61

86689120.pdf

Romantic Jealousy and Relationship Satisfaction: The Costs of Rumination Rachel A. Elphinston, Judith A. Feeney, Patricia Noller, Jason P. Connor, & Jennifer Fitzgerald

The experience of romantic jealousy and its influence on relationship outcomes is

unclear. Romantic jealousy is often associated with damaging effects; on the other hand,

jealousy is linked to positive relationship outcomes such as increased commitment. In this

study, we aimed to address inconsistencies in previous research by proposing rumination

as a mediator between romantic jealousy (cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors)

and relationship dissatisfaction. We also aimed to extend our understanding of beha-

vioral responses to jealousy, and in particular, partner surveillance and its link to rela-

tional dissatisfaction by proposing a research question. Overall, there were two paths to

relationship dissatisfaction: Cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors were associated

with relationship dissatisfaction via rumination, and cognitive jealousy was also directly

associated with relationship dissatisfaction. Interestingly, surveillance behaviors were

directly associated with relationship satisfaction. From these results, rumination is

highlighted as a factor in explaining the link between romantic jealousy and relationship

dissatisfaction. Clinical implications are discussed.

Rachel A. Elphinston (PhD, The University of Queensland, Australia) is a practicing Clinical Psychologist in

Brisbane, Australia. Judith A. Feeney (PhD, The University of Queensland) is an Associate Professor in the

School of Psychology, The University of Queensland. Patricia Noller (PhD, The University of Queensland) is

an Emeritus Professor in the School of Psychology, The University of Queensland. Jason P. Connor (PhD,

The University of Queensland) is the Director of the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, The

University of Queensland, and an Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, Discipline of Psychiatry,

The University of Queensland. Jennifer Fitzgerald (PhD, The University of Queensland) is a Clinical

Psychologist and Clinical Lead Educator in the School of Medicine, Discipline of Psychiatry, The University

of Queensland. The authors would like to acknowledge the preparation of this article was supported in part

by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Career Development Fellowship held by Jason

Connor. Correspondence to: Rachel A. Elphinston, University of Queensland, School of Psychology, Brisbane,

Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Western Journal of Communication

Vol. 77, No. 3, May–June 2013, pp. 293–304

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2013 Western States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2013.770161

Keywords: Jealousy; Romantic Relationships; Rumination

Jealousy in romantic relationships is often referred to as the ‘green-eyed monster’.

Research supports this negative view of jealousy, given its reported frequent presence

in romantic relationships (e.g., Marazziti et al., 2003) and the destructive paths it can

follow. Specifically, jealousy has been found to be a factor behind many negative

relationship experiences such as intimate violence (Babcock, Costa, Green, & Eckhardt,

2004), verbal and physical aggression (Barnett, Martinez, & Bluestein, 1995; Wigman,

Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008), and relational dissatisfaction and uncertainty (e.g.,

Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Bevan, 2004; Guerrero & Eloy, 1992).

Other literature, however, has linked jealousy to positive relationship outcomes,

such as higher relational satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Mathes, 1986; Rydell,

McConnell, & Bringle, 2004). Feeling jealous from time to time can remind a person

of the importance of the partner and the relationship; for example, experiencing

jealousy may provide a signal to stop taking the partner for granted (Pines, 1992).

Taken together, the research reviewed above raises important questions about links

between romantic jealousy and relational outcomes. These paths are particularly

relevant for clinicians in the context of individual and couple therapy.

We aimed to further understand these links by proposing several paths to

relational dissatisfaction. Drawing on Guerrero and Andersen’s (1998) componential

model of jealousy experience and expression and research regarding rumination

(Carson & Cupach, 2000), the aim of the present study was to clarify the links among

actual experiences and expressions of jealousy and relational dissatisfaction by study-

ing rumination as a mediator. We extended previous work in two main ways. First,

we addressed inconsistent findings in the literature regarding the links between

romantic jealousy and relational dissatisfaction. Second, we provided additional

insights into the role of jealousy-related surveillance behaviors.

