Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response


Long-lasting, romantic partnerships are a universal feature of human societies, but almost as ubiquitous is the risk of instability when one partner strays. Jealous response to the threat of infidelity is well studied, but most empirical work on the topic has focused on a proposed sex difference in the type of jealousy (sexual or emotional) that men and women find most upsetting, rather than on how jealous response varies1,2. This stems in part from the predominance of studies using student samples from industrialized populations, which represent a relatively homogenous group in terms of age, life history stage and social norms3,4. To better understand variation in jealous response, we conducted a 2-part study in 11 populations (1,048 individuals). In line with previous work, we find a robust sex difference in the classic forced-choice jealousy task. However, we also show substantial variation in jealous response across populations. Using parental investment theory, we derived several predictions about what might trigger such variation. We find that greater paternal investment and lower frequency of extramarital sex are associated with more severe jealous response. Thus, partner jealousy appears to be a facultative response, reflective of the variable risks and costs of men’s investment across societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Location of study populations.
Fig. 2: Severity ratings and forced-choice responses by respondent sex and culture.
Fig. 3: Influence of predictor variables on severity ratings.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The variables used in this study are available at the Open Science Framework:

Code availability

The R code used in our analyses is available at the Open Science Framework:


  1. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D. & Semmelroth, J. Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychol. Sci. 3, 251–255 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Buss, D. M. Sexual and emotional infidelity: evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 155–160 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sagarin, B. J. et al. Sex differences in jealousy: a meta-analytic examination. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 595–614 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Edlund, J. E. & Sagarin, B. J. Sex differences in jealousy: a 25-year retrospective. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 55, 259–302 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murdock, G. P. Social Structure (Macmillan, 1949).

  6. Walker, R. S., Hill, K. R., Flinn, M. V. & Ellsworth, R. M. Evolutionary history of hunter–gatherer marriage practices. PLoS ONE 6, e19066 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Betzig, L. Causes of conjugal dissolution: a cross-cultural study. Curr. Anthropol. 30, 654–676 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broude, G. J. Extramarital sex norms in cross-cultural perspective. Cross Cult. Res. 15, 181–218 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scelza, B. A. Choosy but not chaste: multiple mating in human females. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 22, 259–269 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alcock, J. Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39, 1–21 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kokko, H. & Morrell, L. J. Mate guarding, male attractiveness, and paternity under social monogamy. Behav. Ecol. 16, 724–731 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Parker, G. A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45, 525–567 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Daly, M., Wilson, M. & Weghorst, S. J. Male sexual jealousy. Ethol. Sociobiol. 3, 11–27 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Symons, D The Evolution of Human Sexuality. (Oxford Univ. Press: 1979. .

  15. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scelza, B. A. Jealousy in a small-scale, natural fertility population: the roles of paternity, investment and love in jealous response. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 103–108 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Buunk, B. & Hupka, R. B. Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. J. Sex Res. 23, 12–22 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C. & Hoard, M. K. Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: evidence from the pattern of sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16, 355–383 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schacht, R. & Mulder, M. B. Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140402 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geary, D. C. Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychol. Bull. 126, 55–77 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Buss, D. M. et al. Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Pers. Relatsh. 6, 125–150 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DeSteno, D. A. & Salovey, P. Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychol. Sci. 7, 367–372 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mattison, S. M., Scelza, B. & Blumenfield, T. Paternal investment and the positive effects of fathers among the matrilineal Mosuo of southwest China. Am. Anthropol. 116, 591–610 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Scelza, B. A. & Prall, S. P. Partner preferences in the context of concurrency: what Himba want in formal and informal partners. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39, 212–219 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stieglitz, J., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H. & Winking, J. Infidelity, jealousy, and wife abuse among Tsimane forager–farmers: testing evolutionary hypotheses of marital conflict. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 438–448 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. de Souza, A. A. L., Verderane, M. P., Taira, J. T. & Otta, E. Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample. Psychol. Rep. 98, 529–535 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Frederick, D. A. & Fales, M. R. Upset over sexual versus emotional infidelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45, 175–191 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gurven, M. D. Broadening horizons: sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11420–11427 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Murdock, G. P. & White, D. R. Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology 8, 329–369 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Broude, G. J. & Greene, S. J. Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 15, 409–429 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stan Development Team RStan: the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.14.1 (2016).

  32. McElreath, R. Rethinking: statistical rethinking book package. R package version 1.72 (2016).

Download references


We thank the communities that we work with for their contributions and continued good will. B.A.S. acknowledges support from a UCLA Faculty Research Grant and NSF-BCS-1534682, the latter of which also funded S.P.P. as a postdoctoral scholar. J.S. acknowledges support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)–Labex IAST. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



B.A.S. conceived and designed the experiment. T.B., A.N.C., M.G., M.K., J.K., G.K., S.M.M., S.P.P., E.P., B.A.S., M.K.S., K.S., J.S., C.-Y.S. and K.Y. contributed to data collection. S.P.P., B.A.S. and R.M. analysed the data. B.A.S. and S.P.P. wrote the paper. All authors provided comments and approved the final draft.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Brooke A. Scelza or Sean P. Prall.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Primary Handling Editor: Stavroula Kousta.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, Supplementary results, Supplementary Tables 1–10, Supplementary Figs. 1–30, Supplementary References

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scelza, B.A., Prall, S.P., Blumenfield, T. et al. Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response. Nat Hum Behav 4, 20–26 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing