Evolutionary Psychology PDF Chapter 11 - Jealousy

PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING 322 Table 11.1 (Continued) Study Sex Diference Source Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Yes Buss et al. (1992) Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Sexual v. emotional: s...

PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING 322 Table 11.1 (Continued) Study Sex Diference Source Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Yes Buss et al. (1992) Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Physiological distress to sexual v. emotional infdelity Sexual v. emotional: sample who had experienced infdelity No Harris (2000) Yes Difculty in forgiving sexual v. emotional infdelity Likelihood of terminating relationship afer sexual v. emotional infdelity Memorial recall of sexual v. emotional cues to infdelity Information search for cues to sexual v. emotional infdelity Cognitive preoccupation with sexual v. emotional cues Decision time to sexual v. emotional infdelity Sibling’s partner’s sexual v. emotional infdelity Child’s partner’s sexual v. emotional infdelity Diferent patterns of brain activation (fMRI) during imagery of sexual v. emotional infdelity Yes Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens, and Thompson (2002) Strout, Laird, Shafer, and Thompson (2005); Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, and Sagarin (2006) Shackelford, Buss, and Bennett (2002) Yes Shackelford et al. (2002) Yes Schützwohl and Koch (2004) Yes Schützwohl (2006) Yes Schützwohl (2006) Yes Schützwohl (2004) Yes Michalski, Shackelford, and Salmon (2007) Yes Fenigstein and Peltz (2002); Shackelford, Michalski, and Schmitt (2004) Takahashi et al. (2006) Yes Yes Note: See text for more details on particular studies. when comparing bisexual men with bisexual women; nor was there a gender diference when comparing gay men and lesbian women—roughly 27 to 34 percent of each of these groups reported more upset about a partner’s sexual infdelity. In sum, the gender diference predicted by the evolutionary hypothesis is robustly supported across methods, across cultures, and in largescale studies, but only with heterosexual individuals. The sex diferences remain robust when participants are asked “which aspect” of the infdelity would be most distressing when both a sexual infdelity and an emotional infdelity have occurred. The sex diferences in physiological distress have been replicated by most, although not all, researchers (see Sagarin, 2005, for a summary). The sex diferences become even more pronounced among those who have experienced an actual infdelity in their lives and when participants undergo a procedure that requires them to vividly imagine the experience of infdelity. Men, compared to women, have more difculty forgiving a sexual than an emotional infdelity and indicate a greater likelihood of terminating a relationship following a sexual than an emotional infdelity. Cognitively, men, compared to women, show greater memorial recall of cues to sexual than to emotional infdelity; preferentially search for cues to sexual rather than to emotional infdelity; involuntarily focus attention on cues to sexual rather than to emotional infdelity; and show faster decision times to cues to sexual than to emotional infdelity. In terms of forgiving a 11 CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SEXES partner for having an afair, a study of 225 women in Mozambique, Africa, found that women are more likely to forgive a husband for cheating if it was purely a sexual infdelity, without any accompanying emotional involvement (Cruz, 2018). A study of brain activation, using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) brain scans during imagery of sexual and emotional infdelity, found striking sex diferences (Takahashi et al., 2006). Men show far greater activation than women in the amygdala and hypothalamus—brain regions involved in sexuality and aggression. Women, in contrast, showed greater activation than men in the posterior superior sulcus—a brain region involved in the process of mind reading, such as inferring a partner’s future intentions. These fndings are precisely what we would expect if male and female jealousy adaptations were designed to solve somewhat diferent adaptive problems. The authors conclude that “Our fMRI results are in favor of the notion that men and women have diferent neuropsychological modules to process sexual and emotional infdelity” (Takahashi et al., 2006, p. 1299). In sum, the sex diferences in jealousy remain robust across cultures and across a wide range of methods, including psychological dilemmas, physiological recordings, cognitive experiments, and fMRI recordings of brain activation. Several other sex-diferentiated design features of the jealousy adaptation have been documented. Men’s jealousy is especially attuned to rivals who have status and resources; women’s jealousy is especially attuned to rivals who are physically attractive (Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijkstra, 2000; Fussell & Stollery, 2012) or in the fertile phase of their ovulation cycle (Hurst, Alquist, & Puts, 2017). One man said, “The thought of my ex having sex with another was excruciating . . . I would stay awake with this thought going through my head, could feel my temperature rise to boiling point” (Fussell & Stollery, 2012, p. 155). One woman said “. . . with girls, if they are pretty, or if he says they are pretty, I don’t like it at all” (Fussell & Stollery, 2012, pp. 156–157). Interestingly, these sex diferences in upset over attributes of rivals—women’s anger at rival’s attractiveness and men’s anger at rival’s status and resources—show up even in women and men diagnosed as having “pathological” jealousy (Easton, Schipper, & Shackelford, 2007). Men more than women display an “infdelity overperception bias” in overestimating their partner’s likelihood of sexual infdelity (Andrews et al., 2008; Goetz & Causey, 2009). This is likely another instance of an error management bias, given that the costs of underestimating the likelihood of a partner’s sexual infdelity would be worse in ftness currencies than the costs of overestimating it. Finally, among women and men who are high on chronic jealousy, worrying a lot about relationship threats, the sex diferences in response to sexual versus emotional infdelity are especially large (Miller & Maner, 2009). From Vigilance to Violence: Tactics of Mate Retention Psychological mechanisms can evolve only if they produce behavioral output that actually solves the adaptive problem. In the case of jealousy, the behavioral output would have to (1) deter mate poachers, (2) deter a partner from committing infdelity, or (3) lower the odds that the partner will leave the relationship. The behavioral output of jealousy in the form of mate-retention acts and tactics ranges from vigilance to violence (Buss, 1988c). Table 11.2 shows a sample of these acts. Sex Diferences in the Use of Mate-Retention Tactics The results of these studies revealed that men were more likely than women to use several tactics of mate retention. Men are more likely to conceal a partner, such as not taking her to a party where other men are present or insisting that she spend all of her free time with him. Men are also more likely to resort to threats and violence, 323 PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING 324 especially against rivals, such as threatening to hit a man who was making moves on his partner or picking a fght with a man interested in her. Men are more likely to use resource display, buying the partner jewelry, giving her gifs, and taking her out to expensive restaurants. Interestingly, and not predicted, was the fnding that men in both dating and married couples tended to use acts of submission and self-abasement more than women. For example, more men than women reported groveling and saying that they would do anything their partner wanted to get the partner to stay in the relationship. Table 11.2 Sample Tactics and Acts of Mate Retention. Tactics of mate retention range from vigilance to violence. These are used to keep a mate and fend of intrasexual rivals. Sample Tactics acts of Mate Retention Vigilance 1. He called her at unexpected times to see who she was with. 2. He called her to make sure she was where she said she would be. 1. He did not take her to the party where other men would be present. 2. He did not let her talk to other men. 1. He insisted that she spend all of her free time with him. 2. He would not let her go out without him. 1. He talked to another woman at the party to make her jealous. 2. He showed interest in other women to make her jealous. 1. He threatened to harm himself if she ever lef him. 2. He made her feel guilty about talking with other men. 1. He told her that the other guy was stupid. 2. He cut down the other guy’s strength. 1. He spent a lot of money on her. 2. He bought her an expensive gif. 1. He told her that he loved her. 2. He was helpful when she really needed it. 1. He told her that he would change in order to please her. 2. He became a “slave” to her. 1. He held her closer when another man walked into the room. 2. He put his arm around her in front of others. 1. He stared coldly at the other guy who was looking at her. 2. He threatened to hit the guy who was making moves on her. 1. He yelled at her afer she showed an interest in another man. 2. He hit her when he caught her firting with someone else. 1. He hit the guy who made a pass at her. 2. He got his friends to beat up the guy who had made a pass at her. Concealment of Mate Monopolize Mate’s Time Jealousy Induction emotional Manipulation Derogation of Competitors Resource Display love and Care Submission and Self-abasement Physical Signals of Possession Intrasexual Threats Violence toward Partner Violence toward Rivals Source: Buss, D. M. (1996, June). Mate retention in married couples. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society. Evanston, Illinois. See Buss et al., 2008, for the short form of the mate-retention inventory. 