Sex Differences and Partner Responses to Infidelity

Sex Differences and Partner Responses to Infidelity Identifying Sex Differences in Response to Sexual and Emotional Infidelity in the Context of Current Relationship Status Abstract The present study seeks to determine the role the sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity in the context of current relationship status. The data was collected from 400 students undertaking social psychology at a Melbourne University using a self-reporting method. Results indicated a statistical significance association between sex and infidelity based on the scenario presented and choices made by male and female respondents. Male was found to report being more upset by sexual infidelity while females upset by emotional infidelity. Overall, the findings were in support of evolution theory depicting men infidelity jealousy is driven by sexual motivation while female infidelity jealousy due to attachment.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

2

Evolutionary psychologists’ points out that male and female faces different challenges concerning reproduction compatibility in a relationship that leads to jealousy. According to Bringle & Buunk (1986), jealousy is defined as dislike feelings from a partner due to the perceived or real interference of their valued relationship by a third person, while White (1981) views romantic jealousy as confusion in one's thoughts and actions triggered by fears of losing a partner. This jealousy, brought to light by the threat to a fulfilling relationship, have different dimension but of interest to the current study is sexual and emotional jealousy. Evolutionary psychologists’ postulates that romantic jealousy emanates from adaptation geared to safeguard mates’ interest in the relationship (Buss, 2013). In this light, the evolution theory expects sexes to differ in these domains due to their different adaptive problems (Buss, 1995; Symons, 1979).

This is viewed regarding men focusing on paternity problem and hence committing to raise their kids and women need further investment.

Evolution theory postulates that female fertilization poses a paternity uncertainty that is a problem to a male. This nature of intrigue had been viewed by psychologists to activate men concern to sexual infidelity that poses a risk to a good relationship. This is different when it comes to women who are interested in making sure their partner commit the available resources, time and energy to their relationship rather than to another woman relationship thus leading to jealousy activated by emotional infidelity (Buss & Haselton, 2005). This has been tested using forced choice questions that showed that men and women differ in their responses to emotional and sexual infidelity (Buss et al., 1992, 1999). The male concerns of paternity lead to not compromising partner’s sexual intercourse with another man to guarantee man raising his kids and hence sexual infidelity not tolerated (Nannini & Myers, 2000; Sheets & Wolfe, 2001). This is also true with regards to a female who seek the best for their offspring’s and hence the need of

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

3

assistance from their father can result to intolerance to emotional infidelity as a perceived threat of being abandoned by partner leaves the offspring’s exposed to inadequate resources (Buss et al., 1992). The double shot theory, though a competing theory, is supported by the premise that there can’t exist one form of infidelity without the presence of the other (Harris & Christenfeld, 1996). The theory suggests that both sexes are equally affected by sexual and emotional infidelity in equal measure.

Carpenter (2012) findings supported the evolutionary hypothesis with regards to the sex difference in infidelity responses. The study ascertained the claims that men and women differ in the degree to which type of infidelity they find most upsetting. Men had been portrayed to be upset more by sexual infidelity compared to emotional infidelity, while the majority of women are upset by emotional infidelity more than sexual infidelity (Bendixen et al., 2015) It’s worth to note that apart from sex, other variables like current relationship status can play a key role in responses to sexual and emotional infidelity. Though studies investigating the role of relationship status have resulted in mixed results (Murphy, Vallacher, Shackelford, Bjorkland, & Yunger, 2006; Voracek, 2001), Voracek (2001) study’s showed relationship status was significant in explaining the observed sex differences in jealousy, as it depicts men in an unmarried relationship finds sexual infidelity more upsetting than women in the same group.

The present study aimed to investigate whether males and females differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting. In light of this, the study aim to investigate whether males and females currently in a relationship differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting with males and females not currently in a relationship.

The present study sought an answer to whether males and females differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting? Do males and females currently in a

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

4

relationship differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting? Do males and females not currently in a relationship differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting?

The following hypothesis guided the study. H1. Larger proportions of males than females find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. H2: Larger proportions of males than females in an unmarried relationship find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. H2: There are equal proportions of males and females in no relationship that find sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity upsetting when faced with infidelity dilemmas.

Method Design A 2 (participant sex: male vs. female) x 2 (relationship status: currently in a relationship vs. not in a relationship) experimental design was used for this study. The dependent variable was the type of infidelity the respondents thought was most upsetting. The participants were provided with two scenarios of emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity and asked to choose which was most upsetting. The independent variables were sex and relationship status each with two levels. Hence, a between subject design since every participant was either male or female and in a relationship or not in a relationship was appropriate. It is worth noting that a less than 1% of participants selected ‘others’ but was not included as an additional level within the variable sex for the current study.

Participants Four hundred students undertaking social psychology at Swinburne University, both on campus and online, participated in the current study. The age of participants ranged from 18 to

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

5

64 years, with male age as (M =29.15 years, SD = 11.16 years) and female age as (M =30.53 years, SD = 11.07 years). The participants were selected randomly from a database of over 1000 participants whose responses were collected over the years. Selected participants included only those who indicated a heterosexual orientation as the study was based on evolution theory that supports heterosexual people.

