This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy
Sex differences in response to imagining a partner’s heterosexual
or homosexual affair
Jaime C. Confer a,⇑, Mark D. Cloud b
aUniversity of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychology, 1 University Station A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA
b Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychology, 401 N. Fairview Street, Lock Haven, PA 17745, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 June 2010
Received in revised form 29 August 2010
Accepted 3 September 2010
Available online 6 October 2010
Keywords:
Jealousy
Sexual strategies theory
Emotional infidelity
Sexual infidelity
Sexual orientation
Sex differences
Individual differences
a b s t r a c t
Based on sexual strategies theory, we predicted that men would be less likely to continue an imagined
long-term relationship following a partner’s heterosexual affair compared to homosexual affair. For
women, it was expected that both affair types would result in a low willingness to continue the relation-
ship, but especially so for homosexual affairs. We further predicted that the interaction would remain
independent of the following moderator variables: number of affair partners, number of instances of
infidelity, and real infidelity experience. Participants (N = 718) were randomly assigned to read one of
eight infidelity scenarios and estimate the likelihood that they would continue the relationship. Results
confirmed all three predictions. A separate analysis of relationship outcomes following real infidelity
experiences provided additional corroboration. These results support the conclusion that threats to pater-
nity and threats of abandonment differentially motivate men and women to terminate relationships in
response to a partner’s infidelity.
 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Nearly three decades ago, psychologists applied the principles
of natural and sexual selection to explore previously unknown
sex differences in the nature of romantic jealousy (Daly, Wilson,
& Weghorst, 1982; Symons, 1979). The abundance of research that
followed has shown that relative to women, men experience great-
er distress in response to sexual infidelity and less distress in re-
sponse to emotional infidelity (e.g., falling in love with another
person; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk,
Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens, &
Thompson, 2002). The main purpose of the present study was to
examine whether the imagined behavioral outcomes of a partner’s
heterosexual or homosexual affair differ between men and women,
in light of the well-documented sex difference in emotional
distress.
Sex differences in emotional distress due to partner infidelity
can be explained by Trivers’ (1972) parental investment theory.
As the result of women’s internal fertilization, the paternity of
putative offspring is never guaranteed. In contrast, women are as-
sured of their maternity; however, they face the adaptive problem
of possible abandonment once the heavy burden of motherhood
commences. To solve their respective adaptive problems, men
and women are differentially sensitized to two categories of cues
that trigger jealousy. Men experience heightened distress in
response to cues of sexual infidelity, which most strongly threatens
paternity, whereas women experience heightened distress in re-
sponse to cues of emotional infidelity, which most strongly signals
a loss of commitment and investment (Buss et al., 1992).
Across various methodologies that have been used to study
romantic jealousy, the sex-differentiated pattern of men experi-
encing greater distress, relative to women, in response to sexual
infidelity and of women experiencing greater distress, relative to
men, in response to emotional infidelity emerges with relative
consistency (and a moderate effect size; Harris, 2003). Although
the forced-choice methodology, introduced by Buss et al. (1992),
predominates the literature (Miller & Maner, 2009; Murphy, Vall-
acher, Shackelford, Bjorklund, & Yunger, 2006), the same pattern
of results has been reflected in continuous scales of affective re-
sponse (e.g., anger; Becker, Sagarin, Guadagno, Millevoi, & Nicastle,
2004) as well as in physiological measurements (Buss et al., 1992;
Pietrzak et al., 2002; c.f. Harris, 2000). Schützwohl has replicated
these findings through the use of several novel methodologies that
measure reaction time (Schützwohl, 2004, 2005, 2008a), memory
recall (Schützwohl & Koch, 2004), and distraction (Schützwohl,
2008b). The convergent evidence provided by these methodologies
suggests that sexual and emotional infidelity differentially activate
a robust jealousy mechanism in men and women.
0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.007
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 471 0111.
E-mail address: jconfer@mail.utexas.edu (J.C. Confer).
Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Author's personal copy
Unlike the heterosexual affairs referenced in the methodologies
above, homosexual affairs have no direct reproductive conse-
quences. Yet men and women view homosexual behavior differ-
ently depending on whether the sexual partners are male or
female. Female homosexual behavior is considered to be more ero-
tic than male homosexual behavior (especially for male raters; Ny-
berg & Alston, 1977; Wiederman & LaMar, 1998) and men are more
likely to report that they would have sexual relations with a bisex-
ual woman than women are to report about a bisexual man (Elia-
son, 1997). Due to their relatively lower obligation to invest
heavily in offspring, one strategy through which men can increase
their reproductive success is to engage in a greater number of
short-term heterosexual encounters (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Sy-
mons, 1979). Homosexual behavior in women may signal an
opportunity for men to mate with more than one woman simulta-
neously, satisfying men’s greater desire for more partners. In addi-
tion to fantasizing about group sex more frequently than women,
twice as many men (31%) than women (15%) report that they
would have sex with two other people simultaneously (Wilson,
1987), and 97% of men prefer that the two other people be women
(Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2004).
The fitness costs of a partner’s heterosexual or homosexual
affair are more similar for women than for men as both types of
affairs signal an impending loss of commitment and investment,
but males face an additional cost of paternity uncertainty for het-
erosexual affairs. Consistent with men and women’s differential
sensitivity to cues of cuckoldry and abandonment, men report
greater distress in response to an imagined partner’s heterosexual
affair than homosexual affair (Hughes et al., 2004; Sagarin, Becker,
Guadagno, Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003), whereas women report
equal levels of distress in response to both types of affairs (Hughes
et al., 2004). Others have argued that despite the possibility unique
to heterosexual affairs of a woman’s partner conceiving a child
with an interloper, homosexual affairs are more reflective of ensu-
ing abandonment as they evince a more complete absence of emo-
tional intimacy and satisfaction with one’s partner (Wiederman &
LaMar, 1998). In support, both Wiederman and LaMar (1998) and
Sagarin et al. (2003) found that women report greater distress in
response to a partner’s imagined homosexual than heterosexual af-
fair. In the current study, it was predicted that women would ex-
press a low willingness to continue a relationship following both
types of affairs, but especially so following a homosexual affair.
Our primary goal was to extend the external validity of the
well-documented sex difference in jealousy by measuring the
imagined behavioral outcomes (instead of emotional distress) of a
partner’s heterosexual or homosexual affair. We predicted that
men would be less likely to continue an imagined relationship fol-
lowing a partner’s heterosexual affair (which poses the greatest
threat to paternity) than homosexual affair, whereas women
would be less likely to continue an imagined relationship following
a partner’s homosexual affair (which poses the slightly greater
threat of abandonment) than heterosexual affair.
The effects of two novel variables, the number of affair partners
and the number of instances of infidelity, were also manipulated to
assess their effects on willingness to continue a relationship.
Although a greater number of affair partners might increase men’s
willingness to continue the relationship as each presents an addi-
tional mating opportunity, we expected that in long-term relation-
ship contexts, both men and women would interpret a greater
number of affair partners and instances of infidelity as an unam-
biguous loss of interest in the current relationship. Hence, we pre-
dicted that these variables would alter overall willingness to
continue the relationship without moderating a participant sex
by infidelity-type interaction.
Participants’ self-report of real infidelity experience was col-
lected as a third moderating variable. Similar individual difference
variables have been expected to moderate men’s sensitivity to sex-
ual infidelity and women’s sensitivity to emotional infidelity, yet
none have done so consistently. For instance, relationship experi-
ence has been shown to exacerbate sexual and emotional jealousy
(Becker et al., 2004; Buss et al., 1992; Sagarin et al., 2003; Strout,
Laird, Shafer, & Thompson, 2005); however, other studies have
failed to find a moderating effect for this variable (Geary, Rumsey,
Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995; Murphy et al., 2006; Penke & Ase-
ndorpf, 2008). These inconsistencies led us to make no a priori pre-
dictions concerning the overall effect of real infidelity experience;
however, because these experiences should affect men and women
similarly, we expected any effects of this variable to be indepen-
dent of a participant sex by infidelity-type interaction.
Collecting self-report data on participants’ real infidelity experi-
ence also allowed us to assess the actual outcomes of a partner’s
infidelity. As heterosexual infidelity presents the adaptive problem
of paternity uncertainty unilaterally to men, male victims of sexual
infidelity were predicted to have discontinued their actual rela-
tionships more frequently than female victims of sexual infidelity
in response to their partner’s affair.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 718 undergraduate students (324 male,
394 female), collected from two small public universities in Penn-
sylvania, who agreed to participate in exchange for course credit.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Prior to experimentation, participants were notified that they
would be requested to imagine themselves in a romantic hetero-
sexual relationship and that those who had difficulty doing so
could refuse to participate without penalty. Participants subse-
quently completed a questionnaire that began with one of eight
infidelity scenarios, each tailored to the sex of the participant, in
which (1) the infidelity-type (heterosexual or homosexual), (2)
the number of affair partners (one or two), and (3) the number of
instances of infidelity (one or two) were manipulated. The follow-
ing example illustrates the heterosexual infidelity-type condition
intended for a female participant, in which there were two affair
partners and two instances of infidelity (see Appendix for addi-
tional example scenarios):
Please imagine you have been dating a man for about three
months with whom you are romantically and sexually committed.