11 CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SEXES Women performed some acts of mate retention more than men. As predicted, women tended to enhance their appearance as a tactic of mate retention—making up their faces, wearing the latest fashions, and making themselves “extra attractive” for their mates. Women also tended to induce jealousy in their partners by firting with other men in front of them, showing interest in other men to make their partners angry, and talking with other men to make their partners jealous. One study identifed a key context in which women intentionally elicit jealousy. It examined discrepancies between a man’s and a woman’s admitted involvement in a relationship. These discrepancies in how involved each partner admits to being usually signal diferences in the desirability of the partners; the less involved person is generally more desirable (Buss, 2000a). Although women admit to inducing jealousy overall more than men, not all women use this tactic. Whereas 50 percent of the women who view themselves as more involved than their partners in the relationship intentionally provoke jealousy, only 26 percent of the women who are equally or less involved resort to provoking jealousy (White, 1980). Women report that they are motivated to elicit jealousy to increase the closeness of their relationship, to test the strength of their relationship, to fnd out whether their partner still cares, and to motivate their partner to be more possessive of them. Discrepancies between partners in desirability cause women to provoke jealousy as a tactic to gain information about and to increase a partner’s level of commitment. The intentional evocation of jealousy by both sexes has also been linked to obtaining reassurance about commitment and might be linked to the longterm stability of the relationship (Sheets, Fredendall, & Claypool, 1997). In sum, men are more likely than women to conceal their mates, display resources to their mates, submit to their mates, and use violence against rivals as tactics to prevent their mates from getting involved with other men. Women are more likely than men to enhance appearance, fulflling an evolved desire that men have for physically attractive partners. Women are also more likely to induce jealousy in their partners—perhaps as a strategy of indicating to their partners that they have other mating possibilities and thus communicating information about their desirability. Contexts Infuencing the Intensity of Mate-Retention Tactics Jealousy and its behavioral output in the form of mate retention are predicted to be highly sensitive to certain features of the relationship. Evolutionary psychologists have tested a series of context-specifc hypotheses, including: (1) youthfulness and physical attractiveness of the wife will be positively linked with men’s mate-guarding tactics; (2) men, particularly those low on good genes indicators of mate value, will increase their mate-retention eforts when their partners are ovulating; and (3) high income and status striving of the husband will be linked with higher levels of mate-retention tactics performed by women. Reproductive Value of the Wife: Efects of Age and Physical Attractiveness As was discussed in Chapter 5, two powerful cues to a woman’s reproductive value and fertility are her youth and physical attractiveness—qualities that are known to be highly desirable to men across cultures. Men married to women of higher reproductive value—those who are younger and more physically attractive—were hypothesized to devote more efort to mate guarding than men married to women of lower reproductive value. To test this hypothesis, men’s mate-retention eforts were correlated with the ages and physical attractiveness of their wives. A sample of these results is shown in Figure 11.5. Men married to younger women reported devoting greater efort to the adaptive problem of mate retention. Further, they reported greater partner concealment, emotional manipulation, 325 PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING 326 Figure 11.5 Mate Retention as a Function of Age of Spouse Source: Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997c). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361. The fgure shows that men married to younger women devote more efort to mate retention than do men married to older women, even afer controlling for men’s own age and the length of the relationship. (A) shows the correlation between the intensity of mate retention and the age of spouse. (B) shows the correlation between the intensity of mate retention afer controlling for own age and the length of the relationship. verbal signals of possession (e.g., indicating that the woman was “my wife”), possessive ornamentation (e.g., insisting that she wear his ring), intrasexual threats, and violence against rival men than did men with older wives. Graham-Kevan and Archer (2009) found similar results using a somewhat diferent measure of fertility—men mated to fertile women used more economic, threatening, and intimidating forms of controlling behavior, as well as isolating them from social contact with others. These results held even after statistically controlling for other variables, such as the length of the relationship and the age of the husband. Men’s mate-retention tactics