The influence of a rival’s (in)fertility on jealousy and the allocation of blame following a mate’s infidelity

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Fisher, Laura Robertson, H. Dillon
{"title":"The influence of a rival’s (in)fertility on jealousy and the allocation of blame following a mate’s infidelity","authors":"M. Fisher, Laura Robertson, H. Dillon","doi":"10.5964/ijpr.v12i2.291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Selective pressures throughout evolutionary history have caused the adaptation of sex-specific responses to dilemmas that are relevant for reproductive fitness. Sex differences in imagined jealousy due to infidelity are well documented, but past work does not consider the influence of reproductive capability (i.e., being fertile versus infertile) on responses. Relying on an online survey of 369 adults, we hypothesized that infidelities involving an infertile interloper lead to less jealousy than infidelities involving a fertile interloper. Further, for sexual infidelity, regardless of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men would allocate the most responsibility to their partner and women would do so for the interloper, given women are assumed to behave with more intention. This hypothesis was partially supported; while men did allocate the most responsibility to their mate, so too did women, but women also blamed the interloper more than men. With regards to emotional infidelity, again independent of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men will primarily hold their partner responsible. However, we hypothesized that women will again consider the interloper responsible, but also their partner, due to concerns over fear of losing access to needed resources. This prediction was partially supported, as both sexes primarily hold their partner most responsible, and women held the interloper more accountable than did men. The findings shed light onto how individuals assess relationship threats and allocate responsibility, according to reproductive capability.","PeriodicalId":37776,"journal":{"name":"Interpersona","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interpersona","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v12i2.291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Selective pressures throughout evolutionary history have caused the adaptation of sex-specific responses to dilemmas that are relevant for reproductive fitness. Sex differences in imagined jealousy due to infidelity are well documented, but past work does not consider the influence of reproductive capability (i.e., being fertile versus infertile) on responses. Relying on an online survey of 369 adults, we hypothesized that infidelities involving an infertile interloper lead to less jealousy than infidelities involving a fertile interloper. Further, for sexual infidelity, regardless of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men would allocate the most responsibility to their partner and women would do so for the interloper, given women are assumed to behave with more intention. This hypothesis was partially supported; while men did allocate the most responsibility to their mate, so too did women, but women also blamed the interloper more than men. With regards to emotional infidelity, again independent of the interloper’s fertility, we hypothesized men will primarily hold their partner responsible. However, we hypothesized that women will again consider the interloper responsible, but also their partner, due to concerns over fear of losing access to needed resources. This prediction was partially supported, as both sexes primarily hold their partner most responsible, and women held the interloper more accountable than did men. The findings shed light onto how individuals assess relationship threats and allocate responsibility, according to reproductive capability.
配偶不忠后,竞争对手的生育能力对嫉妒和责任分配的影响
进化史上的选择压力导致了与生殖适应性相关的性别特异性反应的适应。由于不忠而产生的想象嫉妒的性别差异已经得到了充分的证明,但过去的研究并没有考虑生殖能力(即生育能力与不育能力)对反应的影响。根据一项对369名成年人的在线调查,我们假设,与一个有生育能力的闯入者相比,与一个有生育能力的闯入者不忠会导致更少的嫉妒。此外,对于性不忠,不管闯入者的生育能力如何,我们假设男性会将大部分责任分配给他们的伴侣,而女性会为闯入者承担大部分责任,因为假设女性的行为更有目的性。这一假设得到了部分支持;虽然男性确实把大部分责任都分配给了配偶,但女性也比男性更多地责怪闯入者。至于情感出轨,同样与闯入者的生育能力无关,我们假设男性主要是让他们的伴侣负责。然而,我们假设女性会再次考虑闯入者的责任,但也会考虑她们的伴侣,因为她们担心失去获得所需资源的机会。这一预测得到了部分支持,因为两性都认为自己的伴侣负有主要责任,而且女性比男性更认为闯入者负有责任。研究结果揭示了个体如何根据繁殖能力来评估关系威胁和分配责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Interpersona
Interpersona Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: 1) Interpersona aims at promoting scholarship in the field of interpersonal relationships based on different methodologies and stemming from several disciplines, including Psychology, Family Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, Communication Studies, Economics, Management Science, Biology, Health Sciences, History, and others. Interpersona aims at contributing to the collective construction of an Interpersonal Relationship Science. 2) Manuscripts examining a wide range of relationships, including close or intimate relationships and weak or temporary ties, are welcome. Some examples are indicated below: Biology - Biological foundations of human relationships: physiological and neurobiological phenomena related to interpersonal interactions. The evolutionary foundations of interpersonal relationships including comparative and animal studies of social interactions. Psychology and Family Studies: close or intimate relations including romantic relationships, family relationships and friendship. Family relationships encompass spouses, parents and children, siblings, and other relations among nuclear and extended family members.[...] 3) In addition to original empirical (qualitative or quantitative) research, theoretical or methodological contributions, integrative reviews, meta-analyses, comparative or historical studies, and critical assessments of the status of the field are welcome as submissions. 4) Interpersona is a totally free access journal and readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles without any charge. All papers are peer-reviewed by members of the editorial board or ad-hoc reviewers under the supervision of an editor. [...] 5) All Interpersona content is available in full text with no charge. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees before being accepted for publication.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信