Perhaps it would be helpful to think of a romantic relationship that
you have had in the past, that you currently have, or that you
would like to have.
Imagine that the partner you have been dating breaks the news
that he recently had sexual relations with two other women, and he
is now asking for your forgiveness. Your partner admits that it hap-
pened twice, each time with a different woman, but also claims that
it was a mistake. He wants to continue the relationship with you
and promises to be faithful in the future [italics added to highlight
experimental manipulation].
The participant was then asked to estimate the percent likeli-
hood that he or she would continue the relationship with the part-
ner given the partner’s sexual infidelity on an 11-point Likert scale
with anchors that ranged from 0% (definitely end the relationship)
to 100% (definitely continue the relationship).
The reverse side of the questionnaire consisted of two questions
related to participants’ actual infidelity experience. Each question
was asked twice, once about a partner’s infidelity and once about
the participant’s own infidelity: (1) Have you ever been in a
130 J.C. Confer, M.D. Cloud / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134

Author's personal copy
committed, romantic relationship in which your partner was
unfaithful (or discovered that you were unfaithful) by having sexual
relations with another person; and (2) Did you continue this rela-
tionship after you found out about your partner’s infidelity (or you
were unfaithful). After completion, participants were verbally de-
briefed as to the purpose of the study.
3. Results
3.1. Imagined behavioral outcomes of a partner’s heterosexual or
homosexual affair
To evaluate whether infidelity-type, number of affair partners,
number of instances of infidelity, or previous infidelity experience
elicited different patterns of responses across men and women in
their likelihood of continuing a relationship, a 2 (participant sex:
male, female)  2 (infidelity-type: heterosexual, homosexual)  2
(number of affair partners: one, two)  2 (number of instances of
infidelity: one, two)  4 (infidelity experience: none, partner
unfaithful, participant unfaithful, both partner and participant
unfaithful) Analysis of Variance was conducted with all variables
as between-subject factors. Figure 1 illustrates the experimental
condition means and standard errors for percentage likelihood of
continuing a long-term relationship after imagining a partner’s
infidelity for both men and women.
Significant main effects were revealed for all five factors and are
summarized in Table 1. For participant sex and infidelity-type, wo-
men were less likely than men to continue the relationship after a
partner’s infidelity, and participants were less likely to continue
the relationship after a partner’s heterosexual than homosexual af-
fair. The participant sex and infidelity-type main effects were qual-
ified by a sex by infidelity-type crossover interaction, F(1, 655) =
46.23, p < .001, g2 = .07, in which men (M = 21.77%; SD = 23.39%)
indicated a lower willingness than women (M = 27.50%; SD =
25.20%) to continue the relationship following a partner’s hetero-
sexual affair, t(352) = 2.20, p = .03; whereas women (M =
21.26%; SD = 21.56%) indicated a lower willingness than men
(M = 49.82%; SD = 32.18%) to continue the relationship following
a partner’s homosexual affair, t(362) = 10.08, p < .001. Within sex
comparisons also yielded significant effects. Men indicated a lower
willingness to continue the relationship following a partner’s het-
erosexual affair than homosexual affair, t(322) = 8.94, p < .001,
whereas women indicated the opposite, t(392) = 2.64, p < .01 (see
Fig. 2).
Main effects for the remaining three factors indicated that par-
ticipants were less likely to continue the relationship if their part-
ner’s infidelity involved two affair partners as compared to only
one affair partner; if their partner was unfaithful twice as com-
pared to only once; and if they had never committed infidelity in
their actual relationships as compared to those who had (see Table
1). These main effects were not qualified by any significant two-
way or higher-order interactions.
3.2. Actual behavioral outcomes of real infidelity
In order to determine the behavioral outcomes of participants’
real infidelity experiences, we conducted v2 cross-tabulation anal-
yses comparing the frequency with which men and women have
experienced actual infidelity and the frequency with which men
and women continued a relationship after an affair was exposed.
Although we did not explicitly ask, we assume these real infidelity
experiences were predominantly with an opposite-sex affair
partner.
