CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorEmotions and Moral BehaviorAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

A Review of Sex Differences in Sexual Jealousy, Including Self-Report Data, Psychophysiological Responses, Interpersonal Violence, and Morbid Jealousy

Harris, Christine R.·2003·Personality and Social Psychology Review
DOI 10.1207/s15327957pspr0702_102-128
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The specific innate modular theory of jealousy hypothesizes that natural selection shaped sexual jealousy as a mechanism to prevent cuckoldry, and emotional jealousy as a mechanism to prevent resource loss. Therefore, men should be primarily jealous over a mate's sexual infidelity and women over a mate's emotional infidelity. Five lines of evidence have been offered as support: self report responses, psychophysiological data, domestic violence (including spousal abuse and homicide), and morbid jealousy cases. This article reviews each line of evidence and finds only one hypothetical measure consistent with the hypothesis. This, however, is contradicted by a variety of other measures (including reported reactions to real infidelity). A meta-analysis of jealousy-inspired homicides, taking into account base rates for murder, found no evidence that jealousy disproportionately motivates men to kill. The findings are discussed from a social-cognitive theoretical perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327957pspr0702_102-128

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Anger was identified as a major component of the response to infidelity.

    “Anger was identified as a major component of the response to infidelity [25,26].”

    From Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 131 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harris, C. R.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Harris, Christine R.
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-05
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
102-128
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
DOI
10.1207/s15327957pspr0702_102-128
OpenAlex
W2074804043
Cited by
344
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 19
FWCI
19.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH061626, R01-MH61626)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
sexual jealousy, emotional jealousy, sex differences, cuckoldry, resource loss, sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, domestic violence, marital violence, morbid jealousy, psychophysiological responses, social cognitive theory
MeSH terms
Affective Symptoms, Arousal, Extramarital Relations, Female, Gender Identity, Homicide, Humans, Jealousy, Male, Domestic Violence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review