are also linked with perceptions of their partner’s physical attractiveness. Men married to women they perceived to be physically attractive reported greater resource display, appearance enhancement, verbal signals of possession, and intrasexual threats than did men married to women they perceived to be less physically attractive. Interestingly, another study revealed that women who perceive themselves as more attractive than their partner are particularly resistant to their partner’s mate-guarding eforts—they avoid their partner’s public displays of afection (e.g. “I wouldn’t let my partner put his arm around me in public”) and use covert tactics such as erasing text messages or emails they did not want their partner to see (Fugère, Cousins, & MacLaren, 2015). These attractive women also reported more firting with other men and had more frequent thoughts of breaking up with their current partner. Indeed, physically attractive individuals do experience breakups more often and have relationships of shorter duration (Ma-Kellams, Wang, & Cardiel, 2017). These skirmishes between men’s attempt to mate guard and women’s tactics for resisting mate guarding highlight a key dimension of sexual confict within ongoing relationships. Ovulation Status of the Woman A man’s risk of being genetically cuckolded falls most heavily when his partner is ovulating. Consequently, evolutionary psychologists predicted that men will increase their mate-retention eforts at precisely this time in their partner’s menstrual cycle. Several studies, using women’s reports of their partner’s mate-retention eforts, have shown this efect (Gangestad et al., 2005; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006). Furthermore, women who are mated to men low on good genes indicators, such as sexual attractiveness, had partners who were especially keen on mate-retention eforts when the women were ovulating, showering them with more love and attention at this time. These fndings reveal a fundamental confict between the sexes—men mate guard their partners most vigorously at precisely the time when the man is at the greatest risk of genetic cuckoldry. 11 CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SEXES 327 Income and Status Striving of the Husband Women’s mate-retention tactics, in contrast to those of men, were not hypothesized to be a function of the husband’s age or physical attractiveness, and indeed they were not. Women’s eforts at mate retention, however, were hypothesized to be linked with the value of their mates on the dimensions of income and status striving—the degree to which the husband devotes his eforts to getting ahead in the status and work hierarchy (Buss & Shackelford, 1997c). These are sex-linked components of mate value that women across cultures desire in long-term mates (see Chapter 4). To test this hypothesis, Buss and Shackelford (1997c) correlated mate-retention tactics with the partner’s income and with four measures of status striving. These measures include the degree to which a person uses deception or manipulation to get ahead, industriousness and hard work, social networking, and ingratiating oneself with superiors. Women married to men with higher incomes reported greater vigilance, violence toward partner, appearance enhancement, possessive ornamentation, and submission and self-abasement. Women married to men who devoted more efort to status striving reported signifcantly more emotional manipulation, resource display, appearance enhancement, verbal signals of possession, and possessive ornamentation than women married to men who were low on status striving. These correlations remained signifcant even after statistically controlling for other factors, such as the ages of the spouses and the length of their relationship. A sample of these fndings is shown in Figure 11.6. All of these sex diferences in predictors of mate-retention efort persist at least from the newlywed year to the fourth year of marriage (Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Buss, 2010). Individuals within each sex also difer in the nature of their mate-retention tactics. Men who are taller, indicating higher mate value, perform fewer mate-retention tactics (Brewer & Riley, 2009). Men high in mate value (e.g., as gauged by high economic prospects) also perform more beneft-bestowing mate-retention tactics (Miner, Shackelford, & Starratt, 2009; Miner, Starratt, & Shackelford, 2009). Men lower in mate value use more cost-inficting mate-retention tactics (e.g., insulting their partners to lower their self-esteem), perhaps because they lack the resources to bestow benefts. Those high on the Dark Triad of personality traits—narcissism, Figure 11.6 Mate Retention and Spouse’s Status Striving Source: Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997c). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361. The fgure shows that women married to men high in status striving devote more efort to mate retention than do women married to men lower in status striving. The efects of women’s status striving on men’s mate-retention eforts are smaller and do not reach statistical signifcance.