Dimensions of Romantic Jealousy and Negative Relationship Outcomes

There is general consensus that romantic jealousy is a multidimensional construct,

consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components (e.g., Guerrero &

Andersen, 1998; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Cognitive jealousy generally refers to nega-

tive thoughts that focus on partner behaviors, emotional jealousy reflects related

emotions such as anger and fear (e.g., Yoshimura, 2004), while behavioral jealousy

may be expressed in many ways, such as surveillance behaviors designed to monitor

a relationship partner and=or aggressiveness towards a partner. Overall, considerable attention has been given to the associations between dimen-

sions of romantic jealousy and relationship outcomes such as relational quality,

uncertainty, and satisfaction (e.g., Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra,

2007; Elphinston & Noller, 2011). However, researchers have yet to form any robust

conclusions regarding the links between jealous thoughts and behaviors and relation-

ship evaluations, and the causal nature of these associations remains unclear. The

294 R. A. Elphinston et al.

componential model of jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998) provides a theoretical

framework for understanding how an individual’s experience and expression of

jealousy is linked to relationship outcomes. This descriptive model outlines links

between jealous cognition and emotion, relational goals, behavioral responses,

and relationship outcomes. In line with part of this model, we propose that jealous

cognitions and surveillance behaviors influence a common relationship outcome

(relationship satisfaction); however, we suggest that an individual’s experience of cog-

nitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors may occur simultaneously as documented by

Pfeiffer and Wong (1989); this notion will be investigated by testing alternative models.

Previous research has shown that marital satisfaction is negatively related to

cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy (Guerrero & Eloy, 1992). Similarly,

Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, and Spitzberg (1995) found that cognitive jealousy had

a relatively strong inverse association with relational satisfaction. However, other

research has yielded more mixed findings. Specifically, Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra

(2007) studied three types of romantic jealousy (as outlined by Bringle, 1991; Buunk,

1997)–reactive, anxious, and possessive (or preventative). Reactive jealousy refers to

the extent to which individuals feel jealousy-related emotions in response to an actual

partner infidelity, while anxious jealousy is defined as an active cognitive process

related to worries about partner behavior in the face of possible partner infidelity;

possessive or preventative jealousy involves behaviors designed to prevent partner

contact with a third party (again, in response to possible partner infidelity).

In their series of three studies of long-term cohabiting and married couples,

Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) assessed relationship outcomes using three

measures: relationship adjustment, satisfaction, and quality. The studies consistently

showed that the three relationship outcomes were positively linked to reactive

jealousy but negatively linked to anxious jealousy. Further, these researchers found

that possessive jealousy was unrelated to relationship quality or adjustment, but

was linked to relationship satisfaction.

Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) claimed that these types of jealousy are

distinct from dimensions of jealousy, in that all three types involve, to some extent,

cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. Buunk (1997) and other research-

ers (e.g., Rydell & Bringle, 2007), however, pointed out overlaps between types of

jealousy and Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) definitions of jealousy. Specifically, reactive

and anxious jealousy resembles emotional and cognitive jealousy, respectively, while

possessive jealousy can also include partner surveillance behaviors. If we extrapolate

from their findings, it seems that anxious jealousy (similar to cognitive jealousy) can

be considered a negative relationship phenomenon which results in relationship

distress, while possessive jealousy and its links to relationship outcomes is less

understood, and may be linked to relationship satisfaction.

Guerrero and Afifi (1999) found that individuals who were motivated to maintain

their current relationship engaged in jealousy-related surveillance behaviors. Consistent

with evolutionary theory, jealousy may not always be dysfunctional and serves

an important function in relationship success (Buss, 2000). In this way, engaging in

surveillance behaviors may signal to the person that they care about the relationship,

Romantic Jealousy 295

and may provide a way of understanding the status of the relationship compared to

perceived rival relationships. Thus, engaging in surveillance behaviors may some-

times lead to more relationship security (Carson & Cupach, 2000). Hence, the role

of surveillance behaviors in relationships plagued with thoughts of jealousy is a sig-

nificant factor of interest.

Rumination as a Mediator

Given that questions have been raised regarding the links between dimensions of

romantic jealousy and relational dissatisfaction, these links may be mediated

by other personality and cognitive factors (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007).

