Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Mons Bendixen, David P. Schmitt
{"title":"Male Sex, Masculinization, Sexual Orientation, and Gynephilia Synergistically Predict Increased Sexual Jealousy","authors":"Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Mons Bendixen, David P. Schmitt","doi":"10.1007/s10508-025-03225-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A robust, cross-cultural sex difference is typically found in jealousy responses to reveal emotional versus sexual infidelity. The only factor that seems to moderate this sex difference is sexual orientation, with male heterosexuals conspicuously reporting the greatest distress to sexual infidelity. Attempts at considering additional effects of psychological feminization and masculinization on jealousy responses have proven less reliable. In a sample of 4465 participants aged between 16 and 80 years (<i>M</i> = 35.41, <i>SD</i> = 13.07), including gay, lesbian, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals, we examined how four indicators of feminization–masculinization were associated with sexual orientation and, subsequently, to jealousy responses to infidelity. We found that an exclusive gynephilic orientation and male sex in combination shifted the typical emotional jealousy focus toward more sexual jealousy. The four indicators of feminization–masculinization were linked to sexual orientation and, subsequently, to variable jealousy responses among men, but were only linked to sexual orientation among women. These findings support the position that female versus male mating psychology is not simplistically dimorphic. Instead, sex differences probably result from many different and continuous “psychological dials” that interact with each other, while also functioning in ways that are partially modular or independent.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8327,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","volume":"54 8","pages":"3189 - 3203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-025-03225-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03225-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A robust, cross-cultural sex difference is typically found in jealousy responses to reveal emotional versus sexual infidelity. The only factor that seems to moderate this sex difference is sexual orientation, with male heterosexuals conspicuously reporting the greatest distress to sexual infidelity. Attempts at considering additional effects of psychological feminization and masculinization on jealousy responses have proven less reliable. In a sample of 4465 participants aged between 16 and 80 years (M = 35.41, SD = 13.07), including gay, lesbian, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals, we examined how four indicators of feminization–masculinization were associated with sexual orientation and, subsequently, to jealousy responses to infidelity. We found that an exclusive gynephilic orientation and male sex in combination shifted the typical emotional jealousy focus toward more sexual jealousy. The four indicators of feminization–masculinization were linked to sexual orientation and, subsequently, to variable jealousy responses among men, but were only linked to sexual orientation among women. These findings support the position that female versus male mating psychology is not simplistically dimorphic. Instead, sex differences probably result from many different and continuous “psychological dials” that interact with each other, while also functioning in ways that are partially modular or independent.
期刊介绍:
The official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, the journal is dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual science, broadly defined. Contributions consist of empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative), theoretical reviews and essays, clinical case reports, letters to the editor, and book reviews.