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

Abstract

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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

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.

Data availability

The variables used in this study are available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tgc95/?view_only=fb78b2eaae344efe95a6fd8b0d80739d.

Code availability

The R code used in our analyses is available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tgc95/?view_only=fb78b2eaae344efe95a6fd8b0d80739d.

References

  1. 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).

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

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

  6. 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).

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

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

  11. 11.

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

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

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

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

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

  16. 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).

  17. 17.

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

  18. 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).

  19. 19.

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

  20. 20.

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

  21. 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).

  22. 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).

  23. 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).

  24. 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).

  25. 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).

  26. 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).

  27. 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).

  28. 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).

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

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

  31. 31.

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

  32. 32.

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark