His or Hers Jealousy? New Explanation for Sex Differences in Jealousy

[The Straight Story]

His or Hers Jealousy? New Explanation for Sex Differences in Jealousy

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2010) — When South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was caught red-handed returning from a tryst with his Argentine mistress last June, he told the Associated Press that he had met his "soul mate." His choice of words seemed to suggest that having a deep emotional and spiritual connection with Maria Belen Chapur somehow made his sexual infidelity to his wife Jenny Sanford less tawdry.

What the two-timing governor didn't understand is that most women view emotional infidelity as worse, not better, than sexual betrayal. This may explain why Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill Clinton and seemed unconcerned about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. Research has documented that most men become much more jealous about sexual infidelity than they do about emotional infidelity. Women are the opposite, and this is true all over the world. The prevailing theory is that the difference has evolutionary origins: Men learned over eons to be hyper-vigilant about sex because they can never be absolutely certain they are the father of a child, while women are much more concerned about having a partner who is committed to raising a family.

New research now suggests an alternative explanation. The new study does not question the fundamental gender difference regarding jealousy -- indeed it adds additional support for that difference. But the new science suggests that the difference may be rooted more in individual differences in personality that result from one's relationship history but that can fall along gender lines.

Pennsylvania State University psychological scientists Kenneth Levy and Kristen Kelly doubted the prevailing evolutionary explanation because there is a conspicuous subset of men who like most women find emotional betrayal more distressing than sexual infidelity. Why would this be? The researchers suspected that it might have to do with trust and emotional attachment. Some people -- men and women alike -- are more secure in their attachments to others, while others tend to be more dismissive of the need for close attachment relationships. Psychologists see this compulsive self-reliance as a defensive strategy -- protection against deep-seated feelings of vulnerability. Levy and Kelly hypothesized that these individuals would tend to be concerned with the sexual aspects of relationships rather than emotional intimacy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126123210.htm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. "doubted the prevailing evolutionary explanation because there is a conspicuous subset..."

Jeez... evolutionary psychology doesn't produce monolithic behavior and is always conditioned by environment. It is a science of tendencies and predispositions.

There is a conspicuous subset of people not attracted to the opposite sex. Doesn't falsify the concept of procreative sexual attraction--probably the most notable and unambiguous evolutionary psychology effect.

There is a subset of people outside any general behavior.

Unfortunately people often over-state aspects of evolutionary psychology, then someone else debunks the over-statement and so on...

[NashVegas]

2. You'll Have to Forgive Them

It's getting harder and harder to find subjects that haven't already been studied, publicized, and exploited for professional gain, so about the only thing you can do now to make your academic name is take shots at what's already there.

[seabeyond]

4. because the hip evolotutionary behavorial science has become a huge cult for patriarchy

this group walked away from the science of it for gender gain. they discredited themselves leaving nurture behind and nature the full of it.

[seabeyond]

3. experience/conditioned as opposed to evolutionary. go figure. nt