Rumination has been described as a stable individual difference variable (Nolen-

Hoeksema, 2001), involving conscious and recurrent thought processes that are

intrusive in nature, persist over time, and result from threats to an individual or

relationship (e.g., Martin & Tesser, 1996). Its maladaptive nature can involve brood-

ing and dwelling on the details of a past experience and regrets when focused on

repeatedly (Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007). Research highlights rumination as a contri-

buting factor to the experience of negative emotion, relationship problems such as lack

of forgiveness, and depression (e.g., Ciesla & Roberts, 2007; Ysseldyk, Matheson, &

Anisman, 2007).

Carson and Cupach (2000) highlighted the role of rumination in the expression of

romantic jealousy. In their study, relationship-specific rumination was linked to

different types of behavioral jealousy, including surveillance behaviors. Whereas these

researchers focused on the extent to which rumination may predispose individuals

to communicative responses to jealousy, it is also likely that behavioral jealousy

influences the degree to which people ruminate over jealousy events. For example,

surveillance behaviors may sometimes confirm jealous suspicions and stimulate more

rumination (Carson & Cupach, 2000). Bevan and Hale (2006) have also investigated

rumination as a consequence of a partner’s expression of jealousy. In this way, rumi-

nation may be considered a consequence of the experience and expression of jealousy.

Hence, there may be a pathway from surveillance behaviors to relational dissatis-

faction via rumination. Further, if an individual has jealous thoughts about their

partner’s behavior, the result may be more ‘mulling over’ the state of the relationship.

In this way, experiencing cognitive jealousy also seems to increase the likelihood of

rumination. Cognitive jealousy involves unhelpful thoughts and suspicions about

a partner’s behaviors and desires, while rumination reflects the repetitive ‘process’

of dwelling on negative thoughts, to which some individuals may be more predis-

posed than others. Although cognitive jealousy and rumination share common

features (e.g., both focus on negative thoughts and can arise from relationship

threats), experiences of cognitive jealousy may stimulate more mulling=ruminating over the state of a person’s relationship. Similarly, engaging in partner surveillance

may also promote rumination. In short, we proposed that rumination acts as

a mediator by which actual experiences of cognitive jealousy and engaging in surveil-

lance behaviors exacerbate relational dissatisfaction.

296 R. A. Elphinston et al.

The Present Study

Previous research generally supports relationship dissatisfaction as an outcome of

jealousy in romantic relationships (e.g., Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Elphinston

& Noller, 2011). In the present study, we aimed to extend previous work by clarifying

the links between cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors as measures of

romantic jealousy and relationship dissatisfaction, by suggesting rumination as a

mediator in this link. We proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): jealous thoughts would be positively associated with rumi- nation;

Hypothesis 2 (H2): surveillance behaviors would be positively associated with rumination;

Hypothesis 3 (H3): rumination would be related to relational dissatisfaction; Hypothesis 4 (H4): cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors would be

indirectly linked to relationship dissatisfaction, via rumi- nation; and,

Hypothesis 5 (H5): cognitive jealousy would also be directly linked to relationship dissatisfaction. That is, people who experience negative jealousy-related thoughts and engage in monitoring of their partner are more likely to ruminate over their suspicions and experience relationship dissatisfaction.

Given mixed evidence regarding the links between behavioral responses to jealousy

and relationship outcomes, we also proposed an exploratory Research Question

(RQ1): In what way are surveillance behaviors directly associated with relationship

dissatisfaction?

Material and Method

Participants

One hundred and ninety-nine participants (121 females, 78 males), all of whom were

in a romantic relationship from two to 402 months’ duration (M ¼ 49.40, SD ¼ 69.82), participated in the study. Participants were recruited from 1st-year psychology classes and via television and radio advertising followed by mail-out of

questionnaires. Respondents’ mean age was 27.6 years (SD ¼ 9.87); ages ranged from 17.66 to 60 years. Most respondents were dating (56.3%); 24.6% were cohabitating and 19.1% were married.

