scholarly journals Are There Sex Differences in Reaction to Different Types of Sexual Infidelity?

Psychology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 161-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Joel Wade ◽  
Ryan Kelley ◽  
Dominique Church
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Infidelity ◽  
Different Types

Auditory Perception of Rhyming in Kindergarten Children

1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
June D. Knafle
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Auditory Perception ◽  
Kindergarten Children ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Consonant Sounds

One hundred and eighty-nine kindergarten children were given a CVCC rhyming test which included four slightly different types of auditory differentiation. They obtained a greater number of correct scores on categories that provided maximum contrasts of final consonant sounds than they did on categories that provided less than maximum contrasts of final consonant sounds. For both sexes, significant differences were found between the categories; although the sex differences were not significant, girls made more correct rhyming responses than boys on the most difficult category.

Do Men and Women Feel Extreme Jealousy in Different Types of Relationships? Sex Differences in the Contexts of Jealousy and Envy

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad J. Sagarin ◽  
Katharine E. Seidelman ◽  
Leah Peryer ◽  
Jeremy Heider ◽  
Sherman B. Serna
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Different Types

scholarly journals The influence of a rival’s (in)fertility on jealousy and the allocation of blame following a mate’s infidelity

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryanne Fisher ◽  
Laura Robertson ◽  
Haley Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Sexual Infidelity ◽  
Emotional Infidelity ◽  
Past Work ◽  
Selective Pressures ◽  
Reproductive Capability ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Do So

Selective pressures throughout evolutionary history have caused the adaptation of sex-specific responses to dilemmas that are relevant for reproductive fitness. Sex differences in imagined jealousy due to infidelity are well documented, but past work does not consider the influence of reproductive capability (i.e., being fertile versus infertile) on responses. Relying on an online survey of 369 adults, we hypothesized that infidelities involving an infertile interloper lead to less jealousy than infidelities involving a fertile interloper. Further, for sexual infidelity, regardless of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men would allocate the most responsibility to their partner and women would do so for the interloper, given women are assumed to behave with more intention. This hypothesis was partially supported; while men did allocate the most responsibility to their mate, so too did women, but women also blamed the interloper more than men. With regards to emotional infidelity, again independent of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men will primarily hold their partner responsible. However, we hypothesized that women will again consider the interloper responsible, but also their partner, due to concerns over fear of losing access to needed resources. This prediction was partially supported, as both sexes primarily hold their partner most responsible, and women held the interloper more accountable than did men. The findings shed light onto how individuals assess relationship threats and allocate responsibility, according to reproductive capability.

scholarly journals Heterosexual couples and homosexual rivals: Sex differences in romantic jealousy when the rival is the same sex as your partner

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Voracek ◽  
Jeff Ward ◽  
Phoebe Proudfoot
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Heterosexual Men ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Sexual Infidelity ◽  
Testing Strategy ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Romantic Jealousy ◽  
Sexual Jealousy ◽  
Heterosexual Women

Research testing hypotheses derived from evolutionary psychology about sex differences in romantic jealousy has been hampered by a confirmationist hypothesis testing strategy. We report three studies conducted in Austria and Australia that employ a conditional hypothesis testing strategy to investigate variations in sex differences in jealousy under different relationship conditions, namely opposite-sex and same-sex infidelity among heterosexual individuals. In Study 1, heterosexual women found a same-sex sexual infidelity more aversive than heterosexual men did, and this difference persisted after adjusting for other likely predictors of this difference. In Studies 2 and 3, enhanced sexual jealousy in heterosexual men was not observed when the rival was the same sex as his partner. This effect was reversed for women, who were more distressed by sexual versus emotional infidelity when the rival was the same sex as her partner. An explanation for this set of findings, based on sex differences in sexual and attachment motivation, is proposed.

Exploration of the Benefits of an Activity-Specific Test of Temperament

2009 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 643-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina N. Trofimova
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Specific Test ◽  
Specific Approach ◽  
General Arousal ◽  
Verbal Activity ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Assessment Activity ◽  
Strength Of Excitation

The Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) was proposed by Rusalov in 1989 and subsequently tested in five languages. The questionnaire assesses four temperamental traits (Ergonicity, Plasticity, Tempo, and Emotionality) in three separate areas of activity: physical, verbal-social, and intellectual. The scales are all activity-specific. In 775 Canadian subjects, two temperament tests were compared, both developed on the basis of Pavlovian studies of the nervous system: the activity-specific approach (STQ) and the nonspecific Pavlovian Temperamental Survey (PTS). More significant sex differences were found on activity-specific scales of the STQ than on the nonspecific PTS scales. The pattern of correlations between the STQ scales and the time taken on an experimental task requiring a prolonged and intense word-assessment activity showed stronger correlations with the specific scales of the STQ measuring the dynamic aspects of social-verbal activity, and not with the PTS Strength of Excitation scale, which is based on a “general arousal” concept. The results supported the separation of temperament traits related to three different types of activities and opposed to “general arousal” theories of temperament.

Sex Differences in Jealousy in Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective: Tests From the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States

1996 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 359-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram P. Buunk ◽  
Alois Angleitner ◽  
Viktor Oubaid ◽  
David M. Buss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sexual Infidelity ◽  
Cultural Perspective ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Emotional Infidelity ◽  
Sexual Jealousy

As predicted by models derived from evolutionary psychology, men within the United States have been shown to exhibit greater psychological and physiological distress to sexual than to emotional infidelity of their partner, and women have been shown to exhibit more distress to emotional than to sexual infidelity Because cross-cultural tests are critical for evolutionary hypotheses, we examined these sex differences in three parallel studies conducted in the Netherlands (N = 207), Germany (N = 200), and the United States (N = 224) Two key findings emerged First, the sex differences in sexual jealousy are robust across these cultures, providing support for the evolutionary psychological model Second, the magnitude of the sex differences varies somewhat across cultures—large for the United States, medium for Germany and the Netherlands Discussion focuses on the evolutionary psychology of jealousy and on the sensitivity of sex differences in the sexual sphere to cultural input

Sex Differences in Detecting Sexual Infidelity

Human Nature ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul W. Andrews ◽  
Steven W. Gangestad ◽  
Geoffrey F. Miller ◽  
Martie G. Haselton ◽  
Randy Thornhill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Infidelity

Sex differences in validity for academic and employment criteria, and different types of predictors.

1978 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Schmitt ◽  
Phyllis M. Mellon ◽  
Carol Bylenga
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Different Types
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document