See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7566354

The evolution of jealousy

Article in Trends in Cognitive Sciences · December 2005

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.006 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
171 7,043

2 authors:

David M Buss Martie G Haselton

University of Texas at Austin University of California, Los Angeles
407 PUBLICATIONS 52,510 CITATIONS 113 PUBLICATIONS 10,166 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David M Buss on 28 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Update TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.xx No.xx Month2005

Letters

The evolution of jealousy

David M. Buss1 and Martie Haselton2
1
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
2
Communication Studies and Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Two decades ago, mainstream psychologists explained probability is compromised by a partner’s sexual infidelity
jealousy as a pathology, social construction, or by-product – men increase jealous mate-guarding [8].
of capitalist society, manifested identically in men and Cognitively, relative to women, (viii) men preferentially
women [1]. Evolutionary psychologists, in contrast, process, and (ix) show greater memory recall of cues to
hypothesized that jealousy is an evolved adaptation, sexual infidelity [9]. Relative to men, (x) women preferen-
activated by threats to a valuable relationship, function- tially process, and (xi) show greater memory recall of, cues
ing to protect it from partial or total loss [2–4]. Because the to emotional infidelity [9]. Upon discovery of infidelity,
reproductive consequences of infidelity and partner loss relative to women, (xii) men will find it more difficult to
are parallel for men and women in some respects, and forgive a sexual infidelity than an emotional infidelity, and
asymmetric in others, the sexes were predicted to have (xiii) will be more likely to terminate a current relation-
similar psychologies in some respects, and different ship following a partner’s sexual infidelity than an
psychologies where their adaptive problems recurrently emotional infidelity [10].
diverged. This program initially focused on a few core Both in his article [11] and book, with 45 pages devoted to
design features of jealousy, but has since expanded to jealousy, Buller ignores 11 of the 13 hypothesized sex-
study many more. differentiated design features. He rejects the hypothesis
Sexual similarities include the following. Jealousy (i) is that jealousy is an adaptation with sex-differentiated design
an emotion designed to alert an individual to threats to a features by attempting to discredit two of them (i and ii).
valued relationship, (ii) is activated by the presence of Egregiously, he misrepresents even these. He claims that
interested and more desirable intrasexual rivals, and (iii) the theory predicts that men ‘respond primarily to cues of
functions, in part, as a motivational mechanism with sexual infidelity’ and women ‘primarily to cues of emotional
behavioral output designed to deter ‘the dual specters of involvement’. Unfaithfulness is linked, of course, to a variety
infidelity and abandonment’ ([1], p. 35). (iv) ‘[B]oth sexes of fitness consequences, including paternity uncertainty (for
are hypothesized to become distressed over sexual and men) and the total loss of a valuable partner. Whether these
emotional infidelity’ because both forms of infidelity consequences follow depends on many factors. Thus, Buss et
provide important cues to the loss of reproductively al. [4,5] were careful to state the prediction not in terms of
valuable resources ([4], p. 251). When there is a absolute levels of jealousy, which are affected by many
discrepancy in mate value, (v) the lower-value partner factors external to the hypothesis, but rather in sex
will experience more intense jealousy [1]. differences in sensitivities to different forms of infidelity
There are at least 13 distinct hypothesized sex- [4,5]. All the cross-cultural evidence Buller cites actually
differentiated design features, and 13 out of 13 have supports the properly-framed original hypotheses of sex
been confirmed empirically. Men and women differ differences, although not Buller’s mischaracterized
psychologically in the weighting given to sexual and versions.
emotional cues that trigger jealousy, such that (i) men A scientific evaluation of evolutionary hypotheses
more than women become upset at signals of sexual about jealousy requires an accurate characterization of
infidelity, which portend both paternity uncertainty and the many hypothesized design features and a proper
loss of reproductive resources to a rival; and (ii) women review of the large body of empirical findings pertinent to
more than men become upset at signals of a partner’s each. Buller’s article and book fail on both counts. Buller’s
emotional infidelity, which threaten a loss of commitment distorted depictions of others’ hypotheses, and his failure
and resources to a rival [1,5]. to inform readers about numerous studies that contradict
When jealousy is activated by interlopers, (iii) women his claims, do not advance the science of the mind.
become especially distressed by threats from physically
attractive rivals, whereas (iv) men become especially
distressed by rivals with more resources [6]. Within References
1 Buss, D. (2000) The Dangerous Passion, The Free Press
committed mateships (v) men paired with physically 2 Symons, D. (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Oxford
attractive women exhibit elevated jealous mate-guarding, University Press
whereas (vi) women paired with more resource-endowed 3 Daly, M. et al. (1982) Male sexual jealousy. Ethol. Sociobiol. 3, 11–27
men exhibit more jealous mate-guarding [7]. (vii) Near 4 Buss et al. (1992) Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology,
ovulation – the critical window in which a man’s paternity and psychology. Psychol. Sci. 3, 251–255
5 Buss, D.M. et al. (1999) Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about
Corresponding author: Buss, D.M. (dbuss@psy.utexas.edu). infidelity: tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the
United States, Korea, and Japan. Pers. Relat. 6, 125–150
www.sciencedirect.com 1364-6613/$ - see front matter Q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.006
 DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 Update TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.xx No.xx Month2005

6 Buss, D.M. et al. (2000) Distress about rivals: reactions to intrasexual 9 Schützwohl, A. and Koch, S. (2004) Sex differences in jealousy: the
competitors in Korea, the Netherlands, and America. Pers. Relat. 7, recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and
235–243 less threatening contexts. Evol. Hum. Beh. 25, 249–257
7 Buss, D.M. and Shackelford, T.K. (1997) From vigilance to violence: mate 10 Shackelford, T.K. et al. (2002) Forgiveness or breakup: sex
retention tactics in married couples. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72, 346–361 differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Cogn. Emot. 16,
8 Gangestad, S.W. et al. (2002) Changes in women’s sexual interest and 299–307
their partner’s mate retention tactics across the menstrual cycle. Proc. 11 Buller, D.J. (2005) Evolutionary psychology: the emperor’s new
R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269, 975–982 paradigm. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 277–283

www.sciencedirect.com

View publication stats