Men and women did not differ in the frequency of infidelity
committed by a romantic partner, v2(1, N = 717) = .08, p = .77;
however, in line with our prediction, of participants whose part-
ners had been unfaithful, men discontinued the relationship with
greater frequency than expected (observed: 77; expected: 64.3)
while women discontinued the relationship with lower frequency
than expected (observed: 63; expected: 75.7), v2(1, N = 246) =
10.75, p = .001. With regard to infidelity committed by participants
themselves, men and women did not differ in the frequency that
they had been unfaithful, v2(1, N = 717) = .65, p = .42. Further, of
those who had been unfaithful, men and women reported similar
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Once, 1
Partner
Once, 2
Partners
Twice, 1
Partner
Twice, 2
Partners
Once, 1
Partner
Once, 2
Partners
Twice, 1
Partner
Twice, 2
Partners
Li
ke
lih
oo
d
of
C
on
tin
ui
ng
R
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
(%
)
Women
Men
Heterosexual Infidelity Type Homosexual Infidelity Type
Fig. 1. Mean percentage likelihood of participants continuing a long-term relationship after imagining a partner’s infidelity. Once/twice = number of instances of infidelity; 1
partner/2 partners = number of affair partners. Note that the twice, 2 partners condition reflects two instances of infidelity, each time with a different partner. Error bars
represent standard errors.
J.C. Confer, M.D. Cloud / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134 131

Author's personal copy
frequencies of discontinuing the relationship, v2(1, N = 122) = .44,
p = .51. Table 2 summarizes the frequencies of relationship out-
comes subsequent to participants’ own and their partners’
infidelities.
4. Discussion
Results from the present study confirmed the prediction that
relative to women, men would be less willing to continue a rela-
tionship following a partner’s heterosexual affair and more willing
to continue a relationship following a partner’s homosexual affair.
Neither number of affair partners, number of instances of infidelity,
nor previous infidelity experience moderated this interaction
revealing the robust pattern of this effect.
Men demonstrated the greatest tolerance for the type of affair
that can best be said to offer additional mating opportunities and
the greatest objection to the type of affair that most strongly
threatens paternity. These findings are even more remarkable
given that homosexuality attitude surveys show males to have
more negative attitudes towards homosexuality (Larsen, Reed, &
Hoffman, 1980) and to be less supportive of civil rights for same-
sex couples (Herek, 2002) than females. However, this general
trend of men showing lower tolerance towards homosexuality
Table 1
Significant main effects for all five factors.
Source of variance level N M (%) SD (%) df F g2
Participant sex
Women 394 24.27 23.62 1 14.63*** .02
Men 324 36.14 31.50
Infidelity-type
Heterosexual 354 24.94 24.54 1 14.88*** .02
Homosexual 364 34.29 30.43
Number of partners
One 362 33.76 29.32 1 5.74* .01
Two 356 25.53 26.11
Number of instances
Once 364 31.54 29.29 1 4.17* .01
Twice 354 27.77 26.64
Real infidelity experience
None 409 26.55a 26.11 3 4.61** .02
Only partner 187 30.21a 27.86
Only participant 63 38.10b 33.15
Both 59 40.68b 31.62
Note: Means and standard deviations reflect percentage likelihood of continuing a long-term relationship after imagining a partner’s infidelity. Means with differing
subscripts are significantly different at the p < .05 level based on Fisher’s LSD post hoc comparisons.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Heterosexual Homosexual
Li
ke
lih
oo
d
of
C
on
tin
ui
ng
R
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
(%
)
Partner's Imagined Infidelity Type
Women
Men
Fig. 2. Mean percentage likelihood of participants continuing a long-term relationship after imagining a partner’s infidelity, revealing a participant sex by infidelity-type
crossover interaction. Error bars represent standard errors.
132 J.C. Confer, M.D. Cloud / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134

Author's personal copy
than women is reversed in the one fitness-enhancing situation (i.e.,
female homosexuality), as predicted by sexual strategies theory
(Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
The outcomes of male participants’ real infidelity experiences
mirrored the results pertaining to imagined heterosexual affairs.
Menwere significantlymore likely thanwomen to have ended their
actual relationships following a partner’s affair. These findings fit
well with previous research suggesting that men experience the
emotion of anger more frequently than women in response to a
partner’s sexual infidelity (Becker et al., 2004; Pietrzak et al.,
2002; Sabini & Green, 2004), and that the experience of anger pre-
cipitates relationship termination (Geary et al., 1995; Shackelford,
Buss, & Bennett, 2002).
