Sex Differences

The current study sought to examine gender variations in response to emotional and sexual infidelity. There was a lot of curiosity about how male and female participants' responses to sexual and emotional infidelity might be affected by relationship connection. To that purpose, 638 people volunteered to fill out questionnaires about various infidelity circumstances and their relationship attachment patterns (126 men and 512 women). The responses enabled them to attain the stated goal through grouping and analysis. The general observation among males and females was consistent with prior studies, which revealed that men are particularly upset by proof of their partner's sexual infidelity, whilst women are more troubled by evidence of emotional infidelity.  However, when viewed in groups of type of emotional attachment, there were varying degrees of significance between males and females in relation to the views of sexual and emotional infidelity. These results are discussed from perspective of evolution through natural selection and jealousy as a specific innate module.



















Sex Differences In Responses To Emotional And Sexual Infidelity

Introduction

More than a decade ago, before there was methodical empirical tests of the proposition, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that a man and a woman would contrast psychologically on actions that trigger sexual jealousy (Brase, Adair, & Monk, 2014). An evolutionary viewpoint suggests that men’s and women’s jealousy responses evolved to aid in dealing with the different reproductive challenges faced by the two sexes throughout evolutionary history. That is, men’s and women’s concerns are directed towards different types of infidelity. Specifically, men and women appear to contrast in their reactions to sexual infidelity (having one’s long-term partner engage in sexual relations with someone else) versus emotional infidelity (having one’s partner fall in love with someone else). From a researcher’s point of view, sexually differentiated responses to infidelity reflect innate jealousy modules designed to deal with sex-specific challenges associated with paternity uncertainty (for men) and paternal investment (for women) (Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, Choe, Lim, Hasegawa, Bennett, 1999). Because fertilization occurs in women, men can never be certain that they are the father of their mate’s offspring. Due to this, the prospect of a woman’s sexual infidelity may be particularly worrying for men because it can lead to genetic cuckoldry, probably leading to years of effort and resources devoted to raising another man’s offspring. In contrast to men, women can be certain of their maternity; thus, sexual infidelity should be somewhat less disconcerting for women than for men.

Female partners in a relationship face a threat of having their partners directing resources to other women. As a consequence, a man’s emotional infidelity may be particularly distressing for his long-term partner because it can signal a high likelihood of him diverting resources to other women. Consistent with the logic, Brase, et al., (2014) demonstrated that men tend to display relatively greater distress over sexual infidelity while women tend to display it over emotional infidelity. Subsequently, many other studies have reported similar findings across a number of different cultures.

However, this difference in sexual infidelity between men and women is not common among all related research works (Lans, Mosek, & Yagil, 2014). Some researchers mention that there is no any detectable difference in the two genders. Additionally, Lans et al., reports that, out of 11 studies examining infidelity among varying genders, only 4 show significant differences that are consistent with the aforementioned pattern. Therefore, one can conclude that evolutionary theory based on sex differences in response to infidelity exists.

De Steno and Salovey proposed an alternative explanation on the existing distinctions among people of varying genders called “the double shot hypothesis” which aimed at accounting for empirically discovered sex differences corresponding to the evolutionary predictions. The double-shot hypothesis proposes that the obtained sex differences are not as a result of evolved psychological differences but rather they exist due to different beliefs (in some groups of men and women) about the conditional probabilities of sexual and emotional infidelity. The authors of the double-shot hypothesis imply that, if these beliefs, related to conditional probabilities, underlie the observed sex differences in jealousy, then; the sex difference in jealousy is a “spurious” and “a specification error” and; the sex difference must be due to “socialization” or “other socially derived influences” rather than to “genetically influenced predispositions” (DeSteno, Piercarlo, & Bartlett, 2006).

Buss et al put forward the “logical belief hypothesis” which is a variant of the above alternative. This theory suggests that, the existing differences in responding to sexual actions between men and women may be based on reasonable distinctions based on how people from the two sexes interpret evidence of infidelity. A man, who thinks that women have sex only when in love, believes that if his mate has sex with another man, she is in love with that other. A woman, who thinks that men can have sex without love, should still be troubled by sexual infidelity, but is less concerned about the act because to her, the man may not have been driven by love but rather by desire (Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, Choe, Lim, Hasegawa, Bennett, 1999).

The evolutionary hypothesis about the psychology of jealousy brings about several strong attempts to argue against a few of the existing empirical findings. The hypothesis can account for the original findings of sex differences in reactions to infidelity and jealousy even when conditional probabilities are controlled (Buss et al., 1999). It also accounts for the most upsetting aspects of infidelity as well as the evolutionary account that explains the origin and nature the conditional probability beliefs of sexual and emotional infidelity. These beliefs are more accurate appraisals of actual sex differences in sexual strategies. The evolutionary hypothesis, moreover, can account for sex differences beyond those found in the current studies, thus providing a parsimonious explanation for findings from different investigators and different cultures (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2015)

Individuals differ significantly in their tendency to experience jealousy and to worry about relationship threats (Lans et al., 2014). Social reasoning and evolutionary perspectives suggest that individual differences in chronic jealousy may moderate the activation of psychological processes aimed at dealing with relationship threats (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2015). According to the "jealousy as a specific innate module" theory or JSIM hypothesis, natural selection has shaped men and women to have jealousy elements that are triggered by different types of input. A man can think that their mate is having sex with another; while a woman could think that their mate is emotionally involved with another person. Therefore, men should primarily pay keen attention to emotional infidelity.