Measures

Romantic jealousy

Jealous thoughts and surveillance behaviors in the current relationship were assessed

by validated short-form cognitive and behavioral subscales of the Multidimensional

Jealousy Scale (MJS; Elphinston, Feeney, & Noller, 2011). Participants indicated how

frequently they experienced thoughts regarding their partner on the five-item cogni-

tive subscale (a ¼ .87), from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time). A sample item is, ‘I suspect that X may be attracted to someone else.’ On the six-item behavioral subscale

Romantic Jealousy 297

(a ¼ .81), participants reported how often they participated in specific surveillance behaviors; responses ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time). A sample item is, ‘I

call X unexpectedly, just to see if he or she is there.’ For each subscale, items were

summed. Higher scores indicate greater levels of romantic jealousy.

Rumination

The repetitive thought processes associated with an individual’s current relationship

were assessed using the 10-item Relationship-Specific Rumination Scale (Carson &

Cupach, 2000). Participants were asked to consider their current romantic relation-

ship and respond to statements such as, ‘I wonder how close my partner feels towards

me.’ A 5-point response format, from 1 (never) to 5 (always or almost always) was

employed. On further inspection of items, Item 6 (I suspect that my partner is

secretly seeing someone else) and Item 8 (I am concerned that my partner is attracted

to other people) were removed from the scale due to overlap with items measuring

cognitive jealousy. Cronbach’s alpha for the eight-item measure was .86 and higher

scores indicate greater tendency to engage in rumination.

Relational satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was measured using the relevant component of the question-

naire assessing Investment Model constructs (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).

A five-item scale assessing current relational satisfaction was completed, with responses

ranging from 0 (do not agree at all) to 8 (agree completely). A sample item is, ‘I feel

satisfied with our relationship.’ Higher scores indicate high satisfaction (a ¼ .94).

Procedure

Participants completed questionnaires individually, either alone or in small groups.

The questionnaires were counterbalanced in order to reduce order effects. Parti-

cipants were debriefed following completion of the study and thanked for their

anonymous participation.

Results

Univariate and multivariate checks were performed prior to data analysis to assess

accuracy of data entry, missing data, and distributional characteristics. Since no more

than 5 percent of data were missing for each variable, missing data were managed by

mean substitution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The correlations, means, and stan-

dard deviations for all variables are presented in Table 1.

Structural Models

First, the model outlined above (Model 1) was tested using AMOS Version 6. In

order to reduce the complexity of the measurement models and ensure more stable

parameter estimates, multiple indicators (each consisting of >2 single scale items)

298 R. A. Elphinston et al.

were created for each latent variable in the model using the partial disaggregation

approach (see Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Sass & Smith,

2006). Subsets of items were formed and averaged (see Table 1) to create three indi-

cators for relational dissatisfaction, and two indicators each for cognitive jealousy,

surveillance behaviors, and rumination. Cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors

were also correlated in the model, based on past research suggesting a positive associ-

ation (e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).

Model 1 provided a good fit to the data, v2 (14, N ¼ 199) ¼ 14.55, p ¼ .41, v2= df ¼ 1.04; CFI ¼ .99; RMSEA ¼ .01; SRMR ¼ .02. In line with hypotheses, cognitive jealousy (H1) was positively related to rumination, surveillance behaviors were also

linked to rumination (H2), and rumination was linked to relationship dissatisfaction

(H3). See Figure 1. Both cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors were associated

with relationship dissatisfaction via rumination (H4). Further, consistent with H5,

cognitive jealousy was associated with relationship dissatisfaction. Finally, in relation

to RQ1, surveillance behaviors were positively linked to relationship satisfaction. See

Table 2 for the decomposition analysis. 1

Table 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Variables in Model 1

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Cognitive Jealousy 8.58 4.38 1

2. Surveillance 13.85 5.81 .32�� 1

3. Rumination 18.06 6.41 .51�� .44�� 1

4. Satisfaction 32.09 7.72 �.36�� .02 �.31�� 1

Note. In the partial disaggregation approach, the following items were collapsed to form single indices. Rumi-

nation (1): Items 1, 3, 5, 10; Rumination (2): 2, 4, 7, 9. Cognitive jealousy (1): 1, 4, 8; Cognitive jealousy (2): 3, 7.