As predicted, women’swillingness to continue a relationship fol-
lowing a partner’s imagined heterosexual affair was significantly
greater than when following a partner’s imagined homosexual af-
fair. Consistent with sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt,
1993), the absolute difference between groups was small (6.24 per-
centage points) as women expressed a low probability of contin-
uing a relationship following both types of affairs. In addition to
matters of sexual satisfaction, heightened awareness of sexually
transmitted diseases in the modern environment may account for
this difference as homosexuality is stigmatized with the transmis-
sion of AIDS (Herek, 1991) and women are especially disease avoid-
ant (Fessler, Pillsworth, & Flamson, 2004). Future research is needed
to better understand the origin of this difference in women.
For men and women alike, an increase in the number of affair
partners and an increase in the number of instances of infidelity
produced a lower willingness to continue a long-term relationship.
These findings can be interpreted as stronger signals of abandon-
ment for both sexes; however, the finding that real infidelity
experience only affected willingness to continue an imagined rela-
tionship when the individual was the perpetrator of the infidelity is
less clear. Our interpretation that perpetrators of previous infidelity
may be more tolerant of their partners’ infidelities because of their
desire to excuse their own disloyalty or their ability to empathize
with feelings of lust for another invites further exploration.
Several limitations qualify our findings but provide useful direc-
tions for future research. One limitation concerns the validity of re-
sponses to the imagined infidelity scenarios, given that this
methodology does not directly measure participants’ actual behav-
ior (Harris, 2003). Although the data based on the imagined heter-
osexual infidelity scenarios coincides with our data regarding
participants’ real infidelity experiences, we have no real-life data
to verify our results from the imagined homosexual infidelity sce-
narios. Other limitations concern the specificity of the dependent
measures associated with participants’ actual infidelity experience
and the imagined infidelity scenarios. With respect to the dissolu-
tion of actual relationships, it is unclear whether participants were
reporting only instances of relationship termination that they ini-
tiated or any relationship termination that occurred subsequent
to their own or their partners’ infidelities. In regard to the imag-
ined infidelity scenarios, it would have been informative to assess
the factors that potentially influence participants’ decision to
continue a relationship, such as implications about partner
commitment and a more direct measurement of jealousy. Finally,
a profitable avenue of future research could explore the myriad
of context-dependent variables, unaccounted for in the present
study, that affect thresholds of romantic jealousy in men and wo-
men. Lower mate-value individuals, for example, should be espe-
cially sensitive to cues of partner infidelity as their mates are
more likely to be dissatisfied with the current relationship (Shac-
kelford & Buss, 1997).
A robust jealousy mechanism is activated in men and women
by different types of cues, those that threaten paternity and those
that threaten abandonment, respectively. Many moderating vari-
ables have failed to alter the resulting interaction, such as delu-
sional jealousy diagnoses (Easton, Schipper, & Shackelford, 2007),
religiosity and gender roles (Wiederman & LaMar, 1998), and
short-term versus long-term mating contexts (Cloud, Hallock, &
Seavey, 2003). As predicted by sexual strategies theory (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993), results from the present study identified sex differ-
ences in willingness to continue a relationship as a function of infi-
delity-type, and neither number of affair partners, number of
instances of infidelity, nor real infidelity experience moderated
the interaction. These findings, in conjunction with outcomes of
participants’ actual infidelity experiences, support the conclusion
that men and women are differentially motivated by threats to
paternity and threats of abandonment to terminate relationships
in response to a partner’s infidelity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Tatiana Patakyova for her assistance with
data collection, Greg Hixon for his verification of our statistical pro-
cedures, and Zach Simmons and members of the Buss Lab for their
helpful feedback.
Appendix A. Infidelity scenarios
Each of the following infidelity scenarios was tailored to the sex
of the participant. The examples provided below were designed for
male participants in the heterosexual infidelity-type condition.
Italics were not originally present, but were added to highlight
areas of experimental manipulation.
One partner, one instance: Imagine that the partner you have
been dating breaks the news that she recently had sexual relations
with another man and she is now asking for your forgiveness. Your
partner claims that it was a mistake and a one time event. She
wants to continue the relationship with you and promises to be
faithful in the future.
Two partners, one instance: Imagine that the partner you have
been dating breaks the news that she recently had sexual relations
with two other men at the same time and she is now asking for your
forgiveness. Your partner claims that it was a mistake and a one
time event. She wants to continue the relationship with you and
promises to be faithful in the future.
One partner, two instances: Imagine that the partner you have
been dating breaks the news that she recently had sexual relations
Table 2
Survey responses about real infidelity experiences.
Have you ever been in a relationship in which. . .a Male participants Female participants
Yes No Yes No
Your partner was unfaithful? 113 (34.9%) 211 (65.1%) 133 (33.8%) 260 (66.2%)
If yes, did you continue this relationship? 36 (31.9%) 77 (68.1%) 70 (52.6%) 63 (47.4%)
You were unfaithful? 59 (18.2%) 264 (81.5%) 63 (16.0%) 331 (84.0%)
If yes, did you continue this relationship? 12 (20.3%) 47 (79.7%) 47 (74.6%) 16 (25.4%)
a Survey questions are abbreviated from originals.
J.C. Confer, M.D. Cloud / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134 133

Author's personal copy
with another man and she is now asking for your forgiveness. You
partner admits that it happened twice with the same man, but also
claims that it was a mistake. She wants to continue the relation-
ship with you and promises to be faithful in the future.
Two partners, two instances: Imagine that the partner you
have been dating breaks the news that she recently had sexual
relations with two other men, and she is now asking for your for-
giveness. Your partner admits that it happened twice, each time
with a different man, but also claims that it was a mistake. She
wants to continue the relationship with you and promises to be
faithful in the future.
References
Becker, D. V., Sagarin, B. J., Guadagno, R. E., Millevoi, A., & Nicastle, L. D. (2004).
When the sexes need not differ: Emotional responses to the sexual and
emotional aspects of infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 529–538.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3,
251–255.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
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, 359–363.
Cloud, M. D., Hallock, S. Z., & Seavey, J. E. (2003). Gender differences in response to a
dating or married partner’s homosexual or heterosexual affair. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD.
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.
Easton, J. A., Schipper, L. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Morbid jealousy from an
evolutionary psychological perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28,
399–402.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual
undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 317–326.
Fessler, D. M. T., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted
women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 107–123.
Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995). Sexual jealousy
as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex differences in adults from
China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 355–383.
Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The
specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 1082–1091.
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-
report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid
jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128.
Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians and gay men.
In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for
public policy (pp. 60–80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. The
Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66.
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. Jr., (2004). Sex differences in mating
strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity, and multiple concurrent sex partners.
Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender, 6, 3–13.
Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward
homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex
Research, 16, 245–257.
Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Sex differences in response to sexual versus
emotional infidelity: The moderating role of individual differences. Personality
and Individual Differences, 46, 287–291.
Murphy, S. M., Vallacher, R. R., Shackelford, T. K., Bjorklund, D. F., & Yunger, J. L.
(2006). Relationship experience as a predictor of romantic jealousy. Personality
and Individual Differences, 40, 761–769.
Nyberg, K. L., & Alston, J. P. (1977). Homosexual labeling by university youths.
Adolescence, 12, 541–546.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Evidence for conditional sex differences in
emotional but not in sexual jealousy at the automatic level of cognitive
processing. European Journal of Personality, 22, 3–30.
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences in
human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale,
and physiological responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 23, 83–94.
Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional
infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1375–1388.
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex
differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity
experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 17–23.
Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which infidelity type makes you more jealous? Decision
strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emotional infidelity.
Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 121–128.
Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to
infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 288–299.
Schützwohl, A. (2008a). The crux of cognitive load: Constraining deliberate and
effortful decision processes in romantic jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior,
29, 127–132.
Schützwohl, A. (2008b). The disengagement of attentive resources from task-
irrelevant cues to sexual and emotional infidelity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 633–644.
Schützwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to
sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context
conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 249–257.
Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Marital satisfaction in evolutionary
psychology perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close
relationships (pp. 7–25). New York: Guilford Press.
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex
differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 16,
299–307.
Strout, S. L., Laird, J. D., Shafer, A., & Thompson, N. S. (2005). The effect of vividness
of experience on sex differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 3,
263–274.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),
Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Wiederman, M. W., & LaMar, L. (1998). ‘‘Not with him you don’t!”: Gender and
emotional reactions to sexual infidelity during courtship. The Journal of Sex
Research, 35, 288–297.
Wilson, G. D. (1987). Male–female differences in sexual activity, enjoyment, and
fantasies. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 125–127.
134 J.C. Confer, M.D. Cloud / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 129–134