The aim of this study was to determine whether men and women differ in their responses to sexual and emotional infidelity and if attachment style influences their perceptions on physical or emotional infidelity. Social cognitive and evolutionary perspectives suggest that individual differences in chronic jealousy may moderate the activation of psychological processes aimed at dealing with relationship threats (Buss, et al., 1999). Psychological and behavioral responses aimed at dealing with infidelity may draw limited time and resources away from the pursuit of other important goals. These individuals tend to build stronger attachments to their partners. Consequently, jealousy mechanisms may be most pronounced in individuals whom infidelity is perceived to be a real and immediate threat because individuals with low chronic jealousy tend to be less worried about relationship threats. They are perhaps less likely than those with high chronic jealousy to display psychological processes that are aimed at preventing specific types of relationship threats (sexual or emotional). Therefore, men with strong attachment to their partners would be most upset by sexual infidelity. However, a woman in a relationship with similar attachment would be most upset by emotional infidelity. This hypothesis is supported by the findings of Brase et al., (2014), in which a preoccupied attachment style was found to increase men's chances of selecting emotional infidelity, whereas an avoidant attachment style was found to increase women's odds of selecting sexual infidelity.

Methods

Participants

The initial participants in this study were 869 participants. However, following data cleaning, 4 participants who classified their sex as other, they were removed from the data file, 169 participants who did not complete the study were removed from the datafile, 48 participants who did not have data for the binary variable were removed from the datafile, 7 participants did not report their sex and were removed from the datafile, 3 participants did not complete the ECR and thus could not have an attachment category coded. The current sample consisted of 638 individuals, comprising of 126 males and 512 females. The age of the sample population ranged between17 and 69 with a mean age of 30.96 (SD= 11.022).

Materials

The experimental design of the study included demographic questions regarding: age, sex, sexual orientation, sexual relationship status. Using hypodietical scenarios, participants first indicated which type of infidelity they thought would be worse and rated how distressed they would feel if their mate engaged in sexual or emotional infidelity. Reported sex differences in response to sexual and emotional infidelity have been found when using a binary choice measure of jealousy. Real infidelity was examined by asking participants who had such experience to recall how much they focused on the emotional and sexual aspects of the betrayal. This was similar to study by Lans, et al., (2014). The second question sought to determine whether males and females are represented equally across the four attachment styles. Participants were to indicate how much they agreed or disagree with a series of statements which helped determine their attachment styles. Previous research has suggested they are not, with males being over-represented in the dismissive style, and females being over-represented in the preoccupied style.

The third question was to determine whether the four attachment style groups differ in terms of which type of infidelity they find most upsetting by cross tabulation of responses in the first two scenarios tested, infidelity scenarios and attachment styles. Lastly, the study assessed how men and women differ in each attachment style depending on the type of infidelity they find most upsetting. To answer this question, an analysis was conducted on the first question with relation to each attachment style.

Procedure

Participation was completely voluntary. Given the personal nature of the study and the importance of obtaining honest answers, several measures were taken to assure participants that their responses would be anonymous. They were not to place their names on the questionnaire. The questionnaires took approximately 40-minutes to complete. The consent form and the experimenter both stressed that the participants were not to place their names on the questionnaire. The signed consent forms were placed in a file completely separate from the questionnaires so that names could never be associated with any participant's data. As mentioned earlier, the first phase of the questionnaires involved demographic questions which were then followed by hypodietical scenarios in which determined how distressed the participants would feel to certain infidelity scenarios. This was then followed by questions that determined the participants relationship attachment style. At this point the participants had completed the questionnaires, the remaining questions were answered through cross tabulation and computational analysis.

Results

Results for the first question replicated the results of Buss et al. (2002). In choosing between the two forms of infidelity, more males than females selected sexual infidelity as more upsetting, whereas more women than men selected emotional infidelity. From the results 63.5% of males were most upset by sexual infidelity with 50.6% of females being most upset by emotional infidelity. Chi-square analysis was required in the first objective to determine if the difference was significant or not, Х2 (N=638) =8.062, р < 0.05. The chi-square value is 8.062 and the significance value is 0.05. This shows that there is significant difference between males and females in their assumption of sexual and emotional infidelity respectively as most upsetting.

From the second question, there was slightly similar percentages in male and female present in each attachment style. This shows that there is no significant difference between males and females distribution across the attachment style groups. This was supported by the non-significant chi-square test which showed similarity in proportion of male and females across the attachment style groups.





To satisfy the third question, chi-square analysis was carried out to determine the relationship between attachment type and most upsetting infidelity. The chi-square test is significant, indicating that attachment style does influence which type of infidelity is most upsetting, Х2 = 10.611a, р < 0.014.