Measure A self-report survey was used to capture the participant’s responses on how they would feel if their relationship partner had an emotional or sexual encounter with someone else. The participants were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios describing an act of infidelity. The questions and scenarios were meant to determine whether males and females differ in the type of infidelity they find most upsetting, whether currently in a relationship or not currently in a relationship.

Procedures During tutorial as a class exercise, the questionnaire was administered on a computer via Qualtrics survey platform. Participants received instructions to access the study link. They received a brief description of the study, and upon offering informed consent, participants viewed the sexual and emotional jealousy scenarios in a counterbalanced manner and offered continuous ratings of their responses independently to the scenarios immediately after the presentation of each scenario. Upon completion, participants were presented with a debriefing the aims of the study.

Results

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

6

The data was analyzed, and the findings presented as shown below. Table 1 shows sex and current relationship status of the 400 participants. 46.5% of male respondents not in a relationship, while 30.0% of female respondents reported not in a relationship.

Table 1: Sex and current relationship status Crosstabulation What is your current relationship

Total

status?

What is your

Male

sex?

Not in a

Currently in a

relationship

relationship

Count

93

107

200

% within What is your sex?

46.5%

53.5%

100.0%

% within What is your current

60.8%

43.3%

50.0%

Count

60

140

200

% within What is your sex?

30.0%

70.0%

100.0%

% within What is your current

39.2%

56.7%

50.0%

Count

153

247

400

% within What is your sex?

38.3%

61.8%

100.0%

% within What is your current

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

relationship status?

Female

relationship status?

Total

relationship status?

The findings of whether males and females differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting were as shown in Table 2 below.

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

7

Table 2: Type of infidelity they find most upsetting Chi-Square Value

df

Asymptotic

Exact Sig. (2-

Exact Sig. (1-

Significance (2-

sided)

sided)

sided) Pearson Chi-Square

12.148a

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

11.444

1

.001

Likelihood Ratio

12.223

1

.001

Fisher’s Exact Test Linear-by-Linear

.001 12.1118

1

.000

.000

Association N of Valid Cases

400

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected counts is 78.00 b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

There was a significant difference as 139 (69.5%) of the male selected sexual infidelity option while 105 (52.5%) of the female selected sexual infidelity with Table 2 shows that χ2 (1, N=400) = 12.148, p<.001. This indicates a statistical significance association between sex and infidelity scenario that upset most. Men are mostly upset by sexual infidelity than women.

Table 3. Chi-Square tests currently in relationship status.

Value

df

Asymptotic

Exact Sig. (2-

Exact Sig. (1-

Significance (2-

sided)

sided)

sided)

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY Pearson Chi-Square

9.989b

1

.002

Continuity Correctionc

9.176

1

.002

Likelihood Ratio

10.162

1

.001

Fisher’s Exact Test Linear-by-Linear

8

.002 9.949

1

.001

.002

Association N of Valid Cases

247

a. What is your current relationship status? = Currently in a relationship b. 0 cells (0.00%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected counts is 42.02 c. Computed only for a 2x2 table.

Table 3 shows that χ2 (1, N=247) = 9.989, p=.002. This indicates a statistical significance association between males and females currently in a relationship and the type of infidelity they find most upsetting in that both male and female are upset differently by sexual and emotional infidelity.

Table 4. Chi-Square Tests for not in a relationship Value

df

Asymptotic

Exact Sig. (2-

Exact Sig. (1-

Significance (2-

sided)

sided)

sided) Pearson Chi-Square

2.737b

1

.098

Continuity Correctionc

2.2.3

1

.138

Likelihood Ratio

2.723

1

.099

Fisher’s Exact Test

.126

.069

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY Linear-by-Linear

9.949

1

9

.002

Association N of Valid Cases

153

a. What is your current relationship status? = Currently in a relationship b. 0 cells (0.00%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected counts are 23.14 c. Computed only for a 2x2 table.

Table 4 shows that χ2 (1, N=153) = 2.737, p=.098. This indicated that the association was not statistically significance between males and females not currently in a relationship and the type of infidelity they find most upsetting, i.e. both male and female are upset equally by sexual and emotional infidelity.

Discussion The aim of the study was to identifying sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity in the context of current relationship status. The first hypothesis was supported by the findings in that larger proportions of males than females find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. Similarly, the second hypothesis was supported by the findings that stated that larger proportions of males than females in an unmarried relationship find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. Finally, the third hypothesis that equal proportions of males and females in no relationship find sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity upsetting when faced with infidelity dilemmas was supported by the findings.

The first hypothesis was a larger proportion of males than females find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. The results for the first hypothesis showed a statistically significant association between sex and infidelity scenarios

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

10

that upset most men and women. The findings pointed out that men are mostly upset by sexual infidelity than women hence agreeing with the hypothesis postulated. This is in line with Buss et al. (1992, 1999) study’s which showed that men and women differ in their responses to emotional and sexual infidelity. The male concerns of paternity were to guarantee raising his kids and hence sexual infidelity not tolerated, and female soughed the best for their offspring’s and hence intolerance to emotional infidelity as a perceived threat by third party relationship potential to expose offspring to inadequate resources (Buss et al., 1992).

