told my partner how much I care for her/him via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

5. Told my partner how much she or he means to me via mediated communication

(e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

6. Increased affection toward my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

Integrative Communication

1. Tried to talk to or message my partner to reach an understanding via mediated

communication (e.g., social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Discussed the situation with my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Calmly questioned my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

4. Explained my feelings to my partner via mediated communication (e.g., social

media, phone calls, texting, email)

5. Shared my jealous feelings with my partner via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

Silence

1. Became quiet or did not respond to messages via mediated communication (e.g.,

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

2. Stopped sending messages, talking, or posting via mediated communication (e.g.,

225

social media, phone calls, texting, email)

3. Got rid of or turned off communication technologies to go silent

Denial

1. Pretended nothing was wrong via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

2. Acted like I wasn’t jealous via mediated communication (e.g., social media,

phone calls, texting, email)

3. Denied feeling jealous via mediated communication (e.g., social media, phone

calls, texting, email)

Response options: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = seldom, 4 = occasionally, 5 = often, 6 = very often, 7 = always or almost always

Types of Technology

How often did you use the following types of communication technology for the responses you indicated above?

[Randomized with the exception of “other,” which was left as the last question]

1. Voice calls via my cell phone

2. Voice calls via my landline phone

3. Voice calls via the Internet

4. Text messages

5. Email

6. Videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, FaceTime)

7. Instagram 226

8. Facebook

9. Twitter

10. Snapchat

11. Other: ______

Response options: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = seldom, 4 = occasionally, 5 = often, 6 = very often, 7 = always or almost always, 8 = I did not respond to jealousy via communication technology in any way.

Meaning Maintenance Strategies

We are interested in learning more about what happens when you experience retroactive jealousy. Specifically, we are interested whether you are motivated to do certain things when you are upset about your partner’s past.

When I feel jealous in response to my partner’s past, I try to…

[Randomized]

Affirmation

1. Reinterpret information about the ex-partner so that it no longer upsets me

2. Reappraise information about the ex-relationship so that it no longer upsets me

3. Think about my partner’s romantic or sexual past in a new way

4. Try to understand how my partner’s past fits in with my expectations for the

relationship

Accommodation

1. Change my beliefs about my relationship

227

2. Change my expectations for my relationship

3. Change my understanding of relationships

Assimilation

1. Focus on other things I value outside of my relationship

2. Think about other things that are important to me besides my relationship

3. Concentrate on other things I believe in that are unrelated to my relationship

Response options: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4

= neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree

Relationship and Demographic Items

What is your current relationship status? (Choose one).

a) Single, not dating

b) Single, dating, but nothing serious

c) Single, dating someone, potentially serious but not exclusive

d) In an exclusive dating relationship with one person (you have a

boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other)

e) In an exclusive/closed polyamorous relationship

f) In an open relationship

g) Engaged

h) Domestic Partnership

i) Married/Civil union

j) Separated

k) Other: ______

228

If you are currently in a romantic relationship, how long have you been in that relationship (in years and months)? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, please type “0” for both years and months.

[open-ended response] years and [open-ended response] months

Age

[open-ended response]

Gender identity (Check all that apply)

a) Man

Woman

b) Transgender

c) Genderqueer, genderfluid, or nonbinary

d) Other: ______

What is your nationality? (e.g., American, Canadian, Brazilian, Chinese, Ghanaian,

German, Iranian, Indian, Mexican, Thai, Turk)

[open-ended response]

Please check all terms by which you identify yourself. If you feel any terms are missing, please feel free to add your own.

229

a) Heterosexual/straight

b) Gay

c) Lesbian

d) Bisexual

e) Queer

f) Pansexual

g) Asexual

h) Polyamorous

i) Biromantic

j) Panromantic

k) Questioning

l) Other: ______

If you have any questions or comments about this survey, please enter them here:

[open-ended response]

230