Surveillance behaviors: Items 1, 5, 7; Surveillance behaviors (2): 2, 3, 6. Satisfaction (1): Items 6, 8, 10. Satisfac-

tion (2): Items 7, 9. ��p < .01. ��p < .001.

Figure 1 Model 1.

Romantic Jealousy 299

As a final step, we tested an alternative model based on Guerrero and Andersen’s

(1998) componential model identifying cognitions as influencing communicative

responses to jealousy. Specifically, we tested a model in which cognitive jealousy

would be directly associated with surveillance behaviors, which would in turn be

linked to rumination, and finally, satisfaction. The alternative model provided a good

fit for the data (CFI � .95). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) also assisted in model comparison (Akaike, 1987). The AIC has no conventional cutoff, but smaller

values indicate that a model is more parsimonious and provides better fit. The

alternative model had an AIC of 85.38. Hence, the data favored our final model

(Model 1; AIC ¼ 74.55).

Discussion

For the majority of individuals, jealousy can create challenges in their relationships.

Questions remain, however, regarding the impact of jealousy on relationship out-

comes such as dissatisfaction, with inconsistencies in the literature complicating

this picture. We aimed to address this research gap by proposing rumination as

a mediator between romantic jealousy and relationship dissatisfaction. We also aimed

to further our understanding of the direct role of jealousy-related surveillance

behaviors.

In line with previous research documenting a negative link between romantic

jealousy and relational satisfaction (e.g., Guerrero & Eloy, 1992), our results highlight

several paths to relational dissatisfaction. In line with H1–H3, cognitive jealousy and

surveillance behaviors were both related to rumination, and rumination was asso-

ciated with relationship dissatisfaction. Further, consistent with H4, both cognitive

jealousy and surveillance behaviors were linked to dissatisfaction via rumination.

An additional pathway involved a direct link between cognitive jealousy and

dissatisfaction (H5).

Overall, our results highlight the negative consequences of rumination and extend

past research (e.g., Carson & Cupach, 2000). By definition, rumination suggests that

the person is caught in an unhelpful cognitive-emotional experience that is difficult

to control. Once rumination is under way, the likelihood of jealousy being functional

Table 2 Summary of the Decomposition Analysis

Causal effects

Predictor Criterion Direct Indirect Total

Cognitive jealousy Rumination .43�� — .43��

Satisfaction �.31� �.14� �.45��

Behavioral jealousy Rumination .29�� — .29��

Satisfaction .27�� .10� .17�

Rumination Satisfaction �.34� — �.34�

�p < .05. ��p < .01.

300 R. A. Elphinston et al.

is reduced. These processes set the scene for negative outcomes such as relationship

dissatisfaction, as the individual is unable to manage the intensity and duration

of emotion. Intense thoughts and indirect expressions of jealousy may destroy the

relationship over time, if a partner becomes aware of these feelings and=or has difficulty dealing with such behavior on an ongoing basis (Feeney & Noller, 1996).

Further, ongoing rumination over jealousy-related worries and partner surveillance

is likely to result in relationship dissatisfaction.

Intervention strategies may be needed to assist in modifying appraisals related to

perceived threats. Specifically, cognitive restructuring of negative beliefs may benefit

individuals by challenging jealous thoughts and ongoing rumination (Clark & Beck,

1999). Jealousy can also be reframed as a signal of the perceived worth of the partner

and the relationship, and thus positive coping statements may be used. Clinicians

working with individuals or couples can also assist them to explore their jealous

thoughts, to reflect on what these thoughts mean for them and their relationship,

and help the couple to work together to understand and manage perceptions of

relationship threat in the light of a mutually valued relationship.

Partner surveillance can involve indirect, unobtrusive ways of managing jealous

thoughts–and if individuals have a high tendency to ruminate, partner surveillance

may be detrimental to relationships. Interestingly, our results also showed a direct

link between engaging in surveillance behaviors (monitoring the partner’s actions)

and relational satisfaction (RQ1). Consistent with evolutionary perspectives on

jealousy (e.g., Buss, 2000), surveillance strategies may be a sign that the individual

cares deeply about maintaining the relationship, and if engaged in directly (without

rumination), these behaviors may thus be linked to satisfaction with the relationship.

In this way, surveillance behaviors could also promote self-regulation as a means of

managing jealous thoughts. Overall, these results shed some light on previous mixed

findings regarding the nature of behavioral (or possessive) jealousy (e.g., Barelds &

Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007).

Thus partner surveillance appears to be of some immediate benefit to those experi-

encing jealous thoughts. If the relationship partner finds out about the individual’s

surveillance behaviors, it may then be the partner’s response that becomes vital to

the course of subsequent interaction. Specifically, if the partner responds with anger

and hurt, this reaction may in itself threaten the relationship, and lead to more

destructive communication exchanges and relationship dissatisfaction. In addition,

it is possible that engaging in more direct and threatening expressions of jealousy

(such as confronting a partner in an attacking way or contacting a rival) can lead

to relational dissatisfaction. Longitudinal studies using couple data would be needed

to test these hypotheses.

Overall, our results suggest that engaging in jealousy-related surveillance

behaviors does not always impact negatively on relationship satisfaction. It could

be that some individuals also engage in positive self-talk that centers on reassur-

ance (for example, ‘‘s=he would never kiss someone else’’) that may counteract negative jealous thoughts. Evidence that indirectly supports this view comes from

the clinical area. For example, research has pointed to more adaptive forms of

Romantic Jealousy 301

rumination involving reflection (which involves actively turning inward, with

thoughts centering around self-focus, problem-solving, and coping) that may

not necessarily be problematic (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003;

Watkins, 2004). In addition, some individuals may have a greater capacity for cog-

nitive flexibility or for giving their full attention to the present moment (i.e.,

engaging in mindfulness), and these processes may buffer against negative emo-

tions (e.g., Borders, Earleywine, & Jajodia, 2010). Future research could explore

the link between surveillance behaviors and relational satisfaction with a focus

on possible cognitive-process mediators, such as helpful cognitions and mindful-

ness approaches.

The use of structural equation modeling was a significant strength of the

present research; however, our model is based on correlational data and is thus

unable to establish conclusive causal relationships. In addition, the current study

is limited to self-report data. Future research might use observational data to

remove potential self-report biases, and longitudinal designs would enhance the

robustness of the findings. Finally, further studies might investigate other factors

that mediate the link between surveillance behaviors and relational satisfaction

(e.g., helpful thinking patterns), and other relevant outcome measures such as

relational uncertainty.

In terms of practical implications, this study provides suggestions for clinicians

who work with individuals experiencing romantic jealousy. We know that romantic

jealousy appears to be problematic when individuals experience jealous thoughts and

surveillance behavior, along with rumination. These appear to be crucial factors to

consider in the context of therapy for individuals and couples.

Note

[1] Although gender differences were not of primary interest to the present research, the

overall model was also run with males and females separately, to test its robustness.

In each case, the same pattern of results emerged, although for males (N ¼ 79), two paths were trending towards significance: cognitive jealousy and rumination, and

rumination and dissatisfaction. This result is likely because of the relatively low

power in this analysis.

References

Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy experience and

expression. Communication Reports, 9, 93–103.

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–322. doi:10.1007=BF02294359 Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Romantic jealousy and

relational satisfaction: A look at the impact jealousy experience and expression. Communi-

cation Reports, 8, 77–85. doi:10.1080=08934219509367613 Babcock, J. C., Costa, D. M., Green, C. E., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2004). What situations induce

intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the proximal antecedents to

violent episodes (PAVE) scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 433–442. doi:10.1037= 0893-3200.18.3.433

302 R. A. Elphinston et al.

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and

self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,

14, 176–188. doi:10.1002=cpp.532 Barnett, O. W., Martinez, T. E., & Bluestein, B. W. (1995). Jealousy and romantic attachment

in maritally violent and nonviolent men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 473–486.

doi:10.1177=088626095010004006 Bevan, J. L. (2004). General partner and relational uncertainty as consequences of another

person’s jealousy expression. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 195–218. doi:10.1080= 10570310409374796

Bevan, J. L., & Hale, J. L. (2006). Negative jealousy-related emotion rumination as consequences of

romantic partner, cross-sex friend, and sibling jealousy expression. Communication Studies,

57, 363–379. doi:10.1080=10510970600945907 Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Jajodia, A. (2010). Could mindfulness decrease anger, hostility, and

aggression by decreasing rumination? Aggressive Behavior, 36, 28–44. doi:10.1002=ab.20327 Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.),

The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103–131). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York,

NY: The Free Press.

Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of

jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997–1006. doi:10.1016=S0191- 8869(97)00136-0

Carson, C. L., & Cupach, W. R. (2000). Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster: The role of

ruminative thought in reaction to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication,

64, 308–329. doi:10.1080=10570310009374678 Ciesla, J. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2007). Rumination, negative cognition, and their interactive effects on

depressed mood. Emotion, 7, 555–565. doi:10.1037=1528-3542.7.3.555 Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (1999). Scientific foundations of cognitive theory and therapy of depression.

New York, NY: John Wiley.

Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications

for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 14(11), 631–635. doi:10.1089=cyber.2010.0318 Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Measuring romantic jealousy: Validation of the

Multidimensional Jealousy Scale in Australian samples. Australian Journal of Psychology,

63(4), 243–251. doi:10.1111=j.1742-9536.2011.00026.x Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1999). Toward a goal-oriented approach for understanding

communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 216–248.

doi:10.1080=10570319909374637 Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998). Jealousy experience and expression in romantic relation-

ships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion:

Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 155–188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Guerrero, L. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Relational satisfaction and jealousy across marital types.

Communication Reports, 5, 23–31. doi:10.1080=08934219209367540 Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:

Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

doi:10.1207=S15328007SEM0902_1 Marazziti, D., Di Nasso, E., Masala, I., Baroni, S., Abelli, M., Mengali, F. . . ., Rucci, P. (2003).

Normal and obsessional jealousy: A study of a population of young adults. European

Psychiatry, 18, 106–111. doi:10.1016=S0924-9338(03)00024-5 Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Ruminative

thoughts Vol. 9 (pp. 1–48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Romantic Jealousy 303

Mathes, E. (1986). Jealousy and romantic love: A longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 58,

885–886. doi:10.2466=pr0.1986.58.3.885 Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Ruminative coping and adjustment to bereavement. In M. S. Stroebe,

R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & S. Henk (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research:

Consequences, coping, and care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 6, 181–196. doi:10.1177=026540758900600203 Pines, A. M. (1992). Romantic jealousy: Five perspectives and an integrative approach.

Psychotherapy, 29, 675–683. doi:10.1037=0033-3204.29.4.675 Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring

commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal

Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111=j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x Rydell, R. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2007). Differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy. Social

Behavior and Personality, 35, 1099–1114. doi:10.2224=sbp.2007.35.8.1099 Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Bringle, R. G. (2004). Jealousy and commitment: Perceived threat

and the effect of relationship alternatives. Personal Relationships, 11, 451–468. doi:10.1111= j.1475-6811.2004.00092.x

Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and postrela-

tionship adjustment. Personal Relationships, 14, 351–368. doi:10.1111=j.1475-6811.2007. 00160.x

Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural

parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13,

566–586. doi:10.1207=s15328007sem1304_4 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson=Allyn & Bacon. Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psycho-

metric analysis. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 27, 247–259. doi:10.1023=A:1023910315561 Watkins, E. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive ruminative self-focus during emotional processing.

Behaviour Research & Therapy, 42, 1037–1052. doi:10.1016=j.brat.2004.01.009 Wigman, S. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers:

The roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy, aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23,

557–568. doi:10.1007=s10896-008-9171-x Yoshimura, S. M. (2004). Emotional and behavioral responses to romantic jealousy expressions.

Communication Reports, 17, 85–101. doi:10.1080=08934210409389378 Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). Rumination: Bridging a gap between

forgiveness, vengefulness, and psychological health. Personality and Individual Differences,

42, 1573–1584. doi:10.1016=j.paid.2006.10.032

304 R. A. Elphinston et al.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.