The second hypothesis was that larger proportions of males than females in an unmarried relationship find sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity when faced with infidelity dilemmas. The current study findings support this as it showed a statistical significance association between males and females currently in a relationship and the type of infidelity they find most upsetting in that both male and female are upset differently by sexual and emotional infidelity. The findings are in line with Voracek (2001) study showed relationship status was significant in explaining the observed sex differences in jealousy. Partners in healthy relationships are portrayed to be anxious about love and attachment, hence the explained worries about their partner's infidelity.

Lastly, the current study sought to investigate whether there are equal proportions of males and females in no relationship that find sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity upsetting when faced with infidelity dilemmas. The results of this study indicated the association was not statistically significance between males and females not currently in a relationship and the type of infidelity they find most upsetting, i.e. both male and female are likely to be upset equally by sexual and emotional infidelity. This was in agreement with Voracek (2001) findings although contrast from various other studies findings has resulted into mixed results (Murphy, Vallacher,

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

11

Shackelford, Bjorkland, & Yunger, 2006; Voracek, 2001). The findings are consistent with the double shot theory though a competing theory to evolution theory and supported by the premise that there can’t exist one form of infidelity without the presence of the other (Harris & Christenfeld, 1996). The theory suggests both sexual and emotional infidelity occurs in both sexes and the finding support this argument in that male and females poses both forms of infidelity.

While acknowledging the findings for the current study were in tandem with previous studies, some limitations could be pointed out. Firstly, the limitation of the student population as opposed to larger community setup which could present more complex interactions. Secondly, actual jealousy reactions were not captured based on actual infidelity acts but rate scenarios put forward and the respondent's ratings may not guarantee. Lastly, the stages of the relationship were not obvious as this could affect the magnitude of jealous observed by the participants involved and hence the need to capture the years of commitments into a relationship.

In conclusion, the current study sought to determine whether males and females differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting. The finding opined the difference existed. Secondly, with regards to whether males and females currently in a relationship differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting, the finding indicated differences. Lastly, whether males and females not currently in a relationship differ in the frequency of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting was found not to be significant. The study found that sex and current relationship influenced jealousy experienced.

The study suggests the future study to investigate the role of age and relationship commitment dynamics in explaining jealousy experienced over and above sex and relationship dimensions.

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

12

References Aberson, C. L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Amato, P., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626. doi:10.1177/0192513X03024005002 Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1986). Examining the causes and consequences of jealousy: Some recent findings and issues. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 225-240). London, UK: Academic Press Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7(6), 359-363. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1996.tb00389.x 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, 2012 - journals.sagepub.com Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2001). Gender differences in subjective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 20(4), 327-336. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1015-2 DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1103-1116. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1103

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

13

DeSteno, D., Piercarlo, V., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 626-641.

DeSteno, D. & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy?

Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367-372.

Fussell, N. J., & Stollery, B. T. (2012). Between-sex differences in romantic jealousy: Substance or spin? A qualitative analysis. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(1), 136-172. doi: 10.1177/147470491201000114 Harris, C., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psychological Science, 7, 364-366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00390.x Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social construction? Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 30(1), 24-59. doi: 10.1177/106939719603000102 Hansen, G. L. (1985). Perceived threats and marital jealousy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 262-268. doi: 10.2307/3033686 Lans, O., Mosek, A., & Yagil, Y. (2014). Romantic jealousy from the perspectives of Bowen's concept of differentiation and gender differences. The Family Journal, 22(3), 321-331. doi: 10.1177/1066480714530835 Levy, K. N. & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21(2), 168-173.

Nannini, D. K., & Myers, L. S. (2000). Jealousy in sexual and emotional infidelity: An alternative to the evolutionary explanation. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 117- 122. doi:10.1080/00224490009552028

SEX DIFFERENCES AND PARTNER RESPONSES TO INFIDELITY

14

Pines, A. M., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1), 54-71. doi: 10.1080/00224549809600353 Scherer, C. R., Akers, E. G., & Kolbe, K. L. (2013). Bisexuals and the sex differences in jealousy hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1064-1071. doi: 10.1177/0265407513481446 Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., & Michalski, R. L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. Human Nature, 15(3), 283-300. doi: 10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z Sheets, V. & Wolfe, M. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals, lesbians, and gays. Sex Roles, 44, 255-276. doi:10.1023/A:1010996631863 Tagler, M. J., & Gentry, R. H. (2011). Gender, jealousy, and attachment: A (more) thorough examination across measures and samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 697-701. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.08.006 Varga, C. M., Gee, C. B., & Munro, G. (2011). The effects of sample characteristics and experience with infidelity on romantic jealousy. Sex Roles, 65(11-12), 854-866. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0048-8 Ward, J., & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 165-171. doi: 10.1080/00049530412331283381