To satisfy question four, chi-square analysis of each group of attachment type was carried out similar to question one above. The findings indicate that for secure attachment, there is significant difference between male and females with respect to the type of infidelity they find most upsetting between sexual and emotional infidelity. For the dismissive attachment there is no significant difference between males and females with respect to the type of infidelity they find most upsetting. The preoccupied attachment also showed no significant difference between males and females with respect to type of infidelity they find most upsetting. As for the fearful attachment there was significant difference between males and females with respect to the type of infidelity they perceived as most upsetting between sexual and emotional infidelity.





Value

df

Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square (Secure attachment)

3.656b

1

.056

Pearson Chi-Square (Dismissive attachment)

2.452b

3

.117

Pearson Chi-Square (Preoccupied attachment)

.023b

1

.880

Pearson Chi-Square (Fearful attachment)

5.135b



.023





Discussion



From the first question, the findings provide strong support for the predicted interaction in the extent to which men and women think about each form of infidelity and the implication of each one of them. The pattern suggests that it is understandable for men to be more concerned than women by evidence of a partner's sexual infidelity and for women to be more concerned by evidence of a partner's emotional infidelity. Women may report less concern over scenarios of sexual infidelity because they believe that their partners have sex without being in love while men care more about sexual infidelity because they think it is unlikely to occur without emotional infidelity.

The data generated from females however showed that they were just slightly most upset by emotional infidelity (50.6%) as compared to sexual infidelity (49.4%). The results may be due to the short-term context of the infidelity. The infidelities in the present research were described such that they indicate a short-term relationship (Brase, Adair, & Monk, 2014). reports that women find sexual infidelity more up-setting in a short-term context. The result might also be as a result of the mating strategies, age, and sexual behavior norms of the women in this sample. Buss et al., (1999) suggests that the pursuit of mating strategies that deviate from the norm can lead to different patterns of responding. Similarly, DeSteno, et al., (2006) argued that a sexually promiscuous environment can lead to greater distress in response to sexual infidelity and very short term sexual encounters which are very common among the people who comprised of the present sample.

Chi-square results from question two showed that there is no significant difference between men and women with respect in frequency in attachment styles. Evolutionary psychologists tend to hypothesize many distinct innate mechanisms or modules, each designed by evolution to solve a distinct recurring problem in our inherited past. According to alternative perspectives, natural selection may in its place have created innate psychological tendencies and structures that are considerably less specific and more malleable or that are not sexually dimorphic (Lans, et al., 2014). Therefore, the theory proposed by researchers such as Buunk was previously referred to as the "jealousy as a specific innate module" theory or JSIM. Although lacking in strong theoretical cohesion, these social-cognitive perspectives share the view that cognitive appraisal plays a prominent role in the elicitation of jealousy and emphasize the importance of interpretation of a variety of threats, not just sexual and emotional betrayal. It may also account for the parallel distribution of attachment styles in males and females. This is so because jealousy does play a key role in emotional attachment. This is also supported by observations in this study that attachment style does affect the type of infidelity perceived to be most upsetting. The social-cognitive position hypothesizes that jealousy should particularly arise over threats by a rival to one's self-concept or to important relationship rewards.

The findings from the fourth question show a link between the Evolutionary theory and that of jealousy as a specific innate module. This is observed where the more attached the style of relationship is, the more males find sexual infidelity most upsetting and the females find emotional infidelity most upsetting. Although Lans, et al., (2014) proposed that gender differences in jealousy over infidelity are innate, and suggested that relationship experience can influence the "activation of jealousy." It was hypothesized that committed sexual relationship experience would lead women to feel even greater upset over emotional infidelity while leading men to feel even greater upset over sexual infidelity. However, this could not be the case because of effects of dismissive and preoccupied attachment. The two attachments show an insignificant difference between males and females towards perception of sexual and emotional infidelity as a result of changes in commitments to relationships. Today, most people are not much attached to their relationships as it was before due to work and changes in lifestyles. When fearful attachment is involved, males are most upset with sexual infidelity while females are most upset with emotional infidelities. This can be attributed to Evolutionary theory where Men are more upset by sexual infidelity because it diminishes their paternity certainty and women are more upset by emotional infidelity because it may lead to diminished parental investments from their male partners.

Lack of enough time to answer, as well as a few number of questions limited the respondents from giving out detailed information to their answers. Such limitations may have led to insufficient information that would lead to a more accurate conclusion concerning the differences in responses to emotional and sexual infidelity among men and women.

As suggested by Lans et al., (2014), more research on the psychological perceptions of both male and women on sexual actions such as infidelity would help in solving some of the major problems affecting relationships. Future research may focus on possible solutions to solving sexual conflicts among people in relationships and married couples through the use of the above knowledge that is related to jealousy and infidelity perceptions.



























References

Brase, G. L., Adair, L., & Monk, K. (2014). Explaining sex differences in reactions to

relationship infidelities: Comparisons of the roles of sex, gender, beliefs, attachment, and sociosexual orientation. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 73-96. doi: 10.1177/147470491401200106

Buunk, A. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2015). Rival characteristics that provoke jealousy: A study in Iraqi

Kurdistan. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 116-127. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000030

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., . . .

Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 